I cannot decide. I need to formulate an argument one way or the other.

Both of your comments were helpful.

Firstly, I would like to address jgweed's questions; Kant changed metaphysics because the traditional metaphysics dealt with reality and its structure where as Kant's metaphysics (post Critique of Pure Reason of course) was concerned with the a priori structures through which we perceive this reality, like you said, the conditions of knowledge. As Kant himself puts it; before, metaphysics assumed that our senses conform to the objects [of reality], now [Kant proposes] it shall concern itself with whether the objects conform to our senses.

Some would say that what Kant is suggesting is not "proper" metaphysics because the definition of metaphysics is closer to that which is explained formerly and not latterly. The latter, Kant's metaphysics, is therefore some different branch deserving of a different title. What do you think?

To kennethamy, what you said is interesting because that is his main method (I think?) of saving metaphysics. What I cannot grasp is how is showing that metaphysical claims are synthetic a priori claims have anything to do with what he said above, that we must start dealing with objects conforming to our senses.

Filling in on these areas would be much appreciated.

Do you think Kant's reform of metaphysics is a vindication or betrayal of it?

Can I reply to this?

Philosophy 101 Student forum for questions and answers in reading and writing philosophy and NOT for the expression of member opinions or ongoing discussions

The a priori "element" (as Kant calls it) in synthetic a priori truths is the result of "objects conforming to our senses". Objects are the way they are because we (rational beings) impose the forms of knowledge on them. For, example, the synthetic a priori truth that every event has a cause is true because we must understand the world in those terms (of causality). That is how the idea of the a priori in Kant differs so markedly from that of the Rationalists. For the Rationalists, the mind was just a passive "mirror of nature". But for Kant, the mind imposes itself on nature, and actively shaped what we know. The world (the phenomenon) is a product of the interaction between the human mind and the noumenon.