Kant's Synthetic a priori
Kant's Synthetic a priori
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 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.
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
Metaphysics or Epistemology section may be better for this question.
-
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
the irremovable goggles are not sensedOldTrog 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.
-Imp
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
One of the most fundamental issue within philosophy is that of the Philosophical Realist versus the Philosophical anti-Realist.
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.
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.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
In the Copernicus sense, all knowledge is directed and qualified to the human conditions as with the Philosophical anti-realist stance.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 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.
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
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.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.
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
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 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.
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
Impenitent wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Since I'm not versed in philosophical terminology I have to guess that this refers to my wordingthe irremovable goggles are not sensed
. 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?So isn't Kant saying we born with a sense of space and time...
-
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
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 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
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
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- 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
Likewise any journey travelling right across Earth in an absolute straight line is impossible because it is not flat but an oblate spheroid
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
I thank everyone for their replies. I understand what Kant said; it's the details I struggle with. I also understand enough of the mathematics: that’s not my problem. Kant’s philosophy influenced a few practical advances which interest me:
1. Jakob von Uexküll and the biological concept of Umwelt.
2. Thomas Sebeok’s Biosemiotics.
3. Jean Piaget’s developmental theory.
4. Norbert Weiner’s cybernetics – and therefore robotics and control theory.
5. The cognitive mathematical theories of Lakoff and Nunez.[/list]
In his book “What is Mathematics, Really?” Ruben Hirsch summarises Kant beliefs when he writes: “Space and time are ‘a priori forms of human sensibility’, and space and time lay at the basis of all sensory experience: they condition and structure any empirical observations.” p131.
Hirsch goes on to say, “Space and time are ‘a priori forms of human sensibility’: they condition whatever is apprehended through the senses. Mathematics could accurately describe the empirical world because mathematical principles necessarily involve a context of space and time, and space and time lay at the basis of all sensory experience: they condition and structure any empirical observation.”
Among Hirsch’s criticism of Kant, “…in spite of a development in geometry that made Kant’s account of space untenable. That development was non-Euclidian geometry.” With this Hirsch dismisses Kant’s ideas. In his notes Hirsch goes into depths of Euclid’s 5th (the parallel axiom) – the fall of which caused a crisis in mathematics. In reading his notes I fleetingly grasped a reason for the dismissal: Kant assumes:
1. Humans condition their perceptions to share a ‘sense’ of space and time.
2. Mathematics describes space and time.
3. Therefore humans share mathematics.
The downfall of Euclid does not seem enough to expel Kant’s beliefs. Replacing one geometry with another doesn’t, to me, alter our conditioning: it does change the mathematics. The same applies to variable time.
It is worth noting not all humans condition their perception of space and time in the same way. Psychologists report cases of people who don’t and who struggle to live normal lives. See John Raty’s ‘Users Guide to the Brain’.
So I still don’t understand why Hirsch (and I know he’s not alone) use non-Euclidian geometry as sufficient to dismiss Kant. I will appreciate any help in understanding this issue.
1. Jakob von Uexküll and the biological concept of Umwelt.
2. Thomas Sebeok’s Biosemiotics.
3. Jean Piaget’s developmental theory.
4. Norbert Weiner’s cybernetics – and therefore robotics and control theory.
5. The cognitive mathematical theories of Lakoff and Nunez.[/list]
In his book “What is Mathematics, Really?” Ruben Hirsch summarises Kant beliefs when he writes: “Space and time are ‘a priori forms of human sensibility’, and space and time lay at the basis of all sensory experience: they condition and structure any empirical observations.” p131.
Hirsch goes on to say, “Space and time are ‘a priori forms of human sensibility’: they condition whatever is apprehended through the senses. Mathematics could accurately describe the empirical world because mathematical principles necessarily involve a context of space and time, and space and time lay at the basis of all sensory experience: they condition and structure any empirical observation.”
Among Hirsch’s criticism of Kant, “…in spite of a development in geometry that made Kant’s account of space untenable. That development was non-Euclidian geometry.” With this Hirsch dismisses Kant’s ideas. In his notes Hirsch goes into depths of Euclid’s 5th (the parallel axiom) – the fall of which caused a crisis in mathematics. In reading his notes I fleetingly grasped a reason for the dismissal: Kant assumes:
1. Humans condition their perceptions to share a ‘sense’ of space and time.
2. Mathematics describes space and time.
3. Therefore humans share mathematics.
The downfall of Euclid does not seem enough to expel Kant’s beliefs. Replacing one geometry with another doesn’t, to me, alter our conditioning: it does change the mathematics. The same applies to variable time.
It is worth noting not all humans condition their perception of space and time in the same way. Psychologists report cases of people who don’t and who struggle to live normal lives. See John Raty’s ‘Users Guide to the Brain’.
So I still don’t understand why Hirsch (and I know he’s not alone) use non-Euclidian geometry as sufficient to dismiss Kant. I will appreciate any help in understanding this issue.
-
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
not exactly...OldTrog wrote:...
1. Humans condition their perceptions to share a ‘sense’ of space and time.
2. Mathematics describes space and time.
3. Therefore humans share mathematics.
1. conditioning has nothing to do with it... impressions "appear" in time and space... space and time are not necessarily shared, and each impression is unique to that, or whom, on which the impression is made...
2. Some mathematical systems describe time and space... some "spaces" are more dimensional than others
3. mathematics is nothing but another language
-Imp
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
Sorry let me try another approach, Kant wasn't a scientist, but merely a "day dreamer" nothing of what he said has any relevance in a scientific relation, don't waste time on him either in philosophy, sure he has said a bit wise, but it can be boiled down to literaly a few lines out of his many works.
Re: Kant's Synthetic a priori
Your ignorance of Kant is showing Hex:HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:34 am99.999% 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 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
The wave function straddles the classic Kantian boundary, sharing some properties with phenomena, others, as underlying phenomena, with things-in- themselves...Kant's idea that space and time do not exist among things-in-themselves has been curiously affirmed by Relativity and quantum mechanics.
friesian. com