Kant: Metaphysics vs. Math and Science

Math and Science have limits wheras metaphysics has bounds. Math and Science are complete in themselves and there are no questions that are left unanswered with enough time, insight, and progress. Metaphysics is bounded and reason offers questions up to itself that it can't answer. Metaphysics asks questions about the nature of things themselves. In other words, metaphysics raises questions that could possibly left unanswered given alot of time and insight. However, all questions given by math and science have a final point or answer.

Kant: On cause and effect

Kant agrees with Hume in regards to the fact that we can't discover the concept of cause and effect through experience or by means of reason. However, Kant does not agree with Hume regarding that cause and effect is a result of habit. Kant feels that causation is a priori understanding applied to appearances. We can know nothing about the thing in itself but only can know about how they appear to us. Causation is a form given to experience that makes it intelligible to us. I do feel that what we know about things are in fact just what we percieve or see them as. We will never know enough about something in itself since we will always only be offered a form that is seen.

Kant: Judgements of perception vs. judgements of experience

Judgements of perception according to Kant bring together several empirical intuitions that are only subjectively valid. For example, the sun is shing broghtly and therefore I can make judegemnt that a water bottle sitting in teh sun for a while will be warm. However, such a judgement is only true for me at that particular time. Judgements of experience apply pure concepts of understanding to judgements of perception turning them into objective, universally valid laws. For example, the sun CAUSED the water to be warm. Judgements of experience are synthetic a priori laws which make natural science possible.

kant: on senses

Humans use the senses significant to them. This is definately true since we are all unique and this variety that exists between teh human race would not be possible is we did not use the senses that are in accordance with our character. Kant uses examples such as heat, color, and tastes to show that these are all ideas we have that possible will not hold ground outside our existence.

kant: on why reason exists

Kant does not feel that there is any way to know the purpose of reason's existence. However, he does offer some insight into the thought of reason's existence. He feels that reason exists to tech us that there is something beyond experience that we cannot know. Through reason, we are givena more balanced perspective on the world. I feel that Kant is correct in his hypothesis on reason's existence. Reason is what makes us test our thoughts and go beyond measures to prove them. We would question nothing in life without this reason andtehrefore many of our inventions would not have ever come about.

Kant: On math

In the beginning Kant poses four questions and on is How is pure mathematics possible? Kant then begins saying that math consists of a priori cognitions and therfore one must be able to draw connections between different concepts by means of some form of pure intuition. since math consists of synthetic a priori cognitions then some form of pure intuition is innate within us that allows these connections to happen without an prior experiences.

kant and metaphysical

kant says that metaphysical is nature experience and rational. he says that metaphysical is a concept of nature making it an experience. but kant also says that metaphysical is pure rational concepts which could never be an experience. not sure what he means by this i guess it's not one or the other i guess i can be either. kant also says that truth of falsity of the metaphysical can not be determined by experience, and kant says this is the essential part of metaphysical.

jimmy

kant a priori a problem for empiricism

kant is an empiricist however he many times refers to things like math as a priori. a priori meand knowledge independent of observation or experience. this poses a big problem for kant and empiricists however because the empiricists base their ideas on a posteriori judgments, meaning that all knowledge comes form experience. empericists believe that knowldge comes only from experience or observation. this is why a priori judgements present a problem to empiricists. it also makes me wonder why kant uses a priori examples in his writing.

jimmy

kant and math

kant says that math is a pure product of reason and thourughly synthetical. kant says math is some ground of cognition a priori. kant says that math is not empirical but it is pure and a priori. math's judgments are alway visual.

kant: metaphysical cognition

kant says that metaphysical cognition can not be empirical. metaphysical can not come from experiences, or be physical. kant says the metaphysical is pure knowledge coming from pure understanding and pure reasoning. kant says the metaphysical knowledge is a priori. meaning because it is not physical knowledge you do not need experience to learn or understand it.

jimmy

Hume: On induction

Hume argues that induction is founded on persistence of regularities and that we cannot know nature is uniform through reason since reason comes in two kinds and each is inadequate. the first reason that is not effective, deductive reasoning which Hume feels we cannot prove regularities will continue since nature's course may change. The second reason that is not effective is effectively, inductive reasoning and Hume says that founding regularity on idea that regularity has always worked in the past is arguing in a circle. Hume does not feel that just because A occurs B is soon to follow. I think Hume is correct in his thinking because just because we drowned in the pool doe snot mean we will drown everytime we go in a pool.

Hume: On miracles

Basically Hume is in accordance with what many philosophers before him and after him have felt about miracles. He believes that miracles are not true or even valid since there is no evidence showing miracles actually occurred and have went against the laws of nature. It is easy to believe in something that is set out in front of you but to a certain degree I think that faith plays the larger role in the miracle game. Faith that God gives some this power of miracles. However. these miracles should not have to be publicized to be believed as possible to occur. Hume is correct in saying that miracles cannot be true or valid to even think of actually happening. However, I feel yes there is no evidence but why would anybody lie about something as sacred as a miracle.

kant and senses

accourding to kant all of our senses and understanting helps us to make sense of our experiences. kant says we can not apprehend objects with out our senses. kant believed that newton proved that everything that happens can be governed by the laws of science, but without experience there can be no world

kant and a priori

kant felt that all knowledge is a priori meaning all knowledge comes form experience. kant says that there can be no doubt, knowledge can only be learned by experience. i dont know if i beileve him or not. there are somethings that you feel are inherent but what if it was something expirenced at such a young age you just dont conciously remember the experience even though it caused knowledge.

jimmy

Hume: Relation of ideas vs. Matter of Fact

Relation of ideas are a priori and indestructable bonds created between ideas. Statements that are logically true like 2 + 2+4 and all bachelors are unmarried are examples of relations of ideas. Matters of fact deal with experience. This is seen in things such as saying that it will rain tomorrow or that the sun was out today. they are learned or a posteriori and can be denied unlike Relation of ideas.

Hume: distinction between impressions and ideas

Impressions include immediate sense impressions of sound, sight, and touch. they are vivid mental sensations. Emotions are considered impressions for Hume. Ideas are secondary since they are merely about impressions and are memories, thoughts, or beliefs concerning our impressions. Any idea that cannot be found to reflect back on a simple impression is meaningless. Hume then dismisses the bulk of metaphysics as consisting of meaningless ideas.

Hume: missing shade of blue

in his missing shade of blue experiment, he asks us to imagine a man that has seen every shade of blue but one. He feels that this man will be able to see this missing shade of blue even thought he has never experienced it. He can see this shade of blue by looking at the two the lie to either side of it. However, here Hume contradicts his thoughts about only knowing things that we in fact can experience. I think this argument is not a strong one for Hume and is unnecessary since it contradicts evrything he says in Enquiries.

Hume on liberty and necessity

Hume opens his argument here by stating that this whole debate with free will is due to a loss of understanding for the meaning of the words. He feels that all disputes of teh subject of liberty are verbal arguments that lie in teh hands of understanding the true definition of what liberty stands for. Hume offers his own definition of liberty and his definition then relies on the what people define free as. Therefore, this whole debate seems like a neverending cycle where people need to have a definite unchanging definition of the word liberty and what free is in order for an understanding to be achieved.

hume and geometry

i think it's interesting that hume uses math and geometry to try to prove the laws of physics and nature. it is these same laws hume uses to defend every argument he makes. all of humes arguments are based on whether or not they are rational and can be proved by the laws of nature and physics. i like that instead of just telling he readers to believe something like some other philosophers did he trys to back up his proofs with more proofs.

jimmy

hume and god

hume never comes out and says there is no god but he pretty much says that christianity is based on falseness. hume says that christianity bases their teaching and beliefs in miracles and he thinks that miracles can not possible exist. hume says that if you put all the best evidence supporting a miracle on one side of a balance and true proved knowledge learned from experience on the other side, the side with the proof of miracles will come up short every time. he does not say there is no god but he does say he doesn't think miracles are possible.

jimmy

liberty and necessity

it seems that the biggest tension in the controversy of liberty and necessity in hume's point of view is the language and vocabulary. hume says that if the meaning of some word could have been agreed upon thousands of years ago than there would be less confussion when it comes to the agrument of liberty and necessity. because everyone views liberty and necessity a little different there can be no end to this argument.

jimmy

hume's missing blue

in the missing shade of blue argument hume completely contaticts him self. i don't want to go back to being mr. negativity and trying to find the flaw in every argument but how could you overlook this one. hume says that you cant know the effect of something without witnessing it, but now he is saying that if you told him there was a missing shade of blue he could get an idea of what it looked like by looking at the two shades on either side of the missing one. this also deals a little with induction i think, which he also said is not rational.

jimmy

hume and induction

when hume talks of induction, or kowing event B to follow event A he uses the example of the sun rising a lot. he says because the sun rises everyday you have no reason to believe it will not rise the next day. this is induction because there is not proof that the sun will rise again but common sense tells you because it rose to day and yesterday and the day before and the day before that, that it will indeed rise tomorrow. hume says that induction is not rational because you have no concrete way to proove it will happen even if common sense tells you it will.

jimmy

Hume on cause and effect

hume says that all matters of fact come from experience. he says that you cant know cause and effect untill you have experienced it. he says even adam, whose rational faciliteis supposed to be perfect, couldn't tell that the water would sufficate him just because it is wet. Also adam could not tell that fire would consume him just because it is bright and hot. he also says that if you are given something you have never seen before and asked to describe the effect it might have, you would have to run scenerio's through your mind on what it might do and most likely draw on past experiences that are similar.

jimmy

Kant on Math and Science

Right in the beginning of his 3rd part, Kant explains an overview of what he will discuss in this chapter when he says, "Pure mathmatics and pure natural science had no need for such a deduction (as has been made for both) for the sake of their own safety and certainty. For the former rests upon its own evidence, and the latter (though sprung from pure sources of the understanding) upon experience and its thorough confirmation." I see this as kind of what Hume was saying in his book about how math and science are solidified proof, and can't be taken for anything else because they are there in front of you, there is nothing you have to think critically about to analyze them.

Kant on Senses...

Kant tries to discuss how humans have senses that only are significant to them, he brings Locke's past philosophy as an example when he says, "Long before Locke's time, but assuredly since him, it has been generally assumed and granted without detriment to the actual existence of external things that many of their predicates may be said to belong, not to the things in themselves, but to their appearances, and to have no proper existence outside our representation." Kant gives examples of what he means by saying things like heat, color, and taste are all ideas we have, but may not hold ground outside of our existence. I did my best to try and understand what he was trying to say, and translated it best i could along with i agree that what he says is generally true on the subject at hand.

Kant vs Hume

Kant tries to argue against some of what Hume says about cause and effect. This is shown when Kant says, "Kant leveled his attack mainly against the third condition, but other people have found objections to the first two conditions as well. In the realm of colliding billiard balls, the cause does precede the effect in time." And Kant just continues to discuss other examples and what variables have brought him to question what Hume says in his book, trying to prove him wrong for what he discusses.

Kant on metaphysics

Right in the beginning of the book, Kant presents the question to all people whether a thing like metaphysics be at all possible trying to have people open their minds to what he has to say. I have trouble understanding him, but he says if a science like metaphysics is at all possible...there must be some sort of doubt surrounding the same subject, or at least that is what i gathered from what he says. Kant wants the reader to think about other various possibilities to go back and answer his original question.

Hume dealing with miracles

Like many philosophers, Hume does not believe miracles are possible because there is no concrete evidence that goes against laws of nature, that makes miracles an actual possibility. People claim to have an event like a miracle happen to them, but there is no proof of an actual miracle taking place, so in this case i have to take the side of many philosophers and say miracles are not an actual possibility. An example i can think of with people claiming miracles is someone saying they have seen God, but as we have talked about at length, human error is a normal part of everyday life, and nothing like this has ever been proven, so therefore, is not a miracle.

Hume on animals

Hume talks about how we as humans are almost exactly like animals and i tend to agree. We evolved from animals so its not surprising that we still carry many of the same traits. Some that i can think of off the top of my head are things like birth and emotionlike feelings of violence. There are many other traits between animals and us, but i think those are the ones that stand out, i also completely agree with what Hume says when comparing the two. Just too similar to not be of the same thinking.

Hume Science

Hume mentions and shows how much he enjoys math and the sciences because there is no chance at there being any fault. Math is there and the answers derived from there are what they are, there in no chance of lack of understanding because the answer is solidified and anyone can see the answer to a simple math equation without having to put any human error into it. I agree with Hume here, i don't like math, but there is no way to have error in simple math, math is taken for what it is based on equations that are performed.

Hume on Chance vs. Probability

Hume argues there is no such thing as chance in the world, but people put themselves in a superior position, or probability, that things will happen. He continues to talk about how besides chance there are causes, which many cases, happen very regular and predictable, but at other points may prove different, and i thought it funny that instead of philosophers calling it chance, they try to figure out what kept the cause from happening in its usual way, instead of just saying luck or chance.

Hume on the origin of ideas

I thought Hume's chapter on the origin of ideas was very interesting and right off the start began talking about how memory can be distorted and there is always a difference between actually physical feeling, and the memory trying to recall the feeling or sensation. One of my favorite quotes out of the book was the last sentence of his first paragraph when he says "The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation," that quote makes a lot of sense to explain how he feels about thoughts vs. sensation.