Kant: Marrying Rationalism and Empiricism

[TheBlackWhirlwind]

Thanks for the upload, I am have touched very superficially on Kant's general philosophy, and I am interested in reading Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason'. I do deny that some it boggles the mind and is hard to understand, but interesting none the less. I am particularly interested in his views on deontology. On the other hand I am also interested in reading some Hume, but it's all a bit of a head mash, so you've got to begin somewhere.

[LowestOftheDead]

Although I appreciate Kant's brilliant contribution, I cannot help but conclude that his philosophy is ultimately untenable. I believe both rationalism and empiricism were probably overreactions to scholasticism, whose primary flaw was its natural teleology. Positing the real existence of universals as predicate qualities of the material universe allows us to neatly sidestep the conceptual problems that the rationalists and empiricists grappled with.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@LowestOftheDead

How was empiricism an "overreaction to scholasticism"? I thought that it was a reaction to rationalism.

[mp4401]

Guyer is my favourite Kant scholar; he's so comprehensive and takes a sort of linguistic and historical approach. He's very hard to read but in a sense, so is Kant!

I'm not so sure that Kant's moral theory was well described here, but that wasn't the main part of the video.

[Drregaleagle]

As for the scientific method, one cannot apply an experiment without deducing from a theory in the first place. One makes all sorts of deductions concerning measurement when he determines experimental results.

[EvolvedAtheist]

As I suspected, you are a philosophy-wanna-be.

[Drregaleagle]

No, the last thing I want to be is a philosopher for its own futile sake. I'm a philosopher-have-to-be for moral purposes.

It is impossible to engage in experimentation without making deductions. The scientific method does not use pure induction! To disagree with this contradicts Popper, Peirce, Bacon, and even Aristotle.

When one experiences the sight of phenolphthalein turning pink after assuming that it turns pink at pH>=9, he deduces that the pH >=9. It's trivial.

[EvolvedAtheist]

You said, "deductions used to interpret experience". That is induction.

You are misrepresenting classification and categorization as "deduction". This is true of your "litmus" test, which is a mundane matter of definition.

Deduction is more. Within science, essentially it is used to make predictions based on principles. If such and such obtains, then we could expect ...

[Drregaleagle]

"You said, "deductions used to interpret experience". That is induction."

No, you do use deduction to interpret experience and to make inductions. When one sees an animal that looks like a collie, he deduces from his experience that he sees a dog since all collies are dogs.

When one sees physical objects in the mirror while also seeing the mirror itself, he deduces that the mirror does not contain physical objects even though induction would suggest otherwise.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@Drregaleagle

You said that you don't want to be "a philosopher for its own futile sake."

I think that philosophy has its uses, particularly in analysis, framing questions correctly, and providing a sub-structure for logical thought. However, for those clarifications to be effective, those who discuss philosophy and logic ought to get their facts (definitions, rules) straight.

Why don't you go off and learn what you are trying to talk about? Try "plato stanford edu", etc.

[Drregaleagle]

@EvolvedAtheist,

I wasn't arguing about the definitions of deduction and induction. My litmus test example was reasonable. I  was getting to the fact that they're complementary. The Critique of Pure Reason's primary merit is to point out that knowledge based on definitions alone derives from experience. It is from experience that we synthesize sensory experiences to create terms and definitions from which one can reason a priori.

[EvolvedAtheist]

// from experience ... we synthesize sensory experiences ... create terms and definitions ... reason a priori //

First, we don't synthesize sensory experiences, we perceive them.

Second, a priori reasoning, by definition, if you'll excuse the irony and the frustrated caps, is INDEPENDENT of EXPERIENCE.

I suggest that you try reasoning FROM facts and definitions.

[Drregaleagle]

Since there's the experience of reasoning a priori that is not the case for practical matters.

Sensory experiences are synthesized and perceived.  While analytic judgments tell you they're perceived, synthetic judgments tell me they're synthesized quite often. You confuse analytic with synthetic judgments.

A priori reasoning is necessary for experience. This is a cornerstone of Kant's philosophy. Simply read Prolegomena.

[EvolvedAtheist]

// Since there's the experience of reasoning a priori //

"Experience of reasoning"? Odd way to put it. You reason (not an "experience") like a theist. "Semantic" twists that are intended to make your assumptions valid.

Epistemic understandings are, by definition, the "product" of human minds.

// Simply read Prolegomena. //

That is where Kant makes the distinction between a posteriori (dependent on experience) and a priori (independent of experience).

I suggest that you read it again.

[EvolvedAtheist]

Equivocation is a fallacy of logic. You are conflating the action of "synthesizing" with the "synthetic" in synthetic proposition.

The first is a mechanism that is irrelevant to perception of sensory experiences except in the sense that our brains reconstruct sensory input into conscious perceptions. The second is a semantic distinction between conceptualizations.

You are confusing neurophysiology with logic.

[Drregaleagle]

@EvolvedAtheist,

Deduction is perhaps a mundane "matter of definition" but its necessary for induction and logical consistency. Classification and categorization are in fact deduction.

Deduction can be used to make predictions, but it can also produce definite facts. One cannot make a prediction about anything at all without asserting a fact about prediction, perhaps using a statistical model as a fact and such.

[Drregaleagle]

Semiotics and semantics paint a more thorough picture of Kant's philosophy, but what's interesting is that one can never engage in a priori reasoning without making a posteriori judgments and vice versa.

The deductions used to interpret experience make science possible.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@Drregaleagle

Why can one "never" engage in a priori reasoning without making a posteriori judgments? What aspect of pure reason necessitates experience? I suppose that you could argue that we do not reason within a complete vacuum -- that it is impossible to exclude experiences.

Scientific method typically employs *induction* to move from experience to interpretation -- hence the "problem of induction". Why do you say "deductions"? Prediction?

[Drregaleagle]

One must always use a posteriori reasoning to apply a proposition necessary for a priori reasoning. Usually, this takes the form of a word. When one asserts:

1)All ducks are birds

2)Hoover is a duck

Deduction:Hoover is a bird

They use empiricism to classify Hoover as a duck in the first place.

I contend that all deduction concerns the placement of sets within subsets and of elements within multiple sets.