FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129  
130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   >>   >|  
as successions in our perception. Further, not only are we aware of this distinction in general, but in particular cases we succeed in distinguishing a succession of the one kind from a succession of the other. Yet from Kant's standpoint it would be impossible to distinguish them in particular cases, and even to be aware of the distinction in general. For the distinction is possible only so long as a distinction is allowed between our perceptions and the realities perceived. But for Kant this distinction has disappeared, for in the end the realities perceived are merely our perceptions; and time, if it be a characteristic of anything, must be a characteristic only of our perceptions. CHAPTER VII THE METAPHYSICAL DEDUCTION OF THE CATEGORIES The aim of the _Aesthetic_ is to answer the first question of the _Critique_ propounded in the Introduction, viz. 'How is pure mathematics possible?'[1] The aim of the _Analytic_ is to answer the second question, viz. 'How is pure natural science possible?' It has previously[2] been implied that the two questions are only verbally of the same kind. Since Kant thinks of the judgements of mathematics as self-evident, and therefore as admitting of no reasonable doubt[3], he takes their truth for granted. Hence the question, 'How is pure mathematics possible?' means 'Granted the truth of mathematical judgements, what inference can we draw concerning the nature of the reality to which they relate?'; and the inference is to proceed from the truth of the judgements to the nature of the reality to which they relate. Kant, however, considers that the principles underlying natural science, of which the law of causality is the most prominent, are not self-evident, and consequently need proof.[4] Hence, the question, 'How is pure natural science possible?' means 'What justifies the assertion that the presuppositions of natural science are true?' and the inference is to proceed from the nature of the objects of natural science to the truth of the _a priori_ judgements which relate to them. [1] B. 20, M. 13. [2] pp. 23-5. [3] Cf. p. 24, note 1. [4] Cf. p. 24, notes 2 and 3. Again, as Kant rightly sees, the vindication of the presuppositions of natural science, to be complete, requires the discovery upon a definite principle of _all_ these presuppositions. The clue to this discovery he finds in the view that, just as the perceptions of space and time orig
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129  
130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

natural

 

science

 
distinction
 

judgements

 

perceptions

 

question

 

mathematics

 
inference
 

presuppositions

 

relate


nature

 

characteristic

 

reality

 

evident

 

proceed

 
answer
 

discovery

 
succession
 

general

 

realities


perceived

 

underlying

 

principles

 
considers
 

principle

 

causality

 
rightly
 

justifies

 
assertion
 

priori


vindication
 
prominent
 
definite
 
complete
 

requires

 

objects

 

allowed

 

disappeared

 

CHAPTER

 

distinguish


succeed

 
distinguishing
 

Further

 

successions

 

perception

 

impossible

 

standpoint

 
METAPHYSICAL
 
DEDUCTION
 

admitting