Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, UC Davis Philosophy 1, G. J. Mattey

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
UC Davis Philosophy 1
G. J. Mattey

Critique of Pure Reason Philosophy 1 Spring, 2002 G. J. Mattey	Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz Born 1646 From Germany Invented calculus Had controversies with Newton Ridiculed by Voltaire Died 1716
The Leibniz-Wolff Philosophy Leibniz's views were modified by the German philosopher Christian Wolff Kant worked within this framework in his pre-critical years There are two principles governing metaphysics Non-contradiction establishes what is possible Sufficient reason establishes what exists Both operate on the basis of pure reason	Immanuel Kant Born 1724 Prussian, of Scottish ancestry University Professor at Königsberg Banned from writing on religion Died 1804
Kant's Contributions Wrote extensively on the physical and human sciences Proposed the currently-accepted explanation of the origin of the solar system (nebular hypothesis) Founder of modern geography Tried to reconcile rationalism and skepticism Proposed an ethical theory based on pure reason Proposed a formalistic aesthetic theory	The Secure Path of Science Many scientific endeavors are mere groping Logic has traveled on a secure path Its sole subject is the formal rules of all thought, no matter what it is about As such, it is only preparatory for all the other sciences Mathematics and physics are other secure sciences
A Priori Cognition Thinking of objects and of concepts is called cognition Cognitions are intuitions of objects, concepts, and judgments Theoretical cognition concerns the relation of objects and concepts Practical cognition concerns making the object actually exist Theoretical cognition a priori relates objects and concepts through the use of thought alone	Revolution in Mathematics Mathematics became a secure science through a revolution in thought Mathematicians were merely groping when they tried to find the properties of figures in the figure itself Mathematics became a science when it was seen that we know the properties of figures through construction We think the properties into figures a priori
Revolution in Natural Science Natural scientists were merely groping when they tried to discover the properties of objects through mere observation Galileo and others showed that we must investigate nature by experiment This requires that reason actively brings its conceptions to nature and tests them out	Metaphysics Metaphysics is cognition of objects through concepts alone For example, we seek to establish the existence of God from the concept of a most real being It is not yet on the secure path of science Instead, it has engendered endless dispute Should we continue the search or give up our confidence in reason?
Revolution in Metaphysics Metaphysics has produced concepts in the hope that they will conform to objects We can reverse the field and hypothesize that objects conform to concepts This reversal is like that of Copernicus Concepts that are generated a priori can then apply to objects necessarily All we cognize a priori about things is what we ourselves put into them	Limitations of Metaphysics If the revolution in metaphysics is successful, it will limit the field of metaphysics The results of metaphysics will only apply to those objects that must conform to our concepts These objects will be called appearances The actual thing in itself is not cognized This leaves an opening to fulfill our practical concerns about what we ought to do
An Example: Freedom and Necessity Metaphysics establishes that appearances are mechanically determined If appearances are things in themselves, then freedom would be impossible But if they are not, there is a possibility of freedom I cannot cognize freedom, but I can think it Freedom is required for morality, so the limitation of metaphysics is required for morality	Metaphysics and Public Interest What is lost to metaphysics is of interest only to scholars Philosophical proofs of Gods existence, of freedom and of immortality do not influence ordinary people We believe in these things for other reasons God: the order, beauty, etc., of the universe Freedom: the opposition of duty and inclination Immortality: dissatisfaction with a limited life
Critique Reason seeks to establish its own limits Critique can cut off the roots of dangerous thinking Materialism Fatalism Atheism Lack of faith Fanaticism Superstition Idealism Skepticism	Composite Cognition Cognition begins with experience But it does not therefore arise from experience Cognition has two components An a priori contribution of our cognitive power (form) An a posteriori contribution from the senses (matter)
A Priori Judgments An a priori judgment has two characteristics Strict universality (no exceptions at all) Necessity (we cannot think it without recognizing that it must be true) Mathematical judgments are a priori The common judgment that all change has a cause is a priori So Hume's account of causal reasoning in terms of custom is incorrect	A Priori Concepts Suppose you omit from an experiential concept everything that is derived from experience Space with the concept of body Substance with the concept of an object What is left over after all omission is derived from the cognitive power
Analytic Judgments Analytic judgments are the result of the clarification of our concepts What is thought in the predicate of the judgment is already thought in the subject Example: all bodies are extended Analytic judgments are all a priori	Synthetic Judgments Synthetic judgments add something in the predicate not already thought in the subject They are expansive Example: all bodies are heavy The concept of a body does not contain that of heaviness in it The connection is found in experience
A Priori Synthetic Judgments Can a subject and predicate be connected synthetically without appeal to experience? Example: everything that happens has a cause Having a cause is not analytically contained in the concept of something that happens What is the unknown X that connects them?	Summary Classification Presentation Sensation (presents only the modification of the subject) Cognition (presents an object) Intuition (presents a single directly object) Concept (presents objects indirectly, through characteristics that may be common to many) Judgment (connects concepts to other concepts or to intuitions)
Pure Mathematics Mathematical judgments are synthetic One does not think the number 12 in thinking the sum of 7 and 5 One does not think of the shortest distance between two points when thinking of a straight line Mathematical judgments are a priori (strictly universal and necessary) Then how is pure mathematics possible?	Pure Natural Science General principles of natural science are synthetic Example: the quantity of motion in the world is constant But they are also strictly universal and necessary, and hence a priori How is pure natural science possible?
Metaphysics Some metaphysical judgments are synthetic Example: the world must have a first beginning These judgments are also necessary and universal, if they are true They have been accepted dogmatically because they were thought to be analytic But if they are supposed to apply beyond experience, they cannot be justified	Transcendental Philosophy What is presented here is only a critique of the use of reason a priori The critique is transcendental It deals with our way of cognizing objects a priori A system of pure reason would present synthetic a priori cognitions as a system
Intuition Cognition relates to objects directly through intuition Intuition takes place when and only when an object is given For human beings, objects are given through a receptive faculty, sensibility Thoughts of objects through concepts relate to them only through intuition	Appearance Sensation is the effect of an object on the receptive faculty When an intuition refers to an object through sensation it is empirical An object of empirical intuition is appearance Appearance has two sides A matter, given in sensation A form, lying in the mind a priori
Inner and Outer Sense Outer sense presents objects alongside one another in space Inner sense presents states of the mind as successive in time What are space and time? They might be: Actual beings Real relations among actual beings Merely intuited relations among intuited objects A matter, given in sensation A form, lying in the mind a priori	Pure Intuition The form of intuition is called pure intuition, since it is contributed by the mind alone Pure intuition is separate from what the understanding thinks through concepts and what sensation contributes Space is the form of intuition of bodies Time is the form of all intuition Transcendental aesthetic investigates them
Space Space is not an empirical concept abstracted from intuitions of bodies We need it to think of relations of bodies Space is an a priori intuition The absence of space cannot be presented Space is not a universal concept It is a unique thing, which is prior to its parts It is an infinite given magnitude, having its parts within itself, not having infinitely many instances	Geometry Geometry yields synthetic a priori judgments The predicate amplifies the subject They are made independently of perception of their objects They are strictly universal and necessary This can only be explained by space being the form of the intuition of geometric objects As intuition, space unites geometrical concepts As residing in the subject, it allows this unification to take place a priori
Ideality Space is the form of intuition, so it applies only to objects as appearances It does not apply to things in themselves Space exists only from the human point of view So, things in space exist only from the human point of view Space and things in it are ideal	Reality The ideality of space is transcendental Space is only an a priori condition of intuition Space is also empirically real Space is a form of outer intuition for all humans Objects in space are real in human experience The ideality of space cannot be compared with that of sensory qualities Sensory qualities are relative to individuals
Time Time is an form of intuition, just as is space Unlike space, time has only one dimension Parts of time presuppose a single, unified time Time is infinite, in the sense that any time-period is a limitation of it, so that it is unlimited There can be an a priori theory of time Time allows the explanation of change in general and motion in particular	Ideality and Reality Like space, time is transcendentally ideal Time is the form of inner sense It is prior to the placement of objects in time Unlike space, time is the a priori condition for all objects If we present an object as in space, our presentation itself is in time Things in themselves are not temporal, but time is a condition for the reality of all appearances
An Objection When I present objects as in time, my mind changes its state Changes in state take place in time So, my presentation of objects takes place in time So, time is prior to the presentation of objects in time So, time is actual	A Reply It is conceded that time is actual It is the actual form in which objects are presented as in succession But its reality is not transcendental It is not an object that exists outside of the act of presenting objects The fact that my presentations follow one another does not make time something in itself
Space and Time Space and time are two sources of cognition Appearances are necessarily subject to them Because they are forms of cognition, we can understand how we can make judgments a priori about them If we think of them as existing in themselves, we have to explain how two non-entities can be the condition of all objects Concepts such as motion or change require experience and are not a priori	Confused Presentations? Leibniz and Wolff held that sensibility is confused presentation of things in themselves Only the intellect yields clear presentations (of things in themselves) But this distinction is purely logical The distinction between sensibility and intellect concerns the nature and origin of our cognitions Sensibility provides no presentation at all of things in themselves
Intellectual Intuition Human intuition is sensible and passive An intellectual intuition would produce its own objects (self-actively) We intuit our own mind by being passively given successive mental states in time So, we do not represent ourselves as an intellectual intuition would represent us	Illusion? Does the fact that outer objects and my inner state are transcendentally ideal mean that they are illusory? Illusion results from taking these to be transcendentally real On that assumption, we cannot explain the nature of space and time This is why Berkeley downgraded bodies to illusion Even the mind itself would be illusory, since its states are in time
God's Intuition God cannot be an object of intuition to us or an object of self-intuition in space and time If space and time were conditions for the existence of all things, they would be a condition for Gods existence Then God could not cognize his own existence God's intuition must be intellectual	Concept and Intuition Intuitions are the result of the passive reception of sense-impressions Concepts are the result of the activity of the understanding Both may be empirical or pure Empirical cognition has sensory elements Pure cognition is free of sensory elements Cognition arises only from their union
Logic General logic concerns rules of thought that apply to all objects that can be thought Pure general logic concerns formal rules of thought Applied general logic concerns the psychology of reasoning Special logic concerns rules (of methodology) applying to thought about specific kinds of objects	Transcendental Logic Some thoughts about objects are pure, others are empirical Pure thoughts have their origin in the understanding, rather than experience A logic of pure thoughts is transcendental To be transcendental is to be concerned with the fact that the origin of a presentation is a priori Transcendental logic concerns concepts that arise in the mind independently of sense-experience yet are applicable to objects
Truth Truth is the agreement of a cognition with the object it is supposed to present There is no universal criterion of truth of material (experiential) cognition of objects There is a universal criterion of truth of formal (a priori) cognition of objects The understanding must be in agreement with its own activities	Analytic and Dialectic Analytic is the part of logic that concerns the formal rules of its use Transcendental analytic concerns the rules governing a priori concepts It is a logic of the truth of a priori cognition Dialectic is the attempted use of logic to establish material truths Transcendental dialectic concerns the misapplication of rules governing a priori concepts It is a logic of illusion
Completeness Transcendental analytic presents pure concepts derived from the understanding The derivation of these concepts must be based on a single principle This principle should encompass the whole of the understanding So, it should present a complete and coherent system of pure concepts	Functions The understanding operates by making judgments connecting concepts to one another or to intuitions A function is the unity of the act of bringing many presentations under one concept So, judgments are functions of unity of presentations (concepts or intuitions) Concepts are functions of unity of intuitions
Functions of Judgment Every judgment combines presentations in four ways Quantity (universal, particular, singular) Quality (affirmative, negative, infinite) Relation (categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive) Modality (problematic, assertoric, apodeictic)	Examples of Judgments The soul is not mortal (universal, negative, categorical, assertoric) The world exists either through blind chance, internal necessity or external cause (singular, affirmative, disjunctive, apodeictic) If there is a perfect justice, then the persistently evil person is punished (universal, affirmative, hypothetical, apodeictic) The component sentences of the hypothetical and disjunctive forms may themselves be problematic
Synthesis The mind is initially given a manifold of presentations Space and time are a pure manifold Sense-impressions are an empirical manifold The imagination synthesizes the manifold The understanding brings the synthesis to concepts Cognition (presentation of an object) occurs when a concept is applied to the synthesis	Pure Synthesis Sensibility supplies a pure manifold of intuition (spaces and times) This manifold is synthesized by the imagination The understanding gives unity to the pure synthesis The same function that gives unity to the presentations in a judgment gives unity to pure synthesis in an intuition
The Categories Categories are pure concepts which give unity to the pure synthesis The system of categories parallels the system of forms of judgment Quantity (unity, plurality, allness) Quality (reality, negation, limitation) Relation (inherence/subsistence, cause/effect, community) Modality (possibility/impossibility, existence, nonexistence, necessity/contingency)	The Task Ahead The table of categories serves to organize a system of metaphysical principles To confirm the legitimacy of the principles, it must be shown why the categories legitimately apply to objects This is the task of the "transcendental deduction" Finally, in the transcendental dialectic, it is shown how the application of these principles beyond experience leads to "transcendental illusion"
Some Metaphysical Principles All intuitions are extensive magnitudes (in space and time) What is real in an object of sensation has a degree of intensity (of influence on our senses) Substance is permanent in all change All changes occur according to the law of connection of cause and effect All perceivable substances in space interact in a thoroughgoing way with one another	.

[ Lecture Notes | Index of Slides | Philosophy 1 Home Page]

Kant's Critique of Pure ReasonUC Davis Philosophy 1G. J. Mattey

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
UC Davis Philosophy 1
G. J. Mattey