And, also, I may be lost in the noise. — Moliere

There are (nudgenudgewinkwink) maybe 300 pages of CPR I’ve read 1000 times, and with which I can’t for the life of me agree or disagree. Bottomless pit of noise that, I must say.
————-

Yes, one world, for which the empiricists are right.
Yes, the representations of whatever the constituency of that one world, which is all we are ever going to possibly know anything about, for which the idealists are right.
Let the dualist games begin.

Hah! :D

asserted your idea of what made his philosophy dualistic, but this question only relates conceptions to each other, both of them….matter and noumena….implied as being real things, hence not establishing anything for dualism per se — Mww

I get that. It seems Kant wanted to disprove metaphysics as a science with Newtonian materialism. What do you think?

Kant wanted to disprove metaphysics as a science with Newtonian materialism. What do you think? — Gregory

Not quite.

@Jamal robbed me of this notion once upon a time -- it's not Newtonian mechanics as much as the basis of natural science which contrasts with the philosophical history of metaphysics.

To break it down it's more like: Hey, you notice how we know shit about the world? And can predict it? And that the history of metaphysics, in comparison, is nothing but verbal disagreements?

Must be that the metaphysicians don't know as much as the scientists -- at least they can agree upon things I can't disbelieve, unlike the metaphysicians.

It seems Kant wanted to disprove metaphysics as a science with Newtonian materialism. What do you think? — Gregory

I think he wasn’t trying to prove yea or nay, regarding metaphysics as a science, which presupposes it is one. He wanted to find out if it was possible for it to be a science in the first place, where such presupposition is lacking. Given a set of criteria for what science is, whether or not metaphysics exhibits those same criteria will determine whether metaphysics can be a science. Then all that’s left, is to figure out what kind of science it would be should the criteria be met, and dismissing it as a science if it cannot.

Turns out, metaphysics cannot be a proper science given the empirical criteria of Newtonian materialism, nor can it be a science given the Kantian rational criteria of pure synthetic a priori principles, insofar as, first, Newtonian materialism already refers to the science of physics thus to attribute to it metaphysics at the same time is self-contradictory, and second, those principles belong to reason alone, and science cannot be justified by any domain the only objects for which are transcendental ideas.

Metaphysics is then relegated to a natural disposition of the human intellect, merely that to which we as humans are generally and inevitably inclined toward, but for which no satisfactory justifications are afforded beyond pure transcendental logic. Which is an altogether crappy way to do science, right?

“…. Respecting these sciences**, as they do certainly exist, it may with propriety be asked, how they are possible?—for that they must be possible is shown by the fact of their really existing. But as to metaphysics, the miserable progress it has hitherto made, and the fact that of no one system yet brought forward, far as regards its true aim, can it be said that this science really exists, leaves any one at liberty to doubt with reason the very possibility of its existence….”
(**physics and mathematics)
(B21)

But never fear: just because metaphysics as a science lacks justifications, doesn’t negate the validity of a form of knowledge determined metaphysically, that is, in accordance with the pure a priori principles resident in and determined by nowhere else than in reason.

Besides…”miserable progress” implies that just because metaphysics wasn’t justifiable as a science in 1787 doesn’t mean it can’t be later. But then, there’s still those sets of criteria, which one would suppose would also have to become different. Good luck, I say.

I'm wondering what the ISBN of that book is in your picture? I want to look it up and see what the difference is. — Moliere

Sure.

Turns out, metaphysics cannot be a proper science given the empirical criteria of Newtonian materialism, nor can it be a science given the Kantian rational criteria of pure synthetic a priori principles, insofar as, first, Newtonian materialism already refers to the science of physics thus to attribute to it metaphysics at the same time is self-contradictory, and second, those principles belong to reason alone, and science cannot be justified by any domain the only objects for which are transcendental ideas. — Mww

Didn't Kant say that Metaphysics is possible as Science as long as it deals with the objects in our experience? For instance we can think and discuss about ideas, matters, logic and reasoning from metaphysical point of views. Physics cannot deal with these concepts. Metaphysics can. They are different types of Science.

I remain unconvinced….
— Janus

My fault for not putting up a convincing argument; nevertheless…. — Mww

Or it may be that an argument strong enough to convince you may not work on me—or vice versa.

Didn't Kant say that Metaphysics is possible as Science as long as it deals with the objects in our experience? — Corvus

Not that I’m aware. Metaphysics in Kant does not, in itself, deal with experience or its objects. It deals with how it is possible to know about them, which means, it deals with us and the proper use of our intelligence.

As well, ideas, logic and reasoning are not themselves objects of experience, so could be said to come under the metaphysical explanatory umbrella.

If you find otherwise, I’d be interested.
————-

Or it may be that an argument strong enough to convince you may not work on me—or vice versa. — Janus

D’accord.

Not that I’m aware. Metaphysics in Kant does not, in itself, deal with experience or its objects. It deals with how it is possible to know about them, which means, it deals with us and the proper use of our intelligence. — Mww

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? Physics cannot deal with any of these issues. Metaphysics can, and that is what Kant laid out in CPR as the principle of Metaphysics as Science.

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? — Corvus

The title says something very different. A critique of pure reason won’t have much to do with experience or its objects, and as a matter of contextual fact, makes serious effort to distance itself from them.

The origin, and relation to experience, of judgements and concepts, among other factors, such as understanding, intuition, consciousness, are metaphysical studies, I’ll grant that.

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? — Corvus

Is there a place in the CPR where "experience" has a self-evident role such as you describe?

Is there a place in the CPR where "experience" has a self-evident role such as you describe? — Paine

You really need to read much more than just CPR to understand what Kant was up to at the time. Read Leibniz, Wolff, and Baumgarten, then Hume and Newton, and many the other Kant's writings apart from CPR in order to grasp the full picture of what Kant was up to when writing CPR. Possible experience is what Kant regards as the domain of efficacy in our reasoning, where metaphysics is possible as a science.

I am familiar with those authors' participation in the conversation.

Shall I take your answer to be no in regard to the text of the CPR?

Yes, by all means present your own arguments citing all the authors and CPR and the other Kant's original texts too supporting your points, and we will take it from there.

I was asking you to support your claims by quoting CPR.

I found often it is meaningless to cite CPR in few sentences where the writings are vague and ambiguous due to the old translations. It would be far better reading the academic commentaries such as, Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth Century: 341 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 341), and Kant’s Cosmology: From the Pre-Critical System to the Antinomy of Pure Reason: 12 (European Studies in Philosophy of Science, 12).

Anyhow, if you are genuinely interested in the topic, you must also do some your own hard work trying to find out about it by your own researches and reasonings, and share the resources and your own arguments on the topic with others, rather than trying to get easy solutions just asking around to other folks. That wouldn't be much meaningful exercise to your own philosophizing.

I was asking you to support your claims by quoting CPR. — Paine

The point is that it is not a claim that can be supported by quoting a few recondite sentences in CPR. You must read the whole lot of authors involved in the system at the time, and understand the whole picture to be able to understand the claim.

The presumption that I seek only easy answers and have not read a lot is a low effort response on your part.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason.

Over here on the left On the right is
is possible experience logic, cogito,
It is potential, it is excitment. and logos
and anticipation

How do we find in these books the nous Anaxagoros?

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason. — Paine

It doesn't matter what you believe in my reading of CPR. It is not a philosophical issue.
It is also not matter how many times one read CPR, if one doesn't understand it correctly, or misunderstand the whole point and picture of it, then it would be blind and empty claims.
CPR is not the only work by Kant. Kant had written many other original texts.

The presumption that I seek only easy answers and have not read a lot is a low effort response on your part. — Paine

It was a natural inference on your question. Not a matter of effort.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason. — Paine

Judging from the quality of his responses I doubt he has read it, or if he has read it, I doubt he has understood it. As usual more posturing than substance coming from Corvus.

‘Tis most suspicious, to say the inventor of a paradigm-shifting epic, a magnum opus in form and function bequeathed to posterity in its completed form, had no interest in it.

O course, claiming an author wasn’t really interested could be simply a novel and daring approach to a not-so-simple work. But I doubt it’ll catch on.

As usual Janus posts are filled with scorn, anger and hatred towards others, rather than anything philosophical. I was only giving the best answer to Paine, when he asked as if he were a school master interrogating his pupils.

We have had many discussions on CPR itself citing the original texts in CPR for months and months with @RussellA and yourself, if you recall. But the outcome was not very clear, at which point forced me switch to reading the academic commentaries on Kant.

Possible experience is what Kant regards as the domain of efficacy in our reasoning, where metaphysics is possible as a science. — Corvus

We don’t care that metaphysics works as a science just fine with respect to possible experience; we’d be in trouble if it didn’t. We want to know if it works as a science for everything it is possible to think, insofar as the human being in general thinks ever more, and to a greater depth, than even his possible experiences. And it is just in these more common and deeper exercises of intelligence, that metaphysics, as the science of pure reason, that arena the objects of which transcend even possible experience, is found to be no help at all.
—————-

As usual Janus posts are filled with anger and hatred towards others…. — Corvus

Ehhhhh…..that’s a subjective judgement, better known as mere opinion, to which of course you are entitled. I don’t see it, but then, even if it was my opinion, by recognizing the subjective natural of it, I’d keep it to myself.

We don’t care that metaphysics works as a science just fine with respect to possible experience; we’d be in trouble if it didn’t. — Mww

It is not so much of our issue at this time of history whether metaphysics works as science or not.
We know what science and metaphysics are, and their shortcomings and capabilities too.

But you must be aware of the situation when Kant was alive. At the time physical science was taking over, revolutionizing the world, making the dominant subject metaphysics uncertain for its future.

Kant thought he could make metaphysics a legitimate science as physics or chemistry, by establishing its boundaries and domains where our reasoning can be applied like the other sciences, hence he wrote CPR.

Ehhhhh…..that’s a subjective judgement, better known as mere opinion, to which of course you are entitled. I don’t see it, — Mww

Of course you don't see it because you are not named in his scornful posts, and he treats you with respect for your condoning his nonsense. :D

It is not necessary to scorn and belittle others in the posting as he does. It is not the first time, and many folks noticed his problematic posts in that way in the past, and expressed their anger and frustration about the nonsense, but he still seems doing it.

I wouldn't have time to mention his name, if he didn't on mine. But he keeps doing it, hence just pointing it out hoping that he would stop self harming himself wasting his own time. If I find someone's posts poor quality and full posing with no substance in them, I would just walk away stop engaging rather than making any sort of personal comment on the poster. Life is too short for that sort of nonsense.

even if it was my opinion, by recognizing the subjective natural of it, I’d keep it to myself. — Mww

I only mentioned it only as a response. A regrettable point not initiated by me. However, I welcome all arguments purely on the philosophical point of views supported by reasoning, logic and evidence on the topics and relating to the topics.

We don’t care that metaphysics works as a science just fine with respect to possible experience; we’d be in trouble if it didn’t.
— Mww

It is not so much of our issue at this time of history whether metaphysics works as science or not. — Corvus

Agreed; it is the issue in Kant’s time. By “we” is meant humans in general, regardless of time. My fault for thinking this was the accepted implication meant by “we”.

Kant thought he could make metaphysics a legitimate science as physics or chemistry, by establishing its boundaries and domains where our reasoning can be applied like the other sciences, hence he wrote CPR. — Corvus

I think Kant wondered why it wasn’t, rather than thinking he could make it so. Before making it so, before he could make metaphysics a legitimate science, he had to think up an experiment along the same lines as that which establishes other domains as legitimate sciences. When he performed that experiment, he discovered he could not make metaphysics a science in the same manner as the established sciences, even while accommodating it under some conditions.

So….what are those boundaries? Therein lay the key.

When he performed that experiment, he discovered he could not make metaphysics a science in the same manner as the established sciences, — Mww

Doesn't Kant acknowledge that Metaphysics is not the same type of Science as the other Sciences?
To start, Metaphysics doesn't use experiments, observations, testing, measurements for its methodology. The methodology for Metaphysics is reasoning and logical thinking with the categorial a priori concepts.

So….what are those boundaries? Therein lay the key. — Mww

The full detail is in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.