Kant Section 18 and 19 (from in class discussions)

Kant says there are two types of judgments, which are polarities. There are judgments and perception and judgments of experience. Judgments of perception are ordinary sense impressions, are subjectively valid and synthetic a posteriori. Hume and Locke feel these judgments are the centerpiece of our knowledge and do not investigate any further than this. Thus, judgments of perception are not controversial to the empiricist. However, judgments of experience are. Kant says judgments of experience are the bringing together of sensory information into categories, which is synthetic a priori and objectively valid (meaning everyone else agrees that is what is seen, heard, felt, etc. )

Kant on natural science (from in class discussions)

As pointed out in earlier posts Kant believes the basis of all knowledge is synthetic a priori. People may think to themselves how in the world can arithmetic and geometry to synthetic a priori. Aren’t we taught in school how to add, subtract and what different shapes are. Kant would argue that teachers are more like guides. They help you realize the knowledge you already have. If you think about a little kid, he intuitively knows the patterns of mathematics; he just doesn’t know the system (i.e the names of the numbers, and which number is higher or lower) by which it is applied on this earth. However, the patterns are there and they are a priori. Just as a child can sense time and space he is able to add and subtract once guided in the right direction. Kant also argues that natural sciences (mostly physics) are synthetic a priori. However, Hume uses an example that contradicts this statement with the pool ball example. According to Hume, we do not know a priori which direction the pool ball will go until we observe it. Thus, this knowledge is synthetic a posteriori. It is easier to dispute that the natural sciences are not synthetic a priori than it is arithmetic and geometry due to its relation to space and time.

Kant on space and time (from in class discussions)

As for arithmetic Kant believes numbers have no meaning. Numbers can be replaced by any other symbols and as long as the pattern is known one can calculate the answer. Addition has a pattern in that it is the succession of items. Kant argues that the same operation occurs when one talks about time. Time is also the succession of items (knowing this occurred first, second, third, etc.) On the other hand, Kant argues that geometry is the relation of items and so is space. Time and space are not a posteriori but are a priori. They are pure intuitions. If time is related to arithmetic and space is related to geometry, geometry and arithmetic should also be a priori knowledge. The knowledge of space and time is definitely not analytic but rather synthetic. Having the knowledge of space and time is very informative.

Kant compared to Rationalists and Empiricists (as discussed in class)

Kant believed both rationalist and empiricist are mistaken and thus, Descartes, Hume and Locke had fallacy in their thinking. Kant believes in synthetic a priori knowledge. This may sound strange and would surely be disputed by Descartes, Hume and Locke. Kant argues that arithmetic, geometry, science (mostly physics) and metaphysics are synthetic a priori. As explained in my previous post on Kant, Kant uses the arithmetic example of 7 + 5 = 12 to demonstrate why arithmetic is synthetic a priori (see my previous post for more information on this).
The empiricists, Hume and Locke, would argue that the basis of all knowledge is a posteriori, but agree that the basis of all knowledge is synthetic. They believe knowledge is obtained by observation. And would refute the idea that synthetic knowledge (or informative knowledge) is intuitively known (a priori). Rather they would say informative knowledge must be obtained through observation (meaning a posteriori). Unlike the empiricists, the rationalist, Descartes, would agree with Kant that the basis of all knowledge is a priori, but disagree that synthetic knowledge can be a priori. As with the wax example Descartes used, one does not have to learn information as to what is happening (thus not informative) it is intuitively known the properties of wax.

Kant: Preface, Section 1 & 2

Kant speaks of Hume in a positive way, but questions Hume on the origin of cause and effect knowledge. Hume believed all cause and effect are a posteriori. However, Kant takes the opposing position, that cause and effect is a priori. Not only is cause and effect a priori but also metaphysical concepts. “…Metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles must never be derived from experience…It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason.” (Section 1, p. 9)
Kant thoroughly explained his belief concerning analytic and synthetic judgments. Unlike other philosophers, Kant believed that synthetic judgments could either be a posteriori (judgments from experience) or a priori (mathematical judgments). However, analytic judgments are always a priori and apply the principle of contradiction. For example, I can say females are women and to say females are men would be contradictory. Kant uses the example, “all bodies are extended.” To say all bodies not are extended would be contradictory. However, “all bodies have weight” would be a synthetic judgment. To say all bodies do not have weight is not necessarily contradictory, although, it may be false. For instance, I could say females are good at English. To say they are not is not contradictory since these judgments come from experience. Kant also argues that mathematical judgments are synthetic but a priori. Using as an example 7 + 5 = 12, Kant states, “The concept of twelve is by no means thought by merely thinking of the combination of seven and five…we must go beyond these concepts by calling to our aid some intuition corresponding to one of them.” (Section 2, p. 11) Not only is arithmetic a priori synthetic but so is geometry. For example, the proposition that a straight line is the shortest way to go between two points requires intuition. The concept of a straight line gives no intimation of quantity, only quality.

Introduction to Kant

From Hume’s empiricism and other philosopher’s contributions, Kant developed his own philosophy. Unlike Hume he did not believe cause and effect was primarily from experience. For example, if one feels that a room is warm (subjective order of cognitions) and then notices the stove is on, the person would rightly assume the stove being on caused the room to be warm. One perceives this by applying their objective time relations. Just because one felt the room was warm and then noticed the stove is on, one would not assume that the warm room caused the stove to turn on. That would be an incorrect statement (Introduction, xii).
Hume believed for one event to be considered the cause of another there are three conditions that must be met. First off, the cause must come before the effect in time. Secondly, “the cause and effect are contiguous in space.” Lastly, the cause and effect are found constantly next to the other in experience. Kant argued against these arguments. The cause does not have to necessarily come before the effect in time. The cause and effect can occur at the same time, such as when the cause of boiling water. Water boils when the water reaches 100 degrees C. Contrary to Hume, Kant believed the “causal ordering of cognitions is what makes experience and is not an ordering derived from experience.” (Introduction, xiii) He believed our perceptions are only possible through the sensible intuitions, space and time. Kant believed there is an a priori synthetic and that Geometry and Arithmetic would be classified as this (Introduction, xi).

Hume: Miracles.

According to Hume a miracle is something that changes or alter a "natural law".

I think that there can not be a set way to explain a miracle. I think it really depends on what the person is thinking, how they view the situation and if they think God or a higher being was the thing making this miracle or very special thing happen.

people call there child little miracles but really having a baby is one of the most natural things that could happen. Unless its a situation that someone is unable to have children then what would you call that? A super miracle?

So really a miracle could be anything it all has to do with the circumstance.

Hume: The missing Blue.

Hume discusses the idea that there what we may not be seeing a certain color or shade of blue.

This is a very difficult topic to image to place because who is to say that one shade of a certain color has another shade from one to the next. i feel that this is something that no one could really decide and could really ever distinguish with out a huge debate. I also think it is a very strange thing to think about.

Hume: Sec IV

Hume believed that there are two different kinds of thinking and humans must keep these two types distinct in the mind. When humans fail to do this that is when people begin to make errors in their thinking. The two types of thinking are “relation of ideas” and “matter of facts”. “Relation of ideas demonstrates a truth “a priori”. Hume explains how mathematicians use relation of ideas constantly. If one knows what a circle and a straight line are, one is likely to agree with the theorems of Euclid’s geometry. If you disagree than it is a self-contradiction. For instance, if a man is a husband, he must have a wife. Just by knowing that a man is a husband, you can infer he has a wife. If you do not then you are being contradictory. The same goes for other words, such as being a mother or father infers that that individual has children. This is a priori, since you know the information before actually seeing or experiencing it. However, one does not know whether there are actual husbands, wives or circles in the world unless you go out and look for it. Thus, to determine their existence you are not using “relation of ideas” but rather “matter of facts”. “Matter of facts” can only be discovered as false or true by observation and not by just looking at the implications of a word. “Matter of facts” cannot be self-contradictory. As Hume states, “That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise.” (Sec IV. Part 1)
Hume’s general proposition is that all cause and effect knowledge is not from a priori, but from experience or a posteriori. One example of this proposition is how Adam “could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him.” (Sec. IV Part 1) Thus, only through experience are cause and effects discovered and not by reason. The effect is not related to the cause of any event and you cannot infer anything unless you have experienced it. Just seeing an object does not give us any clues to what will happen when we throw it or step on it. What will the effect be? One cannot know a priori.

Hume: Section II: Origin of Ideas

Hume states, “The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.” (Sec II.11) He explains that one can be in a “fit of anger” and recall a memory of being angry. However, being in a “fit of anger” is much more powerful than the recollection or thought of anger. The same goes for being in love. The passion of love is so powerful to the senses, however, when one thinks of another being in love the thought is inferior yet still conceived. Thus, Hume classifies perceptions of the mind as thoughts or ideas, those that are “less forcible and lively” and impressions, meaning “when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will.” (Sec II.12) Hume further explains how when he have the idea or thought of a golden mountain we conceive gold and we conceive a mountain and thus, we can think of a golden mountain from past impressions. He states, “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Sec II.13) He makes two arguments to prove his point. He claims that when we rethink where our thoughts and ideas came from, they can be broken down into simple ideas “copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment.” (Sec II.14) He then goes into the idea of God, which he believes is as well from the mind increasing to no boundaries “goodness and wisdom.” (Sec II.14) His second argument is that if one were to be missing one of the senses, such as sight or hearing, then that individual would not be able to conceive colours or sound. And due to this, that individual would not come to certain ideas as others with those senses would. He goes further to say it also works for subjective manners, such that “a man of mild manners can form no idea of inveterate revenge or cruelty; nor can a selfish heart easily conceive the heights of friendship and generosity.” (Sec II.15) However, after attempting to convince the reader that thoughts and ideas are copies of impressions, he stubbles upon a problem: the missing blue problem. As Professor Thompson explained in class, how can one explain a “missing shade of blue”, in a blue color scheme from light to dark, that one intuitively knows is there, however had no impression of this blue in the past? This is a big problem for the empiricist and Hume acknowledges it to be so. However, he dismisses it as “singular" and not part of any general pattern and thus, not worth worrying about.

Real Exsience

Locke says we have no real knoweldge of what "real exsience" is. At first i didnt understand what he meant by this but then realized he was talking about a higher being (ex. God). I guess he means that we cant really understand the higher being since he earlier said we all can imagine a God. I can totally see how he would think this since his idea is seeing something is the only way you can get that image in your mind. So maybe he is right we really dont have a good understand of what god really is or how great he is.

Knowledge of Gods Existence.

Locke talks about how we are all capable to be able to perceive a God. But do we all think of God in the same way? No of course we don't so how is "God" such a widely understood/accepted subject? Maybe its because everyone need to see a higher being as Descarte did that there has to be something perfect. Locke also talks about how enthusiasm and discovering religion:
"Because the Mind, not being certain of the Truth of that it evidently does not know, but only yielding to the Probability that appears to it, is bound to give up its assent to such Testimony, which, it is satisfied, comes from one who cannot err, and will not deceive. But yet, it still belongs to Reason, to judge of the truth of its being a Revelation, and of the significance of the Words, wherein it is delivered. (IV. 18. 8 pg. 694)"