TFBW's Forum

Discuss
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:52 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Kant or nonsensibility
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:31 am 
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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:14 am 
Offline
Your Host

Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:57 am
Posts: 204
Location: Sydney, Australia
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: knowledge
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:42 am 
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


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group