I’m not going to spend much time on this, but taken in context, re: “given the two basic kinds....I await...” is a declaration of intention, not an “ask”.

Can’t be reading stuff into what wasn’t there, doncha know.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But experience is the teacher. — tim wood

Doesn’t this presuppose that which we wish to know? If experience is the teacher, from whence comes the teacher? Or, better yet....from what does the teacher learn?

But what is the ultimate measuring stick? Experience. — tim wood

Hume would clap for Scottish joy, that a modern intellectual finds his empiricist philosophy in good standing. Kant would exhibit typical Prussian indignation, that a modern intellectual neglects the implicit continuity, insofar as that which measures presupposes the ability, yet no account of it is offered.

There’s also a minor categorical error here, for we are talking about different applications of reason, but experience is the ultimate measuring stick of knowledge.

What are we to do with “exist together in independence of and without interference from each other”?

And no mention of the classifications of these kinds of reason. Practical reason can be pure, just as speculative reason can be impure.

Not to say that wasn’t some splendid axe-work. Far better than the general butchering running rampant hereabouts.

Isn't the CPR partly about to demonstrate how the a priori can yield knowledge of the independently real (Kant's letter to Herz 1772, cf. NKS) thus proving how transcendental metaphysical knowledge is possible?

"The primary problem to be solved is not how we advance by means of a priori ideas to the independently real, but how we are able to advance beyond a subject term to a predicate which it does not contain." - Commentary to Kant's CPR, NKS pp.26 1923

Does Kant define what is transcendental metaphysics in the CPR?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And how would he answer? — tim wood

“....I confine myself to the examination of reason alone and its pure thought; and I do not need to seek far for the sum-total of its cognition, because it has its seat in my own mind....”

“...the mere natural disposition of the human mind to metaphysics...”

“...For we have not here to do with the nature of outward objects, which is infinite, but solely with the mind, which judges of the nature of objects, and, again, with the mind only in respect of its cognition a priori....”

“....the form must lie ready a priori for them in the mind....”

As unsatisfactory as that may be, that the mind is the catch-all for that which can’t be explained....but there it is. Besides, if Nature teaches, why would the notion of Copernicus’ transitional thesis even be mentioned as a preliminary inspiration for the entire transcendental philosophy? I submit that we teach ourselves, Nature being nothing but the availability of occasions.

“....Transcendental philosophy is the idea of a science, for which the Critique of Pure Reason must sketch the whole plan architectonically, that is, from principles, with a full guarantee for the validity and stability of all the parts which enter into the building. It is the system of all the principles of pure reason. If this Critique itself does not assume the title of transcendental philosophy, it is only because, to be a complete system, it ought to contain a full analysis of all human knowledge a priori. Our critique must, indeed, lay before us a complete enumeration of all the radical conceptions which constitute the said pure knowledge. But from the complete analysis of these conceptions themselves, as also from a complete investigation of those derived from them, it abstains, partly because it would be deviating from the end in view to occupy itself with this analysis, since this process is not attended with the difficulty and insecurity to be found in the synthesis, to which our critique is entirely devoted, and partly because it would be inconsistent with the unity of our plan to burden this essay with the vindication of the completeness of such an analysis and deduction, with which, after all, we have at present nothing to do. This completeness of the analysis of these radical conceptions, as well as of the deduction from the conceptions a priori which may be given by the analysis, we can, however, easily attain, provided only that we are in possession of all these radical conceptions, which are to serve as principles of the synthesis, and that in respect of this main purpose nothing is wanting....”

Cop-out? Or maybe merely the lazy way of saying....hell, damned if I know where these come from, but trust me, my system needs them so they must be there? Kantian metaphysics suffers these explanatory-gap slings and arrows yet, perhaps even for good reasons.

But still, “all the parts that enter into the building” seems to say the mind isn’t part of the building, but is just where, or is merely a euphemism for where, the building happens to be done.
————

I'm compelled to believe that the challenge for education is to figure out how to make the most esoteric and difficult of scientific pursuits that which children can address. — tim wood

“We don’t need no education.
We don’t need no thought control.
No dark sarcasms in the classroom.
Teacher!! Leave us kids alone!!”

“....it would be more consistent to favour a criticism of this kind, by which alone the labours of reason can be established on a firm basis, than to support the ridiculous despotism of the schools, which raise a loud cry of danger to the public over the destruction of cobwebs, of which the public has never taken any notice, and the loss of which, therefore, it can never feel....”

All that to say this: you know of Ron White, right? Guy that made “you can’t fix stupid” into a whole Las Vegas comedy show. Tours, HBO special, an album, the whole shootin’ match. Anyway....the public being those under the influence of the schools, and the schools being that which is challenged in a particular domain, Kant metaphorically says, “you can’t teach critical thinking”, for thinking of the pure a priori kind, that “...which rises to the level of speculation...”, is a fundamental human attribute, and one must teach himself to do it properly, with the least error.

It seems to me......

Does Kant define what is transcendental metaphysics in the CPR? — Corvus

Not that I know of. Defines metaphysics as such, defines transcendental this or that pursuant to context, but doesn’t explicitly combine them. But he does so combine transcendental and philosophy, so one could make the leap if he wanted to badly enough.

Not that I know of. Defines metaphysics as such, defines transcendental this or that pursuant to context, but doesn’t explicitly combine them. But he does so combine transcendental and philosophy, so one could make the leap if he wanted to badly enough. — Mww

Sure, thanks for your confirmation. :up:

I have forked off a thread for Kant's Critique here, as to avoid getting the two books tangled up in one thread.

I have forked off a thread for Kant's Critique here, as to avoid getting the two books tangled up in one thread. — darthbarracuda

A great idea. :up: