Why Kant There be A Priori?

WHY KANT THERE BE A PRIORI?

1968 

There is no A Priori Knowledge:

i.)    All knowledge comes from experience.

ii.)   But knowledge, which is based on experience, can only be probable, and not certain.

iii.)         A Priori Knowledge is supposed to be certain and necessary.

iv.)  Therefore, there is no A Priori Knowledge.

         I will defend this argument.  Basically, I will use two examples of Kant’s to defend this argument.  One is that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and the second is A + B is greater than A.

         All knowledge comes from experience.  We know a triangle has three sides from observing triangles.  A triangle is a basic building block.  It is probably true that the triangle was discovered through trial and error.  Later, somebody called it a triangle and defined it as any figure having tri-angles formed by three joining sides.  Certainly we know that all triangles have three sides, but not A Priori.  We know from observing a triangle and being told all figures of this type have three sides.  We cannot define something with a definition, and yet triangle = three sides joined together is just that if we try to argue it is A Priori Knowledge.

         By the same token, it is not certain, except by definition, and definitions are only probable, for we cannot experience all they define and must accept the definition for their basic truth after all.

         If we take two examples used by Kant in Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, we will be able to see that experience is the only way to knowledge and that something considered A Priori can be uncertain.  For one thing, we generally say 1 + 1 = 2 is a priori.  But is 1 + 1 = 2 true in base two?  That is simply a different set of numeric values, or a different definition of the same equation, but then, doesn’t that bring us back to our argument that A Priori depends on definition rather than definition being A Priori?  If this is unclear at this point, let’s consider Kant’s claim that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  This is A Priori, for it is obvious in itself, is it not?  Not at all, for we must know not only the concepts of straight and points and distance, but we must know the conditions under which we wish to make the statement.  If it is two points upon the Earth’s surface, then a curved line is the shortest distance between two points because of the Earth’s curve.  And even in space, there can be some doubt, because some argue that space is curved.  So it is not certain, but only probable that the shortest distance between two points in space is a straight line.  And we can never be certain this is always true since we cannot follow the line to two points at the very ends of the universe.

         If there is still any doubt that experience is necessary for knowledge, let’s examine Kant’s other example:  A + B is greater than A.  This is obvious, is it not?  It is not.  We can show that this is not very simply.  Just line up all the numbers along side all even numbers.  Which is longer?  Is it the line containing all the numbers or the line containing only the even numbers?  Well, they are both infinities, so in this case the whole may be equaled by the part.  (Notice we say may, for we can never line up all the numbers and all the even numbers in order to be sure.)  In other words, we can’t actually experience the equation A + B is greater than A, if A = all numbers and B = all even numbers.

         Lastly, let’s consider Kant’s proposition that all bodies are extended, or at least, his concept of substance.  He has us strip away all that our senses show us, somewhat as Descartes did, but in the end, he says we have to recognize the space that the substance occupied.  But this space is actually nothingness.  We cannot recognize this space, for we cannot conceive of a concept of nothingness, for we have never experienced nothingness.  We only know something.  In fact, we define nothing as the absence of anything.  We do not say anything is the absence of nothing.  We do not even recognize nothing, except by the presence of something.  Nothingness is contained within the borders of something, and in this way, even a hole becomes something.  This may seem a circular argument, and it is, but it does show that a doubt exists and even nothingness is only a probability unless we actually experience it.

         In light of this and its application to our other examples, which can be done by us, and by the fact that I cannot prove it, because I cannot apply it to all examples of A priori Knowledge; therefore, there is no A Priori Knowledge.

For more information on Immanuel Kant, click on the title of this post.

Just Hume Kant be Modified?

Just Hume Kant be Modified?

1968

         Where as David Hume took the position that A Priori Knowledge is not concerned with anything in the world, Kant argues that A Priori Knowledge is very necessary to our understanding of the world and to empirical knowledge itself.  Kant divides our knowledge into two categories, which he calls synthetic and analytic.  Analytic judgment is that in which the predicate can readily be deduced from the subject.  Kant’s example is that all bodies are extended, a fact he claims is known because being extended is bound up with the concept of body.  A synthetic judgment is one in which the predicate is an additive to the subject which can only be asserted through observation and experience, and his example of this is all bodies have weight.  In other words, empirical knowledge is synthetic and A Priori Knowledge is analytic.  Of course, we can argue that in his example the concept of extension is as elusive to pure reason as the concept of weight.  Would not one have to see that bodies do extend into space to know that they extend into space?  A blind man in a free-gravity area would have no more conception of his extension then he would of his weight.

         This would be a small and mote point, except it argues against Kant’s very basic claim, and if so, weakens his whole.  However, let us consider that his analytic and synthetic knowledge is completely acceptable.  How is A Priori valuable to our world?  Kant tells us it is valuable because it is the basic beginning for the synthetic.  That is, if we strip away each layer of our synthetic knowledge, we always come back to another question that leads to another on to another and eventually we come to one that we accept some knowledge not from experience, but from A Priori.

         Kant finds A Priori to be both necessary and outside our experience. He uses as an example the equation 5 + 7 = 12.  We cannot experience this equation in itself, but yet we accept it, and we know it is set and unchangeable. We could examine five by building to five on our fingers, and seven by laying down sticks, and from this we could begin seeing the twelve, but in itself it stands alone.  Yet, is this as it seems?  That is, first, is 5 + 7 = 12 really seen intuitively or through A Priori, or is it accepted as final proof of already gathered experience?  Five fingers and seven sticks equals twelve has been experienced so often that the acceptance of 5 + 7 = 12 is automatic, but posteriori.  Consider the equation 2 + 3 = 5.  By Kant’s argument this would be A Priori, for we deduce the predicate from the subject, but where have we deduced the actual proposition 5?  The Hottentots can only count to three.  After three is many.  Do we have A Priori that 2 + 3 = many?  No, for we would not be certain that five is many.  Can the Hottentots look at 2 + 3 = 5 and know it A Priori?  No, not unless he can learn the concept of five, which is still agreeable to the definition of A Priori.  But to learn the concept of five, he would have to experience it.  Two fingers, three, four, five; ah, five!  Two fingers, he understands, and three also, and now five! If he holds up these two, it is two, and now these other three, and it is five!  He just experienced 2 + 3 = 5.  But if he held up two and just put them down, and then held up three and put them down, he may never see five, although he might understand the concept.  He must experience it.

For information on David Hume, click on the title of this post.

Distinctions Hume Kant Miss!

DISTINCTIONS HUME KANT MISS!

1968 

                                                                                           

         The relationship between Hume and Kant’s distinctions can be briefly summed-up by making a small chart and placing within it the ideas, or rather the theories, of each man under the headings.  It is not intended that this chart force a strict adherence to any set rule or category.  It is obvious that there are differences in the meaning of each category, but we are trying to show simply how Kant and Hume are similar.  In a way, they were working within the same theory, only differing to the degree to which they extended each part.  For instance, Hume accepted A Priori, but felt it had no real concern in the real world, while Kant felt that A Priori Knowledge was very necessary to our understanding of the world.  One could almost agree with both, if it was not a contradiction to do so.  In the end, Kant had the sounder theory. And that is the main difference between them, for it is in a contradiction.  Hume felt A Priori Knowledge, which he called matter of fact, was of no concern because there was nothing we could do about it.  Kant called A Priori analytic in his theory, but argued that it was necessary, not that we could do anything about it, but that certain knowledge that was A Priori was important to our understanding of certain sciences and events in out world.  In other words, the difference between Kant and Hume was that Hume felt A Priori was not concerned with the real world and Kant felt it was necessary for a real understanding of the real world. 

         The similarities between the two theories are shown in the chart below by relation of category under A priori and Empirical knowledge.

         A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE   |   EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE

    _________________________________________________________ HUME  matter of fact                  |       relations of ideas

    _________________________________________________________                       KANT         analytic                          |       synthetic                                

    _________________________________________________________                      

Why Philosophy?

1968

         There are two reasons.  First, it expands the ability to approach other knowledge with an open mind, as well as approaching the world in general.  Second, there is the discovery of the progression of thought through History and seeing how one philosophy led to another.  For instance, the relationship of logical positivism with Socrates or the shift of emphasis from Hume to Kant.

         There are disadvantages as well.  Philosophy makes it difficult to ever accept anything as absolutely true.  One will always be wary of a claim of fact, of a political speech, of am expert opinion.  There is also a discouraging aspect philosophy. It often leads to a void or to fatalism.  It is difficult to accept the idea that nothing is known for certain or that one’s life is determined by factors one has no control over.

         But, perhaps, these things are fairly obvious in life anyway, and perhaps it is their obviousness that causes us such despair.  And perhaps, then, philosophy can help to overcome the feeling, if not by providing answers, at least by occupying the mind with the search.