"With each of these events, a light dawned on all those who study Nature. They came to understand that reason has insight only into what it itself produces, according to its own design; rather than letting Nature guide its movements by keeping it on a leash, so to speak, reason must take the initiative and. . . .compel Nature to answer its questions... (p. 8)" It's true that human reason is the sole catalyst for the groundbreaking findings of the men aforementioned (Galileo, Torricelli, and Stahl). The initiative was on our (human) part; and "Nature" answered to us.
I also found this bit on page 9 to be very intriguing: "Worse still: if reason, in one of the most important parts of our pursuit of knowledge, doesn’t just desert us but lures us on with delusions and in the end betrays us, why should we trust it in any area of thought?" It is understandable to question our capacity for reason and its credibility when the integrity of our mental health can be so easily compromised. I think this is a dilemma if one were alone. But luckily, we are not alone in this world. Even if one person suffers from delusions and mental health problems, the majority of other people are most likely not. This majority is hopefully free from delusions and the integrity of their reason is kept intact. I guess we are lucky to have others to help us and keep us in check. We are socially dependent creatures, after all.
1. A passage I found of importance in Kant's writing is when he states, "In metaphysics we keep having to retrace our steps, because we keep finding that the path doesn’t lead where we want to go." (Kant 9) I found this important because it discusses metaphysics, a topic we have been addressing all semester, and how complicated it is. Kant describes metaphysics as a battlefield to show just how hard it is to come to a vivid conclusion in this field. I found this interesting because it is true, it is almost impossible to know any metaphysical debate for sure. 2. Another important part of this reading is when Kant says, "To the extent that reason enters into these sciences, they must include some a priori knowledge." (Kant 7) In this reading, Kant seems to use that term a lot. Although I am not totally confident I understand the definition of priori knowledge fully, I think Kant is saying this type of knowledge comes from the object that is obeserved. Here, Kant determines that an object must conform to our knowledge instead of our knowledge conforming to the object.
From the introduction, Kant questioning metaphysics seems very radical to me. Also that he makes it the philosophers job to look through time and history and present that information to historians also seems interesting. I also find it interesting when Kant states "If it is a science, why can’t it get universal and lasting approval, like other sciences? If it is not, what enables it to go on giving itself airs with its pretense of being a science,keeping men’s minds in suspense with hopes that never die but are never fulfilled? If we are to show that there’s knowledge to be had from metaphysics, or to show that there isn’t, we must once and for all reach a conclusion about the nature of this would-be science, for it can’t go on as it has been doing. It seems close to ridiculous, when every other science makes steady progress, that this one—claiming to be wisdom personified, the oracle that everyone consults—goes on circling around the same spot, never taking a step forwards." I never really thought about the idea of metaphysics as a science and that why it is a notion that is not accepted universally or just a notion that seems to have no grounds.
Mathematics also answers to that description. To mark off metaphysics from mathematics as well as from empirical enquiries, we’ll have to call it pure philosophical knowledge.In this phrase, ‘pure’ means ‘not empirical’; and ‘philosophical’ stands in contrast to ‘mathematical’. The difference between these two ways of using reason—the mathematical and the philosophical—is something I needn’t go into here," this statement is very interesting, mathematics as we have seen from other philosophers has been a constant and also what could be the correct representation of reality. Mathematics is never rejected and is almost never questioned and to me it seems as Kant wants to put no emphasizes on mathematics.
1. One of the many things that respect about Kant is that he understands the sciences. In the introduction, Kant describes how to understand metaphysics and can we place it with the other natural sciences. Kant states “If it is a science, why can’t it get universal and lasting approval like the other sciences? If it is not, what enables it to go on giving itself airs with its pretenses being a science, keeping men’s mind in suspense with hopes that never die but are never fulfilled” (Kant 1). Unlike this statement, you can place metaphysics within the sciences. To me, it can be combined with biology, astrology, physics, and chemistry. You cannot describe one thing without the other.
2. In the Preamble when Kant states that you can use mathematics to describe metaphysics, I agreed with him. There are many times that math can be a abstract and difficult to understand. The only difference is math and the philosophical terms are one can be reasoned while the other cannot.
- Kant talks about Hume’s idea of cause-effect. Kant believes that the cause-effect connection is a priori, as the understanding connects those ideas. Nevertheless, he believes metaphysics is also a priori as “metaphysics consists purely of such concepts—i.e. concepts of the connections of things.” (4)
- This is not the first time I encounter Kant’s synthetic a priori. I learned about this concept a couple years ago, but that time the professor just explained this to us. Now I finally read his Preamble on the metaphysical knowledge and I find his theory more interesting than before! I understand that before him, philosophers thought of metaphysics as analytic a priori, but Kant believes that metaphysics is actually (or should be) synthetic a priori as the knowledge based on pure understanding should be more than basic content, as our judgement should rather add something to the given knowledge of a priori concepts themselves.
I’ve read parts of Critique of pure reason before, but it is interesting going back to it with the historical context of other contemporary ideas. I noticed that Kant, in the wake of Hume, doubles down on God where Hume strayed away, even though neither of them really consider the possibility of a proof of God.
Kant believes one can know what they ought to do based on pure reason, since truths can be reveled through it. Even though I know he does this through a deontology, I cant help but see how these ideas could apply almost equally well to a virtue ethics. Instead of good for the sake of good, one could know what a good thing to do is because it is the type of thing that a good person would do.
1.) Kant's refutation of Hume is a tantalizing one at that. However I still don't believe that metaphysics is A priori. It actually seems dangerous to believe that one can deduce the real from concepts alone, because it then presumes that we can govern with this knowledge.
2.) This kind of idealism seems interesting, but I still think that it assumes that human beings are capable of too much. This kind of humanism, I believe, sets up a false system of values that doesn't actually align itself with the real.
1. Before reading Hume, I had not realized exactly how much previous metaphysical conceptions relied on a cause and effect relationship. Nor did I realize that this was something that could be rebuked in such a dramatic way. When Kant says "The concept of the cause-effect connection is far from being the only idea by which the understanding has a priori thoughts about the connections of things. On the contrary, metaphysics consists purely of such concepts -- i.e. concepts of the connections of things" (Kant 4).
2. I was really interesting seeing Kant set up the source for his metaphysics, stating "The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the sources of metaphysics can't be empirical. If something could be known through the sense, that would automatically show that it doesn't belong to metaphysics'" (Kant 7). He then states that a metaphysical inquiry must come from a prior knowledge gained through 'pure reason.'
"With each of these events, a light dawned on all those who study Nature. They came to understand that reason has insight only into what it itself produces, according to its own design; rather than letting Nature guide its movements by keeping it on a leash, so to speak, reason must take the initiative and. . . .compel Nature to answer its questions... (p. 8)" It's true that human reason is the sole catalyst for the groundbreaking findings of the men aforementioned (Galileo, Torricelli, and Stahl). The initiative was on our (human) part; and "Nature" answered to us.
ReplyDeleteI also found this bit on page 9 to be very intriguing: "Worse still: if reason, in one of the most important parts of our pursuit of knowledge, doesn’t just desert us but lures us on with delusions and in the end betrays us, why should we trust it in any area of thought?" It is understandable to question our capacity for reason and its credibility when the integrity of our mental health can be so easily compromised. I think this is a dilemma if one were alone. But luckily, we are not alone in this world. Even if one person suffers from delusions and mental health problems, the majority of other people are most likely not. This majority is hopefully free from delusions and the integrity of their reason is kept intact. I guess we are lucky to have others to help us and keep us in check. We are socially dependent creatures, after all.
1. A passage I found of importance in Kant's writing is when he states, "In metaphysics we keep having to retrace our steps, because we keep finding that the path doesn’t lead where we want to go." (Kant 9) I found this important because it discusses metaphysics, a topic we have been addressing all semester, and how complicated it is. Kant describes metaphysics as a battlefield to show just how hard it is to come to a vivid conclusion in this field. I found this interesting because it is true, it is almost impossible to know any metaphysical debate for sure.
ReplyDelete2. Another important part of this reading is when Kant says, "To the extent that reason enters into these sciences, they must include some a priori knowledge." (Kant 7) In this reading, Kant seems to use that term a lot. Although I am not totally confident I understand the definition of priori knowledge fully, I think Kant is saying this type of knowledge comes from the object that is obeserved. Here, Kant determines that an object must conform to our knowledge instead of our knowledge conforming to the object.
From the introduction, Kant questioning metaphysics seems very radical to me. Also that he makes it the philosophers job to look through time and history and present that information to historians also seems interesting. I also find it interesting when Kant states "If it is a science, why can’t it get universal and lasting
ReplyDeleteapproval, like other sciences? If it is not, what enables it to
go on giving itself airs with its pretense of being a science,keeping men’s minds in suspense with hopes that never die but are never fulfilled? If we are to show that there’s knowledge to be had from metaphysics, or to show that there isn’t, we must once and for all reach a conclusion about the nature of this would-be science, for it can’t go on as it has been doing. It seems close to ridiculous, when every other science makes steady progress, that this one—claiming to
be wisdom personified, the oracle that everyone consults—goes on circling around the same spot, never taking a step forwards." I never really thought about the idea of metaphysics as a science and that why it is a notion that is not accepted universally or just a notion that seems to have no grounds.
Mathematics also answers to that description. To mark off metaphysics from mathematics as well as from empirical enquiries, we’ll have to call it pure philosophical knowledge.In this phrase, ‘pure’ means ‘not empirical’; and ‘philosophical’ stands in contrast to ‘mathematical’. The difference between these two ways of using reason—the mathematical and the philosophical—is something I needn’t go into here," this statement is very interesting, mathematics as we have seen from other philosophers has been a constant and also what could be the correct representation of reality. Mathematics is never rejected and is almost never questioned and to me it seems as Kant wants to put no emphasizes on mathematics.
1. One of the many things that respect about Kant is that he understands the sciences. In the introduction, Kant describes how to understand metaphysics and can we place it with the other natural sciences. Kant states “If it is a science, why can’t it get universal and lasting approval like the other sciences? If it is not, what enables it to go on giving itself airs with its pretenses being a science, keeping men’s mind in suspense with hopes that never die but are never fulfilled” (Kant 1). Unlike this statement, you can place metaphysics within the sciences. To me, it can be combined with biology, astrology, physics, and chemistry. You cannot describe one thing without the other.
ReplyDelete2. In the Preamble when Kant states that you can use mathematics to describe metaphysics, I agreed with him. There are many times that math can be a abstract and difficult to understand. The only difference is math and the philosophical terms are one can be reasoned while the other cannot.
- Kant talks about Hume’s idea of cause-effect. Kant believes that the cause-effect connection is a priori, as the understanding connects those ideas. Nevertheless, he believes metaphysics is also a priori as “metaphysics consists purely of such concepts—i.e. concepts of the connections of things.” (4)
ReplyDelete- This is not the first time I encounter Kant’s synthetic a priori. I learned about this concept a couple years ago, but that time the professor just explained this to us. Now I finally read his Preamble on the metaphysical knowledge and I find his theory more interesting than before! I understand that before him, philosophers thought of metaphysics as analytic a priori, but Kant believes that metaphysics is actually (or should be) synthetic a priori as the knowledge based on pure understanding should be more than basic content, as our judgement should rather add something to the given knowledge of a priori concepts themselves.
I’ve read parts of Critique of pure reason before, but it is interesting going back to it with the historical context of other contemporary ideas. I noticed that Kant, in the wake of Hume, doubles down on God where Hume strayed away, even though neither of them really consider the possibility of a proof of God.
ReplyDeleteKant believes one can know what they ought to do based on pure reason, since truths can be reveled through it. Even though I know he does this through a deontology, I cant help but see how these ideas could apply almost equally well to a virtue ethics. Instead of good for the sake of good, one could know what a good thing to do is because it is the type of thing that a good person would do.
1.) Kant's refutation of Hume is a tantalizing one at that. However I still don't believe that metaphysics is A priori. It actually seems dangerous to believe that one can deduce the real from concepts alone, because it then presumes that we can govern with this knowledge.
ReplyDelete2.) This kind of idealism seems interesting, but I still think that it assumes that human beings are capable of too much. This kind of humanism, I believe, sets up a false system of values that doesn't actually align itself with the real.
1. Before reading Hume, I had not realized exactly how much previous metaphysical conceptions relied on a cause and effect relationship. Nor did I realize that this was something that could be rebuked in such a dramatic way. When Kant says "The concept of the cause-effect connection is far from being the only idea by which the understanding has a priori thoughts about the connections of things. On the contrary, metaphysics consists purely of such concepts -- i.e. concepts of the connections of things" (Kant 4).
ReplyDelete2. I was really interesting seeing Kant set up the source for his metaphysics, stating "The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the sources of metaphysics can't be empirical. If something could be known through the sense, that would automatically show that it doesn't belong to metaphysics'" (Kant 7). He then states that a metaphysical inquiry must come from a prior knowledge gained through 'pure reason.'