Kant 6

Kant talks about form of sensibility, that space and time does not things in themselves but can be found in the world. They are considered innate and shape our preceptions. He then goes on to talk about how math is apriori. as I talked about before, i'm not sure I can agree. space and time, the concepts can exist seperately by themselves.

Kant

He also says that since we are capable of synthetic a priori it suggests that pure reason is able to find the important truths. He also suggests that a lot of what we think to be reality is formed by the perceiving mind. Kant thinks that the doesnt passively receive information thats given from the senses. He says that it shapes and makes sense of that information in order to understand it.

Kant

Kant talks about how the possibilty of analytic propositions can be concieved easily because it is grounded solely on the principle of contradiction. He explains that propositions that are drawn from experience also are easy and don't need special explanations. This is because experience itself is nothing other than a continual joining together of perceptions. Also he said that you cannot start by looking for how propositions are possibles because there is many of them given with undisputed certainty. He said that you need to start with that synthetic but pure rational cognition is actual. I think i understood this part a little more than his other sections but i still can't completly understand his meanings and explanations.

Kant

After Kant talks about pure mathematics and pure intution he goes into metaphysics and how it relies on the faculty of reason and how is doesn't shape our experience in the way that sensibility and understanding does. However, he says that it does help us reason independent of experience.

Kant

Also, in one of his notes he says that geometry has objective reality as prescribing the form of all sensible intutions. He also says that geometry would be fiction if the senses represented to us things in themselves. And earlier he also says that mathematics must exhibit its concepts in intution. Throughout my reading Kant tried to explain how pure mathematics is possible but i never really seemed to find the answer. I thought Kant was very confusing to me.

Kant

Kant says that time and space are pure intutions. And he also says that the objection that the ideality of space and time turns the world of senses into illusions in vain. He says that not to the appearance of senses but judgement by the understanding. He uses an example but it wasn't clear to me. He also said that whether space is appearance or thing in itself has no bearing on this but the doctrine that space is appearance secures the objective validity of geometry. I did not really understand that section either.

Kant

Kant thinks that the mutual requirement of intution and concept applies not only in the
empirical concepts and empirical intutions but also in the non-impirical/pure intutions and the pure concepts. He also says the space and time aren't even capable of yielding cognition of objects. And then he said that the merging of empirical intutions and concepts brings about the cognition of objects as expressed in empirical judgements. He used the example "This rose is red" He goes on about this and how yes and no this is the result in joining pure concepts and intutions but i don't understand it. I found this part confusing because I couldn't seem to catch what he was talking about.

Hume

Hume also talks about cause and effect. He says that it is sometimes okay to assume effects from a cause that someone has concluded from observing effects. He also says that reasoned assumptions are made from observing species of causes and species of effect. I think this is accurate and agree with it because you can definitely assume an effect from the cause. Even though our assumptions aren't always right I still think you can make the assumption from the cause.

Hume

Also Hume mentions how he thinks that all complex ideas are formed from simple ideas. Then the simple ideas result to simple impressions. He also says that our imagination can only come from impressions we have had or experienced, so therefore our imagination is limited and we cannot imagine things that we never seen or heard, ect. However, he says that he can imagine a something he hasn't seen before but only because of previous impressions. For example, you can imagine a color you have never seen before but you have seen other shades of the color so you can form an idea and imagine what that certain color might be.

Hume

Hume kind of gives you the impression that nature guided us to believe the things we do and that it didnt have to do with reason. And instead of giving us reasons why this is so he kind of just explains what we believe in and why we should believe this. He doesn't really prove his points he just explains what he thinks.

Kant

"the objects which are given to us by experience are in many respects inconceivable, and many questions to which the law of nature leads us when carried beyond a certain point admit of on answer as for example the question ad to why material objects attract one another?" the problem must be solved because of course reason mus give a full account to its own procedure but it can be given in experience and the question is answered.
Things work with experience and they make us see how they work and why. The world works on experience.

Kant

IN must of the book Kant is saying that everything is connected by experience and that with out things connecting to each other then the world would not work. He said that with out one step the math could not be solved without experience we would not know. I all fits together and fall into a pattern. without one thing it would not work and without that we would not know.

I think that he is right that everything has to do with each other and that it takes it all to make the world go around. Everything fits in it place. Everyone has a judgment or idea that they believe and there is a reason that they believe it. That experience helps us to know what we believe and what we don't, I think that without experience we don't understand things because we haven't seen them, touch them or been able to understand them with having an experience of them.

Kant

Kant said :" for certain rational principles are expounded which determine a priori the order of nature or rather understanding which seeks nature's laws through experience." In Kant's work everything has to do with the experience, truly believes in this.
I think that he could be right I mean if you don't know something you don't have experience. Most people don't like to do new things or make change and that's because they are conformable with what they have experienced. I think that people tend to depend on their experience to make them choose if they want to do something or not. If some one had a bad experience with something tend to stay away from it and not do it again. If a person had fun or like the experience that they had they tend to keep doing and not want to stop.
I think that it is in our nature to do what we are conformable with because it is easy and we like it. Plus Human's are caterers of habit. Once a human likes something they tend to keep going back to it.

Kant 5

Kant talks about 3 different types of ideas of reasoning. They are called psychological ideas, cosmological ideas, and the theological ideas. The tying factor among all of them is metaphysics according to Kant. He talks about cosmilogical ideas as 4 different antinomies, in other words they are 4 contradicting statements. I'm really not sure what his purpose is by doing this because he basically gives some ideas that disprove what he is trying to prove. a little confused by all this...

Kant

Empirical Judgment is one of the things that Kant discusses in his writing. Empirical Judgement is the understanding of what is happening around us and what we think of it. We use empirical judgment for everything all the time every day and we may not even realize it. We make judgements of things we see when we walk into a room, we make judgements of people we meet, we make judgements on everything.
Kant said that we use are senses and experinces to make and understand judgments. This I think is true. Because if you meet some one for the first time and you get a bad feeling about that person you are using your senses to tell you that you do not like something for one reason or another. Or you could have used your experinces to make a judgment because you have know a person like this before and you don't like them or you do that can reflect your judgment. I agree with Kant that we use our senses and experinces to make judgments.

Kant

He talks about math a lot in this work.
How is pure mathematics possible? He asked. He said that it because it is a branch of knowledge encompassing and wonderfully large domain and promising. He said that if an intuition that is empirical but pure without this math can not take a single step.
So he is saying that in order for everything to work it has to have steps that all go together and they must all fit. IF they don't then the problem doesn't get solved. This can be related to life as well. That if everything doesn't fit then things don't work and we are left trying to put the pieces back together.
Its like a puzzle everything has it spot and it must fit there.

Kant

Kant as what he calls a general problem How is cognition from pure Reason possible? He said that it is being entirely founded on the principle of contradiction. It is the judgment that we gathered from experience and no special expiation. and that they must depend on other principles than that of contrasting.
So Kant is saying what Hume and Locke said that are reasoning for things come from are experience. That because of the reaction or effect that we had in the past is going to effect what we do in the future.
For if A equals B and B is not something that you want A to equal then you many choose not to do A. But if A equals be and B is the effect you want then you will keep doing A.
Kant thinks the same as all the others we read he just uses different words to describe what he is saying.

Kant 4

"I shall confine my assertion to pure mathematics, they very concept of which implies that it contains pure a priori and not empirical cognition."

Kant I think is saying that Math is apriori. I find that hard to beleive based on the fact that we pretty much go through at least 12 years to learn the concepts of math. Math just doesnt make sense. Its not just something we know, we have to be taught it. We must practice it in order to understand.

Kant 3

In class we talked about the possibility of perception happening due to an event. I really think that this is the case. It just seems to make sense. We precieve things in a certain way because of an event or how would we even know about it. Preceptions can be different for everyone but yet everyone will have some sort of preception one way or another. For instance if the power goes out, did you really think before it happened that its light or dark? It only happens after the fact that we precieve that it went from light to dark. I dont think many can disagree with this, at least I cant

Kant 2

Its interesting how Kant is okay with saying that we do not and will not know everything. its interesting becuase Decartes and Locke I felt had something to prove in showing they had an answer for everything. As you know they ran into problems trying to tie up all the loose ends. I dont really know too much about other philosophers but I think Kant is taking the smart way on this. I know that people like to understand everything but sometimes there are things that cannot be nailed down until it happens.

Kant 1

Kant beleives that everything is nature is synthetic and apriori. To an extend i do beleive this is true. In nature, events take place due to many condtions that come together. An example is weather, the condtions must be just right for rain to fall or for a hot sunny day to occur. Now these things take place unvoluntarily. For us to really understand this, we need to observe and go over the facts that are presented so I don't really think nature can be apriori. We need observation to understand even nature

Hume 6

"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding and begets a like species of belief or opinion."

This statement just reinforces what he was saying with inductive reasoning. Many events can take place but with different factors, diffrent results may arise. We must look at all the factors, including the irregularities of life. Life can throw some curve balls out but at least one person in the stadium will have predicted that it would happen.

Hume 5

Induction to Hume was a very unstable idea. He thinks the only way induction will work is if you can definately determine what the relavant data are. But how many times do we see that there are a multitude of factors. And thats not to mention that not all of the factors may arise all the time. So I think Hume was right on the money with these ideas. Its more likely that if one starts out with the general principle and then narrow down to the particular case. Deductive reasoning just seems to prove more stable in logical reasoning then inductive reasoning does.

Kant

I feel that Kant's book is much different than Hume, Locke, and Descartes however it has the same kinda ideas he has a different way of going about it. His book is set up in parts and they relate to each other more than Hume Locke and Descartes books did. Every new Chapters said the "Blank " part of the main transcendental question. Were the other three had there books broken into sections and parts.

Hume 6

Page 70 animals and men learn from experience. Learning that the same event will always have the same causes. BY having an experience a man or animal learns that they are effected by what they do. For example if you touch fire you will get brunt. Because you got brunt you will not touch fire ever again. Your mother or father may have said DON'T PLAY WITH FIRE! ITS HOT! YOU WILL GET BURNT! But a child will not listen and when their parent is not looking they touch the fire and of course they get brunt.
Experience helps people and animals to learn and realize that the same event will have the same cause. Another good example of experience and effect is an electric dog fence. the dog must stay in the yard if he doesn't then he gets zapped. He will try to get out a few times but after he realized that he will get zapped when he cross the yard and he will no longer cross the yard.
I think that Hume's view on experience and effect ties into Locke and Descartes and there cause and effect. Because they are all basically saying the same idea that people and animals learn by doing and by what happens when its done.

Hume

In this section Hume asked what made man kind acknowledge words and have propensity in all ages to profess the contrary opinion?
Hume thinks that it is the production of effects from the causes. He said that our fatalities can never carry us farther in knowledge of this relation, that particular objects are constantly conjoined together.
I though I feel that this is true that we cant carry things in knowledge farther then we know, and particular objects are also conjoined together and that effects and cause will always be in the same place. I cant help but wonder why this would be why must a effect always have a cause? Why must everything go together? I know no the answer I can only think that it is because all things go with each other.

Hume 4

Hume talks about association of ideas. Its interesting that he brings up this point. Many philosophers really have not talked about the association of ideas. It really hasnt been discussed too much but I think would be quite helpful if they were trying to figure out how people think. The association of ideas can connect the causes and effects and continuity of time and place which is essential to understnading why things happen and how people understand why it happened.

Hume 3

In section VIII Hume goes into necessity verses liberty. He says that there are necessary forces, causes and effects that all coinside one another. for instance A must cause B and this will happen all the time. But if you think about this one can tell that depending on the factors, which can change, a different outcome may occur. He later talks about human nature. Here i think he is more on the money. He talks about hidden motives that people may have that can alter the expected outcome and we may nto realize it due to the fact that they have not been put out in hte open. this happens quite frequently I think. I beleive that sometimes things can be unpredictable due to all the possible factors that may change the outcome. I mean I know everyone wants a definate answer but there are just so many possibilities that can change the outcome. Now if you can nail down all the factors then you have a good shot of getting the effect right but without that then anything can happen.

Hume 2

Hume talks about miracles in section X. He believes that we should treat miracles as less reliable due to the fact that they are second handedly told to us. If evidence in presented then may we could put more stock into the information. But here is a question... could this just be a coincidence or really a miracle? first we have to examine what supposedly happened? I mean i know in those days, medicine was not the best but I mean if someone is sick and they get better couldnt it just have been your body fighting it off? Yes miracles are considered to be events that are against the laws of nature but who is to say that with the certian conditions and curcumstances that it could not actualyl have happened, it many not be frequently but it does happen from time to time. I dont know I am pretty skeptical about this whoel miracle thing in general.

Hume

What is miracle? How do we know when a miracle happens?
I think that only the person know the miracle whenit happens to them. For example if I believe that a miracle happened to me but you did not see it you may not believe it. But inorder for me to believe you dont need to believe it. I can feel that some else was a miracle that I do not believe to be.

"What we have said of miracles may be applied without any variation, to prophicies; and indeed, all propheices are real miracles and as such only, can be, asmitted as proofs of any revelation."
I think that Hume is saying that it is hard to give proof of a miracle and that we can not proof tht it happened or that it didnt happen.

Hume

Page 57 Hume states "Are the manners of men different in different ages and countries? We learn thence the great force of custom and education, which mould the Haman mind from infancy, and conduct of the one sex very unlike that of the other?" And he also said "Are actions some person much diversified in the different periods of his life, from infancy to old age?"

I think that human manners are different in different man and different countries. I think that depends on the family you were raised in the education that you had that gives you the manners that you have. Manners are a learned behavior.Other countries have different manners because they have different culture.
For example in some cultures it is not uncommon to when talking to some one to stand very close and to touch the person's arm when taking to them. In our culture if some one did this that we did not know we must likely would not like it. we would back away because in our culture we are taught to keep our personial space.

Hume

I forgot to add in my last blog that if Hume thinks we should not believe in miracles because we are only hearing about it from other peoples experience than does that mean he does not believe in God? Because if he did believe in God it would be hypocritical of him because the belief of God and the belief of Miracles are almost the same thing.

Hume

I think my previous blog on Hume can relate to Descartes, religion, and God because if we cannot prove the testimony of the person who witnessed the miracle than we have to decide to believe in them or not. Just like how you cannot really prove if God exists. Descartes was not really giving us hard core evidence but he was telling us that God does exist. You cannot see him but you have people telling you he does exist but they cannot prove it. Therefore, you are listening to someone else's testimony just like someone who had witnessed a miracle. I think miracles are a belief, just like the belief of God and religion. I think they are similar in a way.

Hume

In this book Hume says that we do not really have any reason why we should believe in miracles and that our evidence for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses. He also says that we cannot be confident on others testimony because it is hearsay from that person's experiences. So therefore our knowledge of miracles only comes from the ones who claim to have witnessed miracles. I believe some of what he is saying because how can we really believe what someone tells us? How can we believe that it was a true miracle? However, for the people who really did witness one how can they prove it? So does that mean that you can only see it or experience it in order to believe it because if you haven't than there is too much doubt?