Kant's Synthetic a priori

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
OldTrog
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:06 pm

Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by OldTrog » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:40 am

I'm not a philosopher, but I keep bumping into philosophical questions. I'm interested in Kant's notion that we interpret the world in terms of space and time because these are synthetic a priori (not analytical a priori). To be more precise I'm interested in the arguments against this viewpoint based on the later discovery of curved space and the relative nature of time.

I don't understand why this would matter. So when Kant proposed his ideas we only knew of Euclidean geometry and we assumed time was constant (at least Newton did). if I understand correctly, this led Kant to claim our innate sense of space and time meant they were synthetic a priori. The gist is we are born with a sense of space and time (except a few people who have neurological issues and have various problems perceiving space in the normal way). So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time: we're not born knowing Euclid? If this is the case the discovery of a new geometry would not change Kant's basic premise.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:58 pm

Metaphysics or Epistemology section may be better for this question.

Impenitent
Posts: 1928
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by Impenitent » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:35 pm

OldTrog wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:40 am
I'm not a philosopher, but I keep bumping into philosophical questions. I'm interested in Kant's notion that we interpret the world in terms of space and time because these are synthetic a priori (not analytical a priori). To be more precise I'm interested in the arguments against this viewpoint based on the later discovery of curved space and the relative nature of time.

I don't understand why this would matter. So when Kant proposed his ideas we only knew of Euclidean geometry and we assumed time was constant (at least Newton did). if I understand correctly, this led Kant to claim our innate sense of space and time meant they were synthetic a priori. The gist is we are born with a sense of space and time (except a few people who have neurological issues and have various problems perceiving space in the normal way). So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time: we're not born knowing Euclid? If this is the case the discovery of a new geometry would not change Kant's basic premise.
the irremovable goggles are not sensed

-Imp

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:43 am

One of the most fundamental issue within philosophy is that of the Philosophical Realist versus the Philosophical anti-Realist.
In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
With the failure of Philosophical Realism to ground knowledge, Kant disagreed and went on the Philosophical anti-Realist's path, i.e. Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Kant in CPR wrote:But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis.
-Bxvi
In the Copernicus sense, all knowledge is directed and qualified to the human conditions as with the Philosophical anti-realist stance.

In this sense Kant's rest his argument on the main Philosophical anti-Realist premise as above.

Thus space and time which are intuitions and whatever has to be fundamentally leveraged to the human conditions beyond experience, i.e. synthetic a priori.

Thus any argument for the basis of space & time [curved, relative, whatever] that is not leveraged on the human condition i.e. independent and external to humans collectively is not synthetic a priori.

The first consideration for any discussion on Space and Time [actually any philosophical issue] is to find out its fundamental basis of knowledge, i.e. whether it is leveraged on Philosophical Realism or the Philosophical anti-Realism, then we deal with the details and nuances subsequently.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by Greta » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:13 am

OldTrog wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:40 am
I'm not a philosopher, but I keep bumping into philosophical questions. I'm interested in Kant's notion that we interpret the world in terms of space and time because these are synthetic a priori (not analytical a priori). To be more precise I'm interested in the arguments against this viewpoint based on the later discovery of curved space and the relative nature of time.

I don't understand why this would matter. So when Kant proposed his ideas we only knew of Euclidean geometry and we assumed time was constant (at least Newton did). if I understand correctly, this led Kant to claim our innate sense of space and time meant they were synthetic a priori. The gist is we are born with a sense of space and time (except a few people who have neurological issues and have various problems perceiving space in the normal way). So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time: we're not born knowing Euclid? If this is the case the discovery of a new geometry would not change Kant's basic premise.
It's basically the same as what Einstein observed, that space and time - at least as we perceive them - are relative concepts rather than absolutes.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by -1- » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:12 am

OldTrog wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:40 am
I'm not a philosopher, but I keep bumping into philosophical questions. I'm interested in Kant's notion that we interpret the world in terms of space and time because these are synthetic a priori (not analytical a priori). To be more precise I'm interested in the arguments against this viewpoint based on the later discovery of curved space and the relative nature of time.

I don't understand why this would matter. So when Kant proposed his ideas we only knew of Euclidean geometry and we assumed time was constant (at least Newton did). if I understand correctly, this led Kant to claim our innate sense of space and time meant they were synthetic a priori. The gist is we are born with a sense of space and time (except a few people who have neurological issues and have various problems perceiving space in the normal way). So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time: we're not born knowing Euclid? If this is the case the discovery of a new geometry would not change Kant's basic premise.
I find a lot of philosophy is completely useless, even for philosophers. Like, " a straight line is straight, not curved." This can be, and is, beaten to death. Why it is necessary to describe the obvious, I don't know. The only reason would be is to illustrate that what's obvious to humans are not generally obvious; or what's obvious to some humans, are not obvious to all humans. This latter is the only one that I feel makes mincing words justified.

OldTrog
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by OldTrog » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:31 pm

Impenitent wrote:
the irremovable goggles are not sensed
Thanks for the reply. Since I'm not versed in philosophical terminology I have to guess that this refers to my wording
So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time...
. I get why you say that, but I'm not certain how I'd say it without using words like "experience the world through space and time". Would "know the world in the context of space and time" be more correct? How would you say it?


HexHammer
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by HexHammer » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:34 am

OldTrog wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:40 am
I'm not a philosopher, but I keep bumping into philosophical questions. I'm interested in Kant's notion that we interpret the world in terms of space and time because these are synthetic a priori (not analytical a priori). To be more precise I'm interested in the arguments against this viewpoint based on the later discovery of curved space and the relative nature of time
99.999% of what Kant said is outdated and has ZERO relevance, only clueless, ignorant and low IQ people would ever waste time on outdated philosophy! Sorry to wake you up!

OldTrog
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by OldTrog » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:16 am

HexHammer wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:34 am
99.999% of what Kant said is outdated and has ZERO relevance, only clueless, ignorant and low IQ people would ever waste time on outdated philosophy! Sorry to wake you up!
Thank you for your well reasoned argument.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1759
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am

- I - wrote:
I find a lot of philosophy is completely useless even for philosophers. Like a straight line is straight not curved
This can be and is beaten to death. Why it is necessary to describe the obvious I dont know
A straight line in space can become curved by the effects of gravity but it is still a straight line so it is not as obvious as you think it is
Likewise any journey travelling right across Earth in an absolute straight line is impossible because it is not flat but an oblate spheroid

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests