|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
What does Kant mean by claiming that space and time are (a) a priori and (b) intuitions? ...
Kant gives us the definition of intuitions as representations of objects that are given to us as a function of sensibility. ... Hence the famous dictum “thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind”. ... Kant then elucidates that the matter# of an object is a posteori and that it’s form is a priori. If form is a priori then there will be intuitions which are “pure” i.e intuitions “not containing anything belonging to sensation”.
A priori for Kant is tied up with universality and necessity (it is with these in mind that he later reveals the argument from geometry). There is a problem with the concept however since a priori can either mean not arising out of experience or a prerequisite for experience. Although as a Transcendental Idealist he would have to mean the latter of the two it is never quite explicit in the Critique which of the two he actually means.
There are in total six arguments that mean to show that space and time are pure intuitions; the first five are in the Transcendental Aesthetic#, the final one, the argument from incongruent counterparts occurs in the Inaugural dissertation and the Prolegemona. ...
The first argument is this “space is not an empirical concept that has been drawn from outer experiences …the representation of space cannot be obtained from the relations of outer# experience, but this outer experience is itself first possible only through this representation”. Kant’s view here is just the Transcendental idealist view of a priori i.e the representation of space is a prerequisite for us to experience objects in space distinct from us. ... For example it is possible that the world and space could be “given to us a posteriori at a single stroke”. Srawson labels space and outer objects as “cotemporaneous”, thus neither is prior to the other. ...
Gardner offers a defence for Kant. ... Guyer has shown that Kant and indeed Gardner’s arguments depend not on the notion
“ 1. ...
It is obvious by Gardner’s argument that this is the notion of necessity that he takes Kant to be holding and indeed if we look at the argument from geometry it seems to be the case. ...
The second argument Kant uses is that “one can never represent that there is no space…. ... Kant’s meaning here is that firstly we can’t picture a world in which space is non-existent and secondly that this is a condition for appearances. We can easily think of space without objects in it but it is extremely hard to think of the absence of space itself. ... But Kant will want to deny this because it would then make his view that geometry is synthetic a priori a psychological fact, i. ... But remember also that space is the form of intuition, viewed in this context it becomes more clear what Kant intends.
Approximate Word count = 2380
Approximate Pages = 9.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|