tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post6157906012466513548..comments2024-03-28T15:48:11.151-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: READING THE CRITIQUE PART FOURRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-35290772931428429702011-07-26T10:34:25.280-04:002011-07-26T10:34:25.280-04:00Indeed it does. Thanks for writing this helpful gu...Indeed it does. Thanks for writing this helpful guide from which I've already learned a lot.Paulushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951000158429766265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89399273450827224592011-07-26T10:02:45.404-04:002011-07-26T10:02:45.404-04:00Paulus, I shall bow to your knowledge of Germasn, ...Paulus, I shall bow to your knowledge of Germasn, which is almost certainly superior to my own. The important philosophical point remains, however.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36286096278564215052011-07-26T08:05:17.298-04:002011-07-26T08:05:17.298-04:00I could be wrong, but I always thought that Kant u...I could be wrong, but I always thought that Kant uses the awkward phrase "synthetische Urteile a priori" to mimic Latin (or French?) adjective placement after the noun and to avoid the even more awkward "A-priori-Urteile". But he does use the word as a modifier of the noun phrase "Urteil" (judgment), which I take you to deny. This grammatical point doesn't rule out that when Kant speaks of a priori judgments, he means something more complicated such as judgments of propositions which can be known a priori.Paulushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951000158429766265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-18371522922594136072011-07-23T14:50:35.583-04:002011-07-23T14:50:35.583-04:00Perfect!
Thank you very much.Perfect!<br />Thank you very much.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-69400486173892497482011-07-23T14:25:06.043-04:002011-07-23T14:25:06.043-04:00Propositions employing empirical concepts derived ...Propositions employing empirical concepts derived from eperience [bachelor, animal, happy, red, etc etc] are at best relatively a priori -- that is, knowable independently of experience that could confirm r disconfirm the ssertion being made. But mathematical propositions are knowable independently of all such experience, because we derive the concepts themselves from the form of spatial intuition inherent in the human mind. hence, according to Kant, the propisitions of geometry are not true of things as they are in themselves, but only true of things as they appear to us.<br /><br />Kant is aware of, but not interested in, the experiential or psychological processes by which we acquire concepts like bachelor.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81904041075435722702011-07-23T13:57:11.220-04:002011-07-23T13:57:11.220-04:00I guess another way of forming this crucial questi...I guess another way of forming this crucial question is:<br />Kant thinks we can know matters of mathematics and geometry a prior. You agree with me that we cannot know matters of human and worldly affairs a prior (bachelor being this case). Does Kant agree too, or does he think truly prior to all experience we can make analytic propositions of the bachelor sort?<br /><br />(Maybe there's a philosophical nomenclature for the distinction between analytic mathematical claims and analytic "other" claims)Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-78635750710801215652011-07-23T13:51:50.992-04:002011-07-23T13:51:50.992-04:00Thank you. One follow-up question if you don't...Thank you. One follow-up question if you don't mind.<br /><br />When you agree to what I stated, would Kant also of agreed to my contention? Does he anticipate it so to speak, or was my contention now pertinent in his period of thought? The question may seem frivolous but I want to make sure when rereading the introduction, and the entire volume, that I'm reading Kant, and not Wolffs amelioration ;)<br />That way I can better deal with Kant in his own paradigm of thought.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-65420990960199858382011-07-23T13:21:55.369-04:002011-07-23T13:21:55.369-04:00Ok, quite right. You cannot have the concept &quo...Ok, quite right. You cannot have the concept "bachelor" prior to or independently of all experience. But once you have the concept "bachelor," you can know the truth of the proposition that "All bachelors are unmarried" without, for example, doing a survey of bachelors. Whereas, even after acquiring the concept "bachelor," you would need to attend to experience to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the proposition "All bachelors are happy." But -- this will be in the next post -- you CAN according to Kant have the concept "triangle" prior to all experience of triangles.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-48186360458587524362011-07-23T13:13:07.294-04:002011-07-23T13:13:07.294-04:00Damn I'm glad you're doing this, because I...Damn I'm glad you're doing this, because I finally have a philosopher - and expert in Kant no doubt - to address what has ALWAYS befuddled me when trying to read the Critique.<br /><br />Let's take the classic analytic statement, a bachelor is an unmarried man. I can know this a priori. <br /><br />I've read that a dozen times as a philosophy student.<br /><br />Here's my contention, or maybe it's just a confusion. You defined a priori as: "prior to, or independently of, experience."<br />But, how can I know that a bachelor is an unmarried man prior to experience? For it takes an active experiencing life to becomes familiar with marriage, laws, sexual relationships, etc. There's no such thing has a bachelor in the paleolithic era, because there's no such thing as marriage. So, once I enter western world of experience, where marriage is common - and therefore the term bachelor can exist - I might know independently of experience that a bachelor is an unmarried male, but I can't know that a priori (as defined: prior to).<br /><br />It seems to me we can only know things independently of experience, after we've been an experiencing being, but that we cannot really know things prior to experience. Unless we're to fall back on some arguments from Plato's Phaedo...<br /><br />Again, I'm glad you're doing this. I'm determined to read Kant, but the obstacles I've had with intuition, and a priori, have made it a hazardous and unenlightening experience.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com