Greg Detre
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Lucy Allais, History of Philosophy VII
Notes � Kant, synthetic a priori
Notes �
Berkeley, �Principles, Introduction
Assess Kant�s account of
synthetic a priori knowledge.
What is Kant�s account of the
synthetic a priori? Why is it important to philosophy?
Can we only know a priori of things what we ourselves put into them?
what�s Kant trying to do?
why is this important?
transcendental argument � concepts as conditions of our having experience. we have experience, \ we must have those concepts
idealism = but makes ontological claims beyond Berkeley, that there is a world in itself
is Kant basing on internalist criteria???
if someone thought refraction = the pen itself actually bending, how would we be able to prove him objectively WRONG???
2+2=4: SAP
if you look at more complicated maths problems, which involve calculation/deliberation to see their solution, then it�s easier to see why maths is SAP
yet the denial of even this simple proposition entails a contradiction, so surely its analytic???
causality = SAP because that�s how we see the world � follows from the transcendental argument???
Strawson likes the transcendental argument, but Walker says it�s little help, except for simple stuff like S+T
but you can retain transcendental idealism + have different categories (e.g. for aliens)
the categories relate to our experience
= objective systematising structures imposed on a world of ideas???
transcendental ideas � RTP???
why isn�t Kant a sceptic??? would Hume agree with him???
does SAP help us with noumena??? NO � it�s such a weak claim then
nuomena is all that matters, surely???
Ben Cannon tel int 26687
given transcendental idealism, the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge of objects of possible experience is easily explicable, since such objects must necessarily conform to the conditions under which they can become objects for us
Sort the following propositions into analytic/synthetic and a priori/ a posteriori:
|
12 = 11 + 1 |
|
|
7 + 5 = 12 |
synthetic a priori??? |
|
(x + y) + z = x + (y + z) |
|
|
Two straight lines cannot enclose a space. |
|
|
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points. |
|
|
There are triangles with the same angles but of different sizes. |
|
|
Matter is conserved. |
|
|
The fundamental substratum of Nature is conserved. |
|
|
Every event has a cause. |
|
|
If A is in space and B is in space, there is a spatial relation between A and B. |
|
|
No effect can precede its cause. |
|
|
All bachelors are unmarried. |
analytic a posteriori |
|
All bachelors are misogynists. |
synthetic a posteriori |
|
All cats are mammals. |
analytic a posteriori |
|
There is an external world. |
|
|
Light travels in straight lines in a vacuum. |
synthetic a posteriori |
|
The standard metre is one metre long. |
analytic |
|
Motion is continuous, i.e. a moving body can�t pass from a to z without passing through the points in between. |
|
|
Newton�s second law, F = ma. |
|
|
If A occurs before B, B does not occur before A. |
|
|
Judgment is the bringing of intuitions under concepts. |
|
|
Compounds consist of fixed proportions of their constituent elements. |
|
what�s the difference between synthetic a priori and Nagel/Kripke�s necessary a posteriori truth???
kripke�s distinction on semantic grounds is necessary-contingent, which is slightly different
is synthetic a priori about things you come to know having experienced things, that don�t derive from experience??? or is that nonsensical???
doesn�t our synthetic knowledge of objects of possible experience depend first on our having experienced the categories in action to know about the categories??? i.e., isn�t he saying that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but we need some a posteriori knowledge first???
what is Quine�s notion of �semantic containment�???
surely the logical positivists� linguistic definition of analyticity falls down if we realise that language is coherentist???
is this one of Quine�s attacks (on conventionalism � how different to logical positivism???)???
isn�t there syntheticity in simply defining a term that people use unconsideringly???
are synthetic a priori judgements simply (contingent???) knowledge about the world of phenomena, or does it reach deeper into nuomena???
we cannot have theoretical knowledge of nuomena, apparently
if Kant was able to at least offer us knowledge that the phenomena must be necessarily connected through SAP truths, would that be progress at all??? is that, in fact, what he is trying to do though???
halfway down page 11 in Walker, ch 1 � what Kant overlooked�???
is �I am thinking, therefore I exist� a transcendental argument???
what about analytic a posteriori statements???
is the transcendental argument itself known to us synthetic a priori???