Forums > Social Chat > Anyone wanna discuss Kantian synthetic a priori truths?

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
What in the who now?

~ Bobo

wie weit, wie weit noch?
fragst mich, wo wir gewesen sind...
du fehlst hier

Posted: 1st Nov 2004

Written by: Kant

---

The real problem of pure reason is now contained in the question: How are synthetic judgements a priori possible? That metaphysics has until now remained in such a vacillating state of uncertainty and contradictions is to be ascribes solely to the cause that no one has previously thought of this problem and perhaps even the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements. On the solution of this problem, or a satisfactory proof that the possibility that it demasnds to have explained does not in fact exist at all, metaphysics now stands or falls.

---

Eh?

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Sorry, saw the word 'physics' and my mind shut off... Afraid I can't say a word about this topic other than...






Okay, there is nothing I can say about it! Sorry mate!

~ Bobo

wie weit, wie weit noch?
fragst mich, wo wir gewesen sind...
du fehlst hier

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Ha ha I really don't blame you! So did mine!!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
I studied this for far too long and it was incredibly dull. Kant by definition is quite dull, as is Hume, they all seem to be! The only interesting philosopher that makes any sense is Wittgenstein.

As for synthetic a priori truths, i take it you know what 'a priori' means? and the difference between synthetic and analytic a priori and a posteriori truths?

What exactly is the essay title and i might be able to help?

Aim high and you'll know your limits, aim low and you'll never know how high you could have climbed.

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Well it's up to you - I wouldn't go to any trouble as I'm getting my head around it slowly but surely... it's just the quote I posted and then "Discuss". And I do know what a priori/posteriori and analytic/synthetic.. thanks

My post was really one of desparation at going head-on into that quote... I've kind of developed away from it now, getting into Transcendental Idealism.

One question though... are synthetic a priori truths contingent? Or is that debatable within Kantian logic?

He truly is a sod. Looking forward to Wittgenstein!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
no.

Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
screw me im doing physics 101 at the moment...is this what im heading for in the next few years ?!

Henry Hill - 'One day the kids from the neighbourhood carried my mothers groceries all the way home, you know why? It was out of respect'...

ahmet_20valve_ahmet(at)hotmail(dot)com
Hope all is well : )

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
No, this is METAphysics... philosophy Don't fret!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
I will. What shall we discuss? Perhaps a breif synopsis:

Kant is arguing here whether or not any a priori claims are possible. We distinguish between two kinds of truth in this model, a priori and a posteriori. For the uninitiated, that is truth can be analytic or reasoned (Typically by the law of contradiction, that is the opposite of a truth statement would imply a logical contradiction: ie. "a white horse is a horse" and the logical contradictor "a white horse is not a horse") or it can be known through experience only, such as at 2:00 PM EST I am typing on my computer. True, but only knowable through experience by finite minds (We're excluding God for the moment).

Now, let's take a hint from the work from which this concept comes: A Critique of Pure Reason... Why would he name his work this unless he is railing against the idea that metaphysics can be rationalized into truth? His aim in this work is to show that transendent metaphysics, that is metaphysics which go beyond what we experience (a posteriori) and try to grab some truth by analysis (a priori), just does not make sense. To do this though, since it seems that there ARE a priori (or necessary if you like) truths, Kant needs to show when a priori knowledge is possible. Let's start with this basic assumption which Kant will be arguing for: All a priori truth is NOT in fact analytic, but ARE somehow necessary.

Kant uses the idea that a priori truths (necessary truths, 1+1=2, all events have a cause, etc.) are the STRUCTURE of experience. Kant is trying to show here that a priori truth is possible, but it CAN NOT transcend the bounds of possible experience. Thus we can say "All events have a cause" but we can not say "God exists" or "The soul exists" because these a priori truth claims go beyond experience. In essence, a priori or necessary truths are the conditions for experience, and anything not conforming to them are inexperiencable. Example: An uncaused event doesn't necessarily not exist, but is simply inexperiencable.

What Kant is arguing for here is transendental idealism. This means we draw a distinction between how the world APPEARS to us and how the world ACTUALLY is. Since most philosophy before Kant revolves around the idea that our experiences of the world correspond to how it actually is, this is a very important step. What does this do? It gives Kant a way of explaining how we can have a priori (Well, synthetic a priori actually) knowledge without admitting that that knowledge is True. It is merely true in respect to our experience.

Why is this synthetic? Kant argues that our experience in the raw must be ordered by our understanding. The FORM of this ordering is the basis for our a priori truth. In this way knowledge goes like this: Experience -> A Priori ordering -> Understanding. Essentially, the world is not how we perceive it, a priori knowledge claims can be made based only on our experience, or rather the way in which our experience is ordered, and there are no a priori knowledge claims that make sense outside of the experiencial.

Now, what shall we discuss?

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Wittgenstein! My God can I not get away from people obsessed with this man! That's it, I gotta get the reader and start looking into this guy...

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Oh and a note: Kant needs to show that a priori truths are possible in terms of what we experience to save Mathematics and Science, while killing off the idea that we can extrapolate to a priori truth claims about non-experiencial things such as the existence of God, etc. Ok, I gotta go to work now... I'll check back in later.

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Holy crap, I think I'm in love.

Thanks a lot. That helps lots. I promise not to rip it off!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
But doesn't Cartesian scepticism pose a critical probelm for all Kant's work? How can he justify that objects exist in themselves independant of mind? I don't see that he does, at least not in my (limited) reading of him. I'm not convinced of the reality of experience, and Kant can't seem to justify the truth of experience - only that what we think is experience is induvidually interpreted.



This is good I'm glad I (think I) understand it now! Cheers for the help!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Posted: 1st Nov 2004
Cartesians... they pose problems all over the place but then thats a personal opinion... that guy gives me the willies.

I think what your struggling with here is a very valid point. Idealism would be the denial of a physical world outside of the mind (There are only mental substances and thoughts) along the lines of Berkeley, Libnes and Hume (I think...). Kant is NOT arguing for this metaphysic though. In fact in his other works he specifically talks about this.... Reference: The refutation of Idealism

Kant specifically argues that perceptions must be OF something, an objective world which exists whether we perceive it or not. What he is saying about synthetic a priori truths is that we can not extend a priori to include those things which we do not experience, not that there isnt an objective world. Why he does this, and how he argues for it I am NOT quite sure... I know there is a reason he gives though.

There's a good book called "From Bacon to Kant". I recomend it highly. As well, there is a series of books / readers and I think theres one on Kant... called "On Kant"...

Hope this has helped a little, and double check this stuff. Use it only as a guide as my interpetation may be a bit incorrect. But I am a Philosophy major, so if you need help with anything philosophical, feel free to message me.

Posted: 2nd Nov 2004
Pretty happy to hear that this is philosophy and not physics! Got me planning a new careear goal for a while there...

Henry Hill - 'One day the kids from the neighbourhood carried my mothers groceries all the way home, you know why? It was out of respect'...

ahmet_20valve_ahmet(at)hotmail(dot)com
Hope all is well : )

Posted: 2nd Nov 2004

Written by: i8beefy2

---

I am a Philosophy major, so if you need help with anything philosophical, feel free to message me.

---

Thanks a lot You've helped me unbelievably... I'm not just going over what you said, but it's really helped me get my head around the whole topic a lot better. Thanks a lot - Kant's just so dense!

I'm definatley gonna check out a guide like the one you reccomend - sounds just what I need

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau