Implications of the syntethic a priori statement.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Implications of the syntethic a priori statement.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Edvin
 
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 11:12 am
Kant thaught that by explaining the nature of syntethic a priori statements one could determine the possibility, legitimacy, and range of all metaphysical claims. That is, solving the whole problem of differing wievs.

What exactly does the synthetic a priori concept implicate? I'm realy having a hard time figuring this out.

Any help will be much apreciated!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 01:59 pm
@Edvin,
Edvin wrote:
Kant thaught that by explaining the nature of syntethic a priori statements one could determine the possibility, legitimacy, and range of all metaphysical claims. That is, solving the whole problem of differing wievs.

What exactly does the synthetic a priori concept implicate? I'm realy having a hard time figuring this out.

Any help will be much apreciated!



Sounds like a question for a philosophy class paper to me. I am not going to try to tell you the answer, but I would advise you first to make it clear to yourself what is the difference between a synthetic and and analytic statement, and then what is the difference between saying of a statement that it is known a priori, and of a statement that it is known a posteriori (or empirically). You can easily look up this ideas by using Google. Kant held that if there were philosophical statements, then they would be synthetic a priori statements because such statements would be statements about "reality", but would not be known empirically or scientifically. And he asked how it was possible (if it was, which he thought it was) that there should be knowledge of reality, but this knowledge was not achieved scientifically.

And, by the way, the word. "appreciated" is spelled like that.
 
Edvin
 
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 08:37 am
@kennethamy,
I'm stuck in Bangkok, Thailaind atm, and I am not attending any philosophy course. Just genuine curiosity about Kants philosphy that made post the thread. A synthetic claim does not have the predicate contained within the subject. It rather amplifies the properties of the subject. By simplyfying the term one could say that a priori knowledge is knowledge that doesn't rely on experience for it to be known. So basicaly what he is saying is that if one could make judgements about an object without this being innate in the subject, and actually prove these claims one could "...determine the possibility, legitimacy, and range of all metaphysical claims."

Guess my question realy was, how does the statement "every event must have an cause" depend upon a priori knowledge? Is it not possible to know this a posteriori?

BTW. Sorry for any spelling mistakes. I'm norwegian so you'll have to excuse me Smile
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 09:02 pm
@Edvin,
Quote:
Guess my question realy was, how does the statement "every event must have an cause" depend upon a priori knowledge? Is it not possible to know this a posteriori?


Have you read up on David Hume? He is a good precursor to Kant.
 
Edvin
 
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2008 03:56 am
@de Silentio,
Yes, I have read some Hume. In Kants words: "...it was he who arose me from my dogmatic slumbers." The solipsism created by Humes philosophy was not a satisfying wiev of reality to Kant. Thus, he decided to revise the whole philosophy of Hume and arived at the conclusion that it had to be some sort of logical basis for substance for us to have any concept of, f.eks causality, where Hume would conclude that causality was simply an illusion we conjured up when we saw one thing happening after another. But even though our synthetic a priori concept of time and space could to some extent confirm that there was something of real substance that we percieved, I still cant see how, even though we found certain proof of this, that this would enable one to prove the legitimacy of all metaphysical claims. Maybe the answer is right in front of me, but one goes blind from staring at the sun Surprised
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2008 07:59 am
@Edvin,
Edvin wrote:
I'm stuck in Bangkok, Thailaind atm, and I am not attending any philosophy course. Just genuine curiosity about Kants philosphy that made post the thread. A synthetic claim does not have the predicate contained within the subject. It rather amplifies the properties of the subject. By simplyfying the term one could say that a priori knowledge is knowledge that doesn't rely on experience for it to be known. So basicaly what he is saying is that if one could make judgements about an object without this being innate in the subject, and actually prove these claims one could "...determine the possibility, legitimacy, and range of all metaphysical claims."

Guess my question realy was, how does the statement "every event must have an cause" depend upon a priori knowledge? Is it not possible to know this a posteriori?

BTW. Sorry for any spelling mistakes. I'm norwegian so you'll have to excuse me Smile


Kant pointed out that even if we could know that every event does have a cause empirically, it does not follow, nor is it true, that we could know that every event, must have a cause, empirically. Kant said that a priori judgments were, 1. universal, and, 2. necessary. And he denied that we could empirically know judgments that have those two properties.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 07:35 am
@Edvin,
Edvin wrote:
Yes, I have read some Hume. In Kants words: "...it was he who arose me from my dogmatic slumbers." The solipsism created by Humes philosophy was not a satisfying wiev of reality to Kant. Thus, he decided to revise the whole philosophy of Hume and arived at the conclusion that it had to be some sort of logical basis for substance for us to have any concept of, f.eks causality, where Hume would conclude that causality was simply an illusion we conjured up when we saw one thing happening after another. But even though our synthetic a priori concept of time and space could to some extent confirm that there was something of real substance that we percieved, I still cant see how, even though we found certain proof of this, that this would enable one to prove the legitimacy of all metaphysical claims. Maybe the answer is right in front of me, but one goes blind from staring at the sun Surprised


It would not, of course, prove that every metaphysical claim was true (that would be self-contradictory, since every claim has a negation, and both it, and its negation could not be true). What Kant meant was that it would show that metaphysics was a legitimate enterprise. It was that which was denied by Hume.
 
Edvin
 
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2008 01:09 am
@kennethamy,
So what Kant was basicaly doing was saving metaphysics all together by constructing a philosophy which where open to an objective reality, that Hume denied even existed.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2008 06:51 am
@Edvin,
Edvin wrote:
So what Kant was basicaly doing was saving metaphysics all together by constructing a philosophy which where open to an objective reality, that Hume denied even existed.


Kant wrote that the answer to his master question in the First Critique, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?", "was a matter of life or death for philosophy".
 
Edvin
 
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2008 12:21 pm
@Edvin,
So, proving that there was, in fact, a logical basis for substance out there, and that we to some extent could percieve it was another way of saying that if synthetic a priori judgements could be verified we could termine what could explain what, and to what extent.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2008 06:16 pm
@Edvin,
Edvin wrote:
So, proving that there was, in fact, a logical basis for substance out there, and that we to some extent could percieve it was another way of saying that if synthetic a priori judgements could be verified we could termine what could explain what, and to what extent.


Sorry, I do not understand what you have just written.
 
Edvin
 
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2008 06:22 am
@kennethamy,
Haha! Surprised That's ok. I think i understand what Kant was trying to say regarding the synthetic a priori statement. In time I will let you know what I meant to say
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Implications of the syntethic a priori statement.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 08:01:45