Most of the difficulty I have with the Prolegomena so far is simply due to the wording of sentences, and I’m not sure if that’s because of differences between translations or if this is representative of a deeper problem I’m having with the subtlety of Kant’s philosophy in general. For example, in Kant’s introduction (sorry, I can’t find the page) he asks, “How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?” I wonder if this is the same as the question, “How are synthetic a priori propositions possible?” or if there is some subtle importance in the arrangement of the words. Is the proposition a priori, or is the possibility a priori? I would assume Kant is asking about the proposition, whether or not it is a priori, but the wording of the sentence confuses me. Similarly, Kant later states, “If we could discover this pure intuition and its possibility…
.” (p 33).
By “its possibility” does Kant mean “how the pure intuition is possible” in the same way that he is asking other questions about the possibility of mathematics and natural science (i. e. “How is pure mathematics possible?” (32) )? Or again is there some importance buried in the slightly different wording of this statement. The only substantial comment I have on Kant’s project so far has to do with the weight he gives to the principle of contradiction.
He claims, ” (b) The common principle of all analytic judgment is the principle of contradiction” (16).
The Term Paper on Hume vs Kant Causality
Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the ...
Prima facie this makes sense, as it seems to be the most basic principle from which we work. But I wonder whether or not quantum mechanics (and the Schrodinger’s cat type problems) would have any impact on the authority of the principle of contradiction and the justification that principle gives to analytic judgments. If something can be both x and not x, then self contradiction seems to be true in some instances, and we can’t claim that any proposition that is self contradicting is false.
