11/27/06

Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)

The Critique of Pure Reason

(1781, 1787)

(Text, pp. 341-363)

1
Anthem

2
Topics covered in the reading
1 The nature, scope,
& limits of human
2 The transcendental
knowledge
ideas of pure reason:
a priori & a posteriori
knowledge self, cosmos, & God
analytic & synthetic
judgments
synthetic a priori 3 Morality & metaphysics:
judgments & how they freedom, immortality, &
are possible
God
phenomena, noumena, &
the "transcendental ideas
of pure reason"

3
Introductory Note

What is knowledge?

Answer: Knowledge is verified

("justified") true belief.
To know is to believe;
the belief must be true (rather than false);
and
the belief must be verified ("justified"), i.e.,
proved true.

4
 The Rationalist-Empiricist Dispute

According to Kant,

all knowledge begins with sense

experience, but not all knowledge
arises out of sense experience.

5
There are two basic types of
human knowledge:

a posteriori a priori knowledge,

knowledge, which which arises from
arises from & the operations of
depends on sense the mind & is
experience; and independent of
sense experience

6
The distinguishing characteristics
of pure a priori knowledge:

Necessity

and

Strict universality
(no possibility of an
exception)

7
 A priori judgments are
necessarily & universally
true (or false), whereas

a posteriori (empirical)
judgments are never
necessarily or universally true
(or false).*
*They are contingently true (or false).
8
A further Kantian distinction

Analytic Judgments
vs.
Synthetic Judgments

9
It's all about subjects
& predicates

10
In an analytic judgment
or proposition,

the predicate makes explicit

(explicates) meanings that are
already implicit in the subject (e.g.,
"a triangle is three-sided").

11
 In a synthetic judgment or
proposition,
the predicate adds
to our knowledge of
the subject in a way
that logical analysis,
by itself, cannot The predicate of a
(e.g., "some houses synthetic proposition
are white"). augments & amplifies
our knowledge of the
subject.

12
 The relationships between
analytic, synthetic, a priori, &
a posteriori judgments

13
Analytic judgments express a priori
knowledge, i.e., they are
necessarily & universally true
(or false),
& they can be verified or falsified
independently of sense experience,
i.e., by logical analysis alone.

(There is no need to test

them a posteriori.)
14
"Material objects are
extended in space."

This proposition is both

analytic & a priori.

15
 A posteriori judgments
(which must be verified or falsified on
the basis of sense experience,
not through logical analysis)

are always synthetic

(e.g., "material objects have weight").

16
So . . . .
17
 there are
(uncontroversially)

analytic a priori judgments,

synthetic a posteriori judgments, and

analytic a posteriori judgments (which are

a waste of time, since analytic judgments can be
verified or falsified by logical analysis alone).

In addition to these, Kant claims . . . .

18
 that there are

synthetic a priori
judgments
(This is controversial!)
19
 A synthetic a priori judgment
is one that is
necessarily & universally true (& thus not
derived from sense experience, i.e., it is
a priori)
and in which
the predicate adds something to our
knowledge of the subject that could not be
known merely by logical analysis of the
subject.
20
Examples of synthetic a priori judgments
(according to Kant)

"Everything that happens has a cause."

"7 + 5 = 12"
"A straight line is the shortest distance
between two points [in space]."
"In all changes of the material world, the
quantity of matter remains unchanged."
"In all communication of motion, action and
reaction must always be equal."
"The world must have a beginning."

21
 This leads to what Kant calls

"the general problem of pure reason"

22
23
 To this general question, Kant adds
several subsidiary questions:

"How is pure mathematical science possible?"

"How is pure natural science [physics] possible?"

"How is metaphysics as a natural disposition

possible?"
"How is metaphysics as a science possible?"

(We will not at this time pursue answers to these questions.)

24
 Kant's solution of

How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?

25
Kant's "Copernican Revolution
in Philosophy"

Objects
?
Mind

26
 According to Kant,

the mind does not conform to its

objects. On the contrary, the objects
of consciousness conform to the
structure & operations of the mind
itself.

27
 The structure of the mind

Pure
Reason
(Vernunft)
Understanding
(Verstand)

Categories Sensibility
(Sinnlichkeit)
Categories
of the Under- Forms of
space & Forms of
standing time Sensibility
28
 Kant's overall view
Transcendental Ideas (Rational Belief)
& Moral Postulates
Noumena
Reason
(Vernunft) Understanding Objects of
Consciousness
(Verstand)

Categories Phenomena
Mind Sensibility
(Sinnlichkeit)
Forms of
space &
time
(Knowledge)
29
 Categories of the Understanding

1 Of Quantity 3 Of Relation
Unity (Singularity) Substance-Attribute
Plurality (Particularity) Cause-&-Effect
Totality (Universality) Community (Interaction)

2 Of Quality 4 Of Modality
Affirmation Possibility-Impossibility
Negation Existence-Nonexistence
Limitation Necessity-Contingency

30
 The categories of the
understanding

are applicable only to phenomena

that appear to us under the forms of
sensibility (space & time);

they have no legitimate application to

noumena, i.e., realities or alleged realities
that transcend the realm of space & time.

31
 However,

in an effort to construct a totally

unified, coherent, & systematic world-
view,
human reason (Vernunft) thinks beyond
the phenomenal realm
and formulates ideas of realities (i.e.,
possible realities) that transcend the
world of experience.
32
This takes us

33
from knowledge to

rational belief
The transcendental
metaphysics of Pure Reason

34
The Transcendental Ideas
of Pure Reason

Self, Cosmos, & God

35
 The content of the
transcendental ideas

36
The Transcendental Idea of
the Self
a thinking substance (soul)
simple & unchangeable
has a personal identity that persists
through time
exists in relation to other real things
outside it
experiencer & thinker

37
 The Transcendental Idea of
the Cosmos
(or world-in-general)

a unified and infinitely long series of events

the totality of all causal series

38
The Transcendental Idea of
God

The primordial,
single, self-
subsistent, all-
sufficient, supreme

ground of being
Supreme creative
& purposive reason
as the cause of the
universe
39
The Justification of the
Transcendental Ideas

They are the foundations for reason's

construction & account of the
systematic unity of experience.

40
 The Idea of the Self enables
reason to construe
all of "my" subjective experiences as existing in a
single subject (my "self"),
all of "my" powers of perception & thought as
derived from a single source (my "self"),
all changes within "me" as belonging to the states
of one & the same permanent being (my "self"),
and
all phenomena in space as entirely different from
the activity of thought (i.e., as other than my
"self").
41
In other words, the idea of
the Self

provides me with a metaphysical

foundation for the unity of my
experience.

42
The Idea of the Cosmos
enables reason to

think of the world as if it were a

unified collection or totality of infinitely
long causal series that can be
endlessly investigated by science.
In other words, the idea of the cosmos-as-a-
whole is a stimulus to scientific inquiry.
43
 The Idea of God enables
reason to see nature
as a system
grounded in reason

since God is
and Supreme Reason

pervaded with aiming at

purpose
the ultimate good of
all things.
44
 In other words,

the idea that God (a enables us to see

supremely rational & the world as a
purposive being) is teleological
the cause (creator) unity
of the universe
in which everything
(absolutely every-
thing) serves some
purpose.
45
Kant seems to be saying that,

unless we assume the existence of the

Self (transcendental ego), the Cosmos-
as-a-whole, & God,
the world & our experience of the world
will lack systematic unity & coherence.
In other words, the world & our experience of
the world cannot be completely intelligible (or
meaningful) without the transcendental ideas of
pure reason.
46
However . . . ,

47
 the transcendental ideas
are "regulative,"
not "constitutive."
That is, they guide or "regulate" our study
of the world by leading us to proceed AS IF
the Self, the Cosmos-as-a-whole, & God are
real.
However, the objects of the transcendental ideas
(Self, Cosmos, & God) do not "constitute" actual
objects of experience; they are "merely" ideal
objects, which, if real, add systematic unity &
coherence to our experience of the phenomenal
world.
48
 But we cannot KNOW
whether or not the Self, the
Cosmos, & God are real
because they are "transcendental"
(noumenal) objects, i.e., they are not
phenomena that appear in space & time
& to which the categories of the
understanding can be applied.

49
Morality, Happiness, &
Metaphysics

Freedom, Immortality, & God

(The Postulates of Practical Reason)

50
Kant's distinction between

theoretical reason (reasoning about

the universe, the world of nature)

and

practical reason (reasoning about

human existence & action)

51
 As we have seen,

pure reason (i.e., pure theoretical

reason), in seeking to understand the
universe as a whole, formulates certain
"transcendental ideas"
(of Self, Cosmos, & God).

Similarly . . . ,
52
 pure practical reason,
in an effort to see
human existence & postulates
human moral effort the reality of moral
as meaningful, freedom, the
immortality of the
soul, & the existence
of God.
(In the Critique of Practical Reason (1788),
Kant calls freedom, immortality, & God "the
postulates of practical reason.")
53
Freedom of the Will

According to Kant,
morality (the moral law)
tells us what we OUGHT to do.

Thus, morality presupposes

freedom of the will
because, logically speaking,
"ought" implies "can."
54
The existence & nature of the
moral law
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
assumes the existence of pure a priori
moral laws that determine what we
ought and ought not do.
In his later works on ethical theory
(see footnote on p. 358 in text), he seeks to
deduce the moral law from the concept
of moral duty (or obligation).

55
 According to Kant,

reason discerns a relationship

between morality & happiness.

What is the nature of

that relationship?

56
 On this subject,

there is a difference between the

pragmatic law & the moral law.

The pragmatic law

answers the question, The moral law
"What must I do in answers the
order to become question, "What
happy?" must I do in
order to deserve
(be worthy of)
happiness?"
57
 Moral laws are

categorical
imperatives,
i.e., absolute & hypothetical
unconditional moral imperatives (e.g.,
commands (e.g., "Be "If you wish to have
honest"); a good reputation,
be honest").
they are NOT

58
In general, the moral law says,

"Do that through which you

become worthy of happiness."

59
 Reason is not satisfied

with morality all by

itself, In a completely good
world, "a system in
nor with which happiness is tied
and proportioned to
morality [which makes
happiness all by
one worthy of
itself.
happiness] would be
necessary."

60
 "What . . . is the supreme
good of the moral world that
a pure but practical reason
commands us to occupy?"

"It is happiness in exact proportion to

the moral worth of the rational beings
who populate that world."

61
 For such an ideal world to exist, two
things are necessary:
the existence of God;
Only God can guarantee
and
the ideal proportionality of
the immortality of morality & happiness.
the soul. If happiness &
unhappiness are to be
necessary consequences of
our conduct in the
empirical world, then there
must be a future world in
which the soul lives on.
62
Thats all,
folks!

63