PROLEGOMENA § 40-45
Conclusion:
Metaphysics lies outside the boundaries of experience and
thus cannot be confirmed or discovered through experience, because of this
metaphysics deserves it’s own deduction.
"Consequently, the objective
reality of these concepts (metaphysics)… and also the truth or falsity of
metaphysical assertions cannot be discovered or confirmed by any experience.
This part of metaphysics, however, is precisely what constitutes its essential
end, to which the rest is only means, and thus this science is in need of such
a deduction for its own sake”(40/327).
Premises:
1. Reason aims for “the collective unity of experience” and
going beyond experience becomes “transcendent” (40/328).
a)
Single experience is part of the whole of all experience (40/328).
b)
Absolute totality of all possible experience is not experience in itself (40/328).
2. Concepts of reason and concepts of understanding are
different (41/329).
a)
All cognitions of the understanding contain the concepts of experience, the principals
of which can be confirmed within it. (42/328).
b)
Reason cannot either as ideas through experience or as propositions ever
be confirmed or refuted by it (42/328).
3. The understanding combines with the ideas of pure reason which
has a purpose outside of the experience of the understanding (44/331).
4. Pure Reason, in principal, requires completeness of the
use of the understanding in the whole complex of experience (44/332).
There are many fields that try to use reasoning that captures the totality of experience. In grammar, every complete thought must have a subject and a predicate. In economics, the price of goods and services are always regulated by the laws of supply and demand. In Biology, all of life originated from a common ancestor.
ReplyDeleteThe first two (for grammar and economics) are a priori synthetic. They are universal and necessary, they regulate experience and they build on their own reasoning. In grammar, the subject-predicate relationship can build on itself to talk about nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, gerunds, appositives and participles. In economics, the laws of supply and demand can discuss the situations of monopolies, monopolized competition, oligarchy, perfect competition, complementary goods, substitutes, inflation, trade and elasticity.
As much as evidence as there is for the theory of evolution, I will have to concede that it is not a piori synthetic. It, in many ways, does build on itself with ideas such as natural selection, adaption, speciation, co-evolution, analogy and homology. It does regulate experience, and it is universal and necessary. But unfortunately, it does not satisfy a condition to be apriori. You said: "Reason cannot either as ideas through experience or as propositions ever be confirmed or refuted by [experience] (328)." Evolution however can be refuted by experience. If we for example find a 5 billion year old fossil buried below Hunter college, it will present a serious challenge to the theory.
Such a fossil hasn't been discovered. But if it was, I would see it more as
evidence for alien life, or of a God, than as evidence against evolution. So perhaps, the theory of evolution still is a priori synthetic.
Hey Zac,
ReplyDeleteThere may be some confusion with Kant's terminology and I would have to disagree with you on some of your points.
When Kant says, and I'm paraphrasing,"(Pure)Reason cannot either as ideas through experience or as propositions ever be confirmed or refuted by experience(328)." I think he may mean something different than your interpretation of it.
I believe in the most basic terms that Kant means we can never find or have "Pure Reason" by or through experience.
All science, by its very nature, is based on experience and as such cannot be included in the realm of "Pure Reason". This goes for the science behind evolution, and even though some of the mathematics behind economics is synthetic a priori, the science as a whole is not.
When Kant uses the term "Pure Reason" he means something that exist outside of experience, which limits greatly the amount of systems and "things" that can be true "Pure Reason".
Hey Brent,
ReplyDeleteI can respond to your objection, but I want to leave it to someone who hasn't had a chance to post yet.
A hint to that someone: think about how Kant explains pure mathematics and pure natural science.
I believe in evolution. I discussed whether it's a priori or not, not whether it's valid or not.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your conclusion. The way I interpret the text is that metaphysics is both the concept of nature and of pure rational concepts, which means is is of both experiance and of something not of experiance. I believe that the Kant is saying that the part of metaphysics that is of something outside of experiance needs to be looked at furture, and because of this this unknown, it could be the demise of metaphysics. I belive the true question is on pg 64,31 when it says "Metaphysics is subjectively actual...how is it (objectively) possible".
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with your conclusion and I would agree with Shantae to an extent. I understood the text as metaphysics being a possibility (and only possibility) of both experinece and not of experience. I do not think he meant that the unknown was to be looked at in future but that the unknown is the limit of our understanding. To think that it is something that could be looked at in future implies that the conditions or categories utiized to present his arguement would somehow change and the answer would be become clear. I think Kant believes metaphysics to be a possibility only to be negated or confirmed after life.
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to save some time I will reply to both of you, Shantae and Pamela. I can't say whether my interpretation of the main conclusion of the passage is wrong though I do maintain that it is one of the most important points of Kant's metaphysics. It seems like a point that is still muddled to many.
DeleteSaying that metaphysics is possible through both experience and not experience is a complete contradiction.
Kant states clearly that a metaphysics lies outside experience and cannot be found or confirmed within it (40/327). He does state however that metaphysics requires in principal the "completeness of the use of understanding in the whole complex of experience"(44/332). The whole complex of experience not being experience itself, as single experience is only part of the whole of experience which again to Kant is not experience in and of itself (40/328).