Kant at the Bar: Transcendental Idealism in Daily Life

[Philosophy Now]

Patrick Cannon uses a popular setting to explain Kant’s metaphysics.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/95/Kant ... Daily_Life

[Dunce]

However, physical laws only apply to the phenomenal world, not the noumenal, Kant argued. So he's saying that physical laws don't say anything about the world in and of itself. In other words, the deterministic physical laws we're familiar with, like the law of gravitation, are only representative of human psychology, or how our minds organise the world for our experience.

Is this a fair characterisation of Kant's views? If so, does anyone agree with him these days? Was he just reacting to Hume's scepticism over causality? Finding a way round it because it freaked him out so much? Coherent as they are, Kant's views of physical laws seem a whole lot less plausible in the wake of all the empirical observation and development of scientific theories explaining such observation that has occurred since his day.

We are more chilled out about causality these days. Happy to assume a glass of beer will fall downwards rather than upwards. There is so much theory explaining why. We could do with more scepticism at times though. The practical tendency to make assumptions about causality can result in erroneous assumptions. This is particularly the case - and has particular implications - with assumptions about human behaviour. I've heard it stated, for example, that it is a statistically proven fact that couples are more likely to stay together if they get married. Of course it could be that the statistics are showing that couples are more likely to get married if they are the sort of couples who stay together. Or neither.

[Ginkgo]

However, physical laws only apply to the phenomenal world, not the noumenal, Kant argued. So he's saying that physical laws don't say anything about the world in and of itself. In other words, the deterministic physical laws we're familiar with, like the law of gravitation, are only representative of human psychology, or how our minds organise the world for our experience.

Is this a fair characterisation of Kant's views? If so, does anyone agree with him these days? Was he just reacting to Hume's scepticism over causality? Finding a way round it because it freaked him out so much? Coherent as they are, Kant's views of physical laws seem a whole lot less plausible in the wake of all the empirical observation and development of scientific theories explaining such observation that has occurred since his day.

We are more chilled out about causality these days. Happy to assume a glass of beer will fall downwards rather than upwards. There is so much theory explaining why. We could do with more scepticism at times though. The practical tendency to make assumptions about causality can result in erroneous assumptions. This is particularly the case - and has particular implications - with assumptions about human behaviour. I've heard it stated, for example, that it is a statistically proven fact that couples are more likely to stay together if they get married. Of course it could be that the statistics are showing that couples are more likely to get married if they are the sort of couples who stay together. Or neither.

Kant accepts Hume's claim that there is not logical necessity when it comes to matters of fact. While there is no logical necessity there may well be a psychological necessity when it comes to matters of fact. With this view in mind I don't think Kant would have a problem with the claim that out judgements can be erroneous.