TFBW's Forum
http://forum.tfbw.com/

Kant or nonsensibility
http://forum.tfbw.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=81
Page 1 of 1

Author:  alex [ Sun May 20, 2007 5:31 am ]
Post subject:  Kant or nonsensibility

can you provide an example for synthetic judgemet of Kant; why concepts from different categories can be even put together at all, since this very act errs except generate only empirical statements.
but all analytic judgements are tautology. so where is the knowledge?

alex

Author:  TFBW [ Mon May 21, 2007 1:14 am ]
Post subject: 

The classic example of something that Kant considered "synthetic a priori" is a mathematical operation such as "7 + 5 = 12". This he classified as "synthetic" on the basis that the notion of "12" is not inherent to the "7 + 5", but rather is something we discover about "7 + 5" even though the outcome could be nothing else (thus "a priori"). No doubt about it, this is a controversial classification! Most people would say that the notion of "12" is inherent in "7 + 5" precisely because the two are, a priori, equal.

To my mind, what this demonstrates more than anything else is the ongoing confusion as to what exactly divides the analytic from the synthetic. This confusion still persists, as far as I can tell.

Author:  Guest [ Tue May 22, 2007 3:42 am ]
Post subject:  knowledge

Many thanks,

Yes, (I do wish to learn about the present confusion or debate)

A. if we enumerate by our innate nature therefore the sum is "new" knowledge--i believe it has to be, otherwise there is no induction and there is no knowlegge and technology.

On the other hand, Goethe like many other think it is tautology because everything is inherent in the definition. This may not be such a misery anyhow--because by ding an sich--we are identifiable with thingness--i believe therefore at least it implicates.

The above is to repeat what you say as a humble footnote.

B. At the differnt level: If we are thingness, then we may agree with Wittgenstein--tautology is all are can have as pure reason (Tractatus). To transcend (not in Kant's meaning, we have to advance to Godhood to synthesize new knowledge. Yet this is not Godness. At one point, I think why we are all like Wittgenstein to live a life like Monk??!

B1.1 To forgo knowledge, like the Bodhisattva, Asavagosha (Faith in Awakening) so much so with a similarity to Kant's thingness.

Regards,
alex

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/