This is where Kant seems to be showing his inconsistency in CPR. If you think about it, you only observe the objects and the changed objects in empirical reality through time via your sense. There is no such a thing as "change" in the empirical reality. The concept 'change' comes from your mind via a priori intuition. It is nothing to do with the way reason works, but it is how we acquire a priori synthetic knowledge in TI.It is nothing to do with pure or impure….
— Corvus
….yet he states, clear as the nose on your face…..impure. How can it have nothing to do with exactly what he’s saying? — Mww
Some physics knowledge is definitely both a priori and a posteriori, hence synthetic a priori.Math is purely a priori because it constructs its own objects; physics is a posteriori because its objects are or can be given to it from an external source, re: the world. — Mww
We were quoting the same verse. I am not sure "impure" would be the right term. He has given out the official term for it i.e. "synthetic a priori" knowledge.“….. Mathematics and physics are the two theoretical sciences which have to determine their objects à priori. The former is purely à priori, the latter is partially so, but is also dependent on other sources of cognition….”
Partially so means impure; other sources means from out in the world, or, experience. — Mww
Kant thought that just empirical knowledge for the objective sciences were not enough to be the source of infallible knowledge. The A priori elements are needed for the science to be able to have grounds for the rigorous system of knowledge.Knowledge given from the objective sciences is empirical, it informs as to experiences of the world; it is the way in which the knowledge is acquired, the systemic methodology for the development of principles and judgements, better known as logic, the intellect uses to acquire it, that is pure a priori. — Mww
empirical knowledge for the objective sciences were not enough to be the source of infallible knowledge. — Corvus
The A priori elements are needed for the science to be able to have grounds for the rigorous system of knowledge. — Corvus
I am not sure "impure" would be the right term. He has given out the official term for it i.e. "synthetic a priori" knowledge. — Corvus
What pitfalls must i avoid in reading this section? — AmadeusD
Great point. :up:These secondary sources point at a distinction between the importance of the form of a logical statement in traditional logic and the importance of the content of a logical statement in transcendental logic
Perhaps this means that a logical stalemate is as much dependent on its content as its form — RussellA
They sounded to have read somewhere about the traditional logic, and it is the only form of logic in existence, and have been opposing on the view that Logic can require contents for its operation. :roll: — Corvus
I don't subscribe to the most of Wiki info. In the past any tom dick and harry used to go to Wiki and populate the contents with whatever contents they like. Not sure this is still the case.However, according to the Wikipedia article on Logic, logic only deals with the form of an argument and not the content of an argument:
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. — RussellA
Mww (…) been opposing on the view that Logic can require contents for its operation. — Corvus
Yep, he does, at least empirical content. If one wishes to insist the content of logic is its own laws or principles for its operation, he has misdirected it, insofar as the laws of logic apply to the operation of the understanding, such that the application of its own laws to itself, is absurd. — Mww
Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon) in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever. Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy….” — Mww
Kant had low opinion on Logic…. — Corvus
Until one reads the statement with the analytic content in full, nothing is presupposed. The statement can be anything until it ends with ".".An aberration of the whole point. You’re giving an example from understanding’s point of view, which presupposes the logic. — Mww
Even after the clear example of the most basic operation of Logic from the content of a concept, if you still keep denying it, then it seems you are denying not knowing what you are denying.I’m denying the content of logic in its operation, which is true, I can still affirm the necessity of content for its proofs. Examples merely suffice to demonstrate the validity of a logical condition, but do nothing to establish what that condition is. — Mww
It is a well known fact from the numerous commentaries on Kant.Or did he have a low opinion of the typical employment of it, in which manifests the “mere prating”? — Mww
Until one reads the statement with the analytic content in full, nothing is presupposed. — Corvus
Even after the clear example of the most basic operation of Logic — Corvus
It is a well known fact from the numerous commentaries on Kant. — Corvus
Nothing is presupposed in nature and human intellect. That is why we need observation, reasoning and logic in coming to knowledge. When you see the data or content, you record, reason and apply logic to come to judgements.Oh dear. The entire human intellectual system is presupposed. Do you have any idea at all, just how far it is in the procedural methodology, between reading the statement and the installation of the analytic content of it?????? — Mww
That is just one side of logic, which is the traditional logic. You have a sea of different school of Logic doing things differently for different subjects, which you seem to have no idea of. Even just after Kant, Bolzano has his own theories in Science and Logic, and many other Neo-Kantian and Anti-Kantian philosophers came up with their own views and systems on Logic.According to Kant, the most basic operation of logic “treats of the form of the understanding only”. How is your example anything like that? — Mww
Kant had very limited views and knowledge on Logic.When he says stuff like, “further than this logic cannot go”, he’s just warning the po’ fools trying to misuse it, but not that the misuse is the fault of logic. — Mww
The entire human intellectual system is presupposed….
— Mww
Nothing is presupposed in nature and human intellect. That is why we need observation, reasoning and logic. When you see the data or content, you record, reason and apply logic to come to judgements. — Corvus
many other Neo-Kantian and Anti-Kantian philosophers came up with their own views on Logic. — Corvus
Kant had very limited views and knowledge on Logic. — Corvus
Under that system, one would be very prone to fall into prejudice and illusions instead of knowledge.To record, reason and apply logic presupposes the capacity for it. To come to judgement presupposes there is that which is possible to come to. — Mww
There would be little point staring at the thread title all day long, if one cannot extend Kant's works into the present time of consciousness and reality.Undoubtedly, but irrelevant.
(Glances up at thread title) — Mww
Past is only significant in the perspective of NOW. Future is the same. We only have NOW. We can only look at anything from NOW. If you think you can be in 1781 in reality, then you are in deep illusion. :)Compared to what….2023? Wonder what the views will be in 2123. Oh so easy to look backwards, innit? — Mww
There must be more than just one way to interpret Kant….. — Corvus
I don't subscribe to the most of Wiki info. — Corvus
From the traditional logic perspective, they insist that contents is not dealt by logic. Fair enough on that. But from all the other logic, content itself is important part of logic. If you read Bolzano's Theory of Science, you would agree. — Corvus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.