Greg Detre
1/3/01
divorce SAP (synthetic a priori) from TI (transcendental idealism)
is he closer to Berkeley than this???
systematising with Categories + vague ontological claim about nuomena
SAP = pure reason
not derived immediately from experience
attached intuition when 2+2 = 4
= necessary, but not part of 2+2=4
time is not knowable on the basis of experience � YES IT IS
Humean
�Custom� = SAP
SAP = processed experience
couldn't have them without experience (hence not a priori) rather than the other way round
SAP = only humanly objective
can conceive the world as not being shaped by our particular Categories
TI = Kant�s explanation about SAP
but is SAP a pressing question, divorced from TI???
that we exist = SAP knowledge
conditions of experience � e.g. we must exist + there must be objects
transcendental arguments
things we must assume as known in order to have experience
�
����� to combat Hume
couldn�t have knowledge of time unless there was necessary causation
does every event have a cause? Y
analytic? a priori?
analytic an �event� � NO???
logically possible uncaused event
without events, causation is even harder than Hume thought
induction as � probability
causation = a condition of knowledge (Kant)
induction too???
ina sense, couldn't have maths without experience
but we don't require experience, once we�ve acquired the concepts, to apply them
a priori = independent of experience for justification
(rather than origin)
all knowledge begins with experience, but not necessarily out of experience
the mind is more active (interpretative machinery) than empiricists say
if without TI
certain concepts in order for what is given to �/span> knowledge that we bring to bear
comparison/�/abstraction alone are not enough
Kant denies that self-consciousness of a sense-datum of reality without Categories
Kant is not refuting the Cartesian sceptic
Kant denies that we can have knowledge of objects without causation
if reject SAP, then Kant�s project is grounded
Custom ≠ SAP because not reason
time = a priori, but not synthetic because not a proposition
analytic = demonstrative, in one definition, or reducible to
a priori ≠ reason???
Quine objection to analytic/synthetic = problem with demonstrative
moral truths = SAP
�killing the innocent is wrong� ≠ analytic (true by virtue of the meanings of the words, but not reducible to demonstrative logic with synonyms)
SAP = a question for empiricism
knowledge of the world not direct from experience, = giving reason more than empiricists want to allow
Kant doesn't think that the Categories = all too human
they apply to the spatio-temporal world of empirical objects
Categories as spectacles behind the eyes
what about bats???
see space differently
but still need necessary connection
what about the Weather Watchers?
wouldn't have knowledge of objective world and self in relation to it
analytic/synthetic � meaning of propositions
rec/cont � truths, true of all possible worlds
thoughts that they all lined up
Quine attacks analytic/synthetic distinction � Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Kripke � N&N challenges that they line up (also criticises anomalous monism)
Kant + Causation, ed Robert Stein, by Stein
Transcendental Arguments � Problems and prospects � 2nd analogy
can't justify SAP
all SAP is problematic
Michael Ayer � Rationalism and Empiricism
empiricism � RTP/idealism too
what help for a realist???
Michael Lockwood � Mind, Brain and the Quantum
Inscrutability of matter chapter, first 10 pagfes on Berkeley, sympathetic
Galen Strawson � real materialism
can you really have a priori knowledge??? could our insensible man know anything, even a priori???
wouldn't a priori then have to be innate???
if we agree that an insensible man couldn't know very much at all a priori, somehow I don't feel it should follow that our senses are source of all our knowledge � I mean, is analogy synthetic a priori, for example??? is this what Kant means???
TI ≠ appearances/reality
do I accept SAP???
most people think that a priori = analytic
language = SAP???
how can a realist take SAP on board???
why is it a problem in particular for a realist???
Hume RTP???
causation over regularity
Cogito = transcendental argument???
is it an argument, or a non-inferential expression of a datum?
Kant means different things with experience in including knowledge(???)
must SAP derive from contingent experience???
we�d still have mathematical concepts
they�re just meta
but analytic truths also similarly originate in experience