Kant A Skeptic example essay topic

The Central Pragmatics of Kant's Synthetic Device: Why Hume Didn't have a chance Scottish Skeptic David Hume inspired Immanuel Kant, of the East Prussian town of Konigsberg, to awaken from his dogmatic slumbers, thought to be the sleep of the most adequate reason. David Hume wrote his first book, A Treatise of Human Nature, in native Britain proposing that all knowledge is based on individual experience or habit and that our morality is subject only to our emotions. This shook Kant's "manifold" just enough, enough to inspire him to write his first major philosophical contribution. What did Kant do for Hume, after Hume made such a profound impact on him and his philosophy? Immanuel somewhat proved illogical David's statement arguing on mathematical certainties, all the while intending to invalidate and destroy Humean Skepticism, and thus turned the historical course of Western Philosophy into a new direction, a moral one. Kant made it look simple, or at least he made making an impact look simple.

Although the layout of The Critique of Pure Reason is laborious, long winded, and confusing at times (especially for the first time college undergraduate), Kant still manages to carefully, in one simple device, negate the argument for mathematical certainty, however I would like to argue that Kant knowing did so even though it is not event the case that counter examples may provide some non-analytic trait that Kant was well aware of. Hume claimed it was certain that all algebraic, we " ll just say mathematical in future reference, was analytic. Essentially, - Hume supported that there could be total-absolute-certainty in mathematics, e.g. mathematically held logical certain truths. All mathematical equations- analytical and logical equations- must be sound and therefore, according to Humean Skepticism, the only certainty by fact.

Kant's argument states that math, is not analytical, concluding, the argument Hume had presented in the Treaties, could not be true. Rather, argued Kant, all mathematical statements cannot possibly be analytic and on the contrary are a priori synthetic statements and are not certainties as Hume had proposed. Kant's argument was: All analytic posteriori contain necessarily the predicate in the context of the subject. Kant stated 5+7 = 12: Because nothing of 5 and nothing of 12 make us think of 7, and because there is nothing of 7 and nothing of 12 that indicate 5, then the know ledge that 5 and 7 are 12 is an a priori synthetic statement. Thus, it proved the problem in Hume's statement of analytic equation that must be a posteriori, (no analytic a priori possible) and thus Kant's new equation was accepted as the valid statement. Eventually Kant would acceptably disprove the argument for Humean Skepticism, initially using a synonymous (pragmatic, practical) ideas and reason several examples of a priori knowledge that proves truth in outside certainties that were reached through a priori reason.

But, Kant too had areas of question in his reason, because he drew some of his logic from Hume's Treatise, the very critique that concluded Skepticism and was widely criticized. This leads to criticism of Kant as far as to call Kant a Skeptic, but for good reason. However, Kant did not contradict himself by using similar techniques as Hume because he did not always come to the same conclusions. Kant was using a specific strategy to draw certain conclusions necessary for him to defend his philosophical ideas necessary for him to set up a counter moralistic argument to Humean Skepticism founded on his initial criticism of Skepticism, which necessarily needed to prove uncertainty as opposed to certainty in order to make way for faith the driving force of his philosophy that can be criticized and praised. This would ultimately lead Kant to quasi challenge and refute Skepticism illustrated by David Hume in the Treatise of Human Nature. And Kant used many different philosophical forms that will be criticized and questioned.

But before we get into the arguments, there are some concepts (foundations) that need to be discussed, before we can proceed into the comparison and contrast- what Kant used to attack skepticism e.g. through the mathematical "certainty" gap while still maintaining certain necessary conditions. Analytic and Synthetic are statements applicable, consistent with Kant (this is his school of thought on the two), to subject predicate statements. An analytic statement is any statement that has the predicate in the concept of the subject. An example would be an unmarried man is a bachelor. In other words, the subject is analyzed to form the predicate. A synthetic statement is a statement that the predicate is not contained in the subject and adds something new e.g. Tommy is a bachelor.

To continue elaborate on this it is also the case that analytic statements cannot be denied without self-contradiction. However a synthetic statement can be denied without self-contradiction. Thus is supposed that analytic statements are true and are therefore necessary, and synthetic statements are not supported, so they may be false, so they are contingent, contingent being neither necessary nor impossible. Although Hume's book is simply designed and he argues his points all but perfectly, one bad apple will spoil the bunch, and certainty is that apple, that apple would rot the bushel of Hume's work. Like a skilled military tactical unit (trying not to make a very bad anachronism), Kant slipped in through the opening of "certainty" ("mathematical certainty") and marched on in to arguments for skepticism. Ironically by disproving something certain Kant was opening up area for his own objectives.

What Kant would ultimately be destroying; Hume's radical skepticism based on the ideal that the mind is no more than an elaborate series of sensations and from this he concludes that cause-and-effect in the natural world stems from the conjunction of two impressions that have no evident correlation (sounds good right). Understanding this statement Hume purposed that in the natural world there were no certainties but rather only devices of high probability always subject to change, exception being mathematics (however being an a posteriori analytical certainty). Dividing these ideas up he called them simply abstract and practical ideas. And since reason had no use other than to serve the emotions, according to Hume, then our epistemology was solely a belief-based system based on relations and abstract ideas. To further his argument Hume declined the notion of "a priori" ideas and termed all metaphysics as unnecessary, bad idea. However Kant's use of both analytic and synthetic truths was evolved through Hume's distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact such as cause and effect.

To reiterate, from the introduction, the central ideas in Hume's Skeptical analysis the basis of induction and causality, knowledge of the external world and the self, arguments and proofs for the existence of God would became the key issues of Kant's arguments. But, Kant would later (seemingly) counter David Hume by stating two key premises that would lead to the foundation of knowledge. It is necessary to a degree to prove that there are things that we can know with certain. In his argument Kant concluded that Knowledge was derived through the "synthesis of experience and concepts"; without the faculties of sense we would be unable to be aware of an object, but without an understanding of that object, we would not form a conception about that object. In an analogy we can see that a game with only the game pieces but no instructions would be unplayable in the same sense as a game with only instructions but no pieces.

This can be stated simplest by the statement "sensibility without understanding is blind, and understanding without sensibility is empty". This process of gaining knowledge involved the following two premises. Space and time are given to the faculties of everyone as a priori intuitions. Both space and time are not inherent in the properties of objects; they are projections by the mind on the external world.

These intuitions are independent or separate of and preceded the sensory impressions. There are categories of thought used to structure the way we understand reality. These categories classify reality according to its "quality, quantity, modality and relation". Therefore Kant would be able to observe a dog and instantly understand and recognize it existed because according to his argument the conciseness of his own existence allowed him to prove the existence of objects in space and time outside of him. So then it follows in form from this that certain limits must be put to the knowledge he could have of the dog. One could know about the appearance of the dog, which was Kant's world of "phenomena" but the reality or the world of "noumena" was eternally outside our comprehension or knowledge.

Thus the substance of the dog or the thing-in-itself is unknowable. And so in response to Hume who states we cannot know it is there. Kant concluded that we can know it is there, however, we cannot know what it is in-itself that is there concluding epistemologically that there is knowledge to a certain degree- and not the opposite. Now if it seems I have gotten of subject look back at that last statement and for good reason. But ultimately it was the use of synonymy in context of the analyticity that destroys Hume's analytical approach to mathematics and non-a-priori understanding of reason (or should I say no reasonability). By synonymy, I mean the pragmatic approach towards analytical statements.

For example, the quasi-analytical statement- a bachelor is an unmarried man. One could argue this out of the analytical because the supposed subject and predicate are synonyms e.g. the same exact thing. Then there are two ways to approach the statement after noting their defined equality. Because they mean the same thing then there is no predicate and really no subject. So then the statement doesn't even fit the genera of an analytical statement. And this is really what I think Kant recognizes about the mathematical certainty statement e.g. 2+2 means the same thing as 4 and so there is no strong analytical approach here at all. W.V.O. Quine makes this same point, in his paper "Two Dogmas in Empiricism" published first in Philosophical Review 60 in 1951 e.g. "The characteristic of such a statement is that it can be turned into a logical truth by putting synonyms for synonyms; thus (2) can be turned into (1) by putting 'unmarried man' for its synonym 'bachelor.

' We still lack a proper characterization of this second class of analytic statements, and therewith of analyticity generally, inasmuch as we have had in the above description to lean on a notion of 'synonymy', which is no less in need of clarification than analyticity itself". The other route one might take would be to argue that the statement falls directly into Hurley's blue box of fallacy. It doesn't take a much reasoning to see what is next- begging the question. The same way the bible says God exists - God exists, math says 4 = 4 or 2+2 = 4.

But that is really just a roundabout way conclude they are simply synonymous. And so Kant makes provides the evidence that math is not a certainty because it is what he concludes synthetic. But before we continue pragmatically into synthetics and analytics lets first look at the a priori and a posteriori distinction (they go hand and foot really). The a priori and a posteriori distinction is the distinction between knowledge based on reason alone being a priori, and knowledge based on experience being a posteriori, what Hume argues is the only way we know.

A priori knowledge, math for example, needs no more than the causal action to know the effect. Knowing two, two, and four is all one needs to know to understand that two plus two is four and this is what rationalist argued as well as Kant. This is also where Hume made the mistake of specifics (choosing one side over analyzing both). A posteriori is simple in that the knowledge could not have been possibly obtained with out experience e.g. cannot know what a dog is with out first encountering a dog or described one.

This is where Kant is smart and chooses to use both to form his reasoning and ascertains. For example- he states that the when we interpret and are thinking expresses the act of existence and existence is already given a priori. The way to imagine one's self is however, not given and requires some sort of self-intuition. This is stuck in a priori form such as time. And there exist no self-determining act that would precede determining. So the spontaneity of thought precedes what is determined and this relies on the sensible, a posteriori, determined for examples of appearance.

Eventually he would argue that there were ways to experience the self ergo that way being a priori. Kant further argued on the boundaries of knowledge. He breaks down knowledge by accepting a priori, posteriori, analytic, and synthetic distinctions to provide a foundation for what would finally be his critique of reason and degradation of Hume critique on reason. But Kant got much of this reason or at least conceptual formulation from Hume. What does this mean? Based on the faults found in Hume's critique, or at least the portion I selected for this analysis, there may also be faults in Kant's selections.

And on top of that is the underlying theory I have presented- that Kant really attacked Hume's Skepticism by way of synonym ies (pragmatically on a broader sense). This leads to some problems as well ergo as far as calling Kant a borderline skeptic. So to elaborate on that claim that has well waited its turn. Kant "noticed" that Hume presented an essential argument to every claim of the human knowledge. To question Hume, he must show, not that knowledge is possible, but exactly how it is possible. I think Kant combined a Skeptical argument towards metaphysical knowledge with the argument that particular universals and necessary situations are involved in having experiences and relating those experiences.

Therefore it becomes possible to have real knowledge (a priori) about the appearances of all possible experiences (a priori), e.g. the time space and time experience, and about the kinds of categories that all experience is shown and described in. However, any and all efforts to use this beyond all possible experience only leads into "contradictions" and most important to my "plot" or argument- Skepticism. Naturally, this did not go unnoticed, and his contemporaries were quick to indulge. Kant said he had solved all skeptical questions and problems all the while delineating their arguments (but once again, not as he though- pragmatic synonym). There were those radical enough to argue that Kant welcomed a new heightened era of skepticism. Some Kantianism critics insisted that in his theory, nothing could be known or supported about any of the objective truths and when question of what could be know the only supportable answer was subjective necessity of his views.

Of many notables who supported this was G.E. Schulze who defended in secreting against Kant in a book titled Aenesidemus' that one of the first Kantian critiques. And Salomon Maim on the Jewish philosopher highly respected for his intellect by Kant and criticized that, although there can be a priori concepts, the application to experience is always convoluted regardless if they may apply because they can only be discovered by experience. Consequently, the possibility of knowledge can never be documented with "certainty" (how ironic). And certain truth, based on concepts, is possible only of human foundation e.g. math, and the question can be raised, do they have objective certainty and truth?

- None proven. He also argued that Kant had provided no clear way to distinguish causal sequences of events from non-causal ones. His special interests were with Fichte's (German) view, where in anticipation concluded he would direct it towards Kant's inconsistency in supplying a notion that an unknowable-thing-in-itself were to underline the world as we know it. The thesis that human creativity is the basis of truth presented and developed this time by leading German Idealist Johann G. Fichte was seen as a new way of going beyond Skepticism.

Another of the Kantian skeptical criticisms, this time by J.G. Hamann, saw in Hume's and Kant's Work a new basis for fideism. And right out of any philosophical dictionary, always my trusty penguin- Fideism is the thesis that religious belief is based on faith and not on either evidence or reasoning. Recalling earlier in my analysis-... and so in response to Hume who states we cannot know it is there. Kant answers that we can know it is there... - And finally backing some sort of supported skepticism, on the ascertain Kant must be trying to use as a reason for faith, he ultimately is compared to the just that, faith over reason. Not trying to bring up weaker points but in the interest of coincidence and irony, I like to sometimes evaluate who is indirectly influenced.

And there is one that is fitting- Soren Kierkegaard, influenced by Hegel, influenced by Kant. And some considers Kierkegaard the first existentialist but over all that he was a knight of faith and its truest sense and seemed to argue against certainties and for belief. To reiterate and come to the climax or conclusion, Kant's primary means of refuting Hume is the introduction of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and analytic and synthetic judgments designed to enable Kant to maintain the possibility of the existence of synthetic statements a priori because they would serve as (new point) philosophy of the science of metaphysics. So after introducing the analytic and synthetic distinction purposely separate from the a priori and a posteriori distinction- Kant designates a proper metaphysics could only consist of a priori and synthetic judgments because their content could then be real and have the greatest chance at certainty e.g. why mathematic fit the scope- argued to be a human creation all together, because maybe Kant did not want them to become necessity or absolute truth; that would compromise his goals. But the whole scope falls under synonymous pragmatic ascertains as opposed to analytical which it were supposed to replace and possibly does. Possibly we are then supposed to learn and to support why Kant choose to assault Hume's work the way he did regardless of the semantics of it all.

His ultimate goal was to set up a system where he could make these pragmatic ascertains, such as the way he knowingly used synthetic, a priori the way he did in defense ultimately of metaphysics. He did so in his first and essential groundwork, critiquing pure reason, the foundation for all his other critiques e.g. practical reason, judgment. And of course he wanted to leave holes left holes in certain areas of his work, in order provide reason a choice. Hume's Skepticism and certainty had to be attack, regardless of their validity. Any certainty in Kantian theory upsets the zenith of Kantian philosophy. Faith, morality, and freedom all are directly affected by certainties.

"Certain" knowledge to Kantian ethics is dangerous. We must learn to make a choice and if certainty exists we are kept from that choice that one added freedom that equates to absolutely free. This is to support his idea of the highest moral actions and maxims. Can we know a priori how we are supposed to act? No because if we knew a priori then it wouldn't be freedom it would be forced upon us, morality that is, like our sense of time and our sense of space or the phenomena. We may know about the appearances of things e.g. Kant's world of phenomena of the tree, but the reality e.g. the world of noumena is forever beyond our comprehension.

Kant set the structure of his critique of pure reason up this way as well, so he could defend his other ones. If we all knew, all there was to know of something that would compromise our morals because it could shift why we are doing good or compromise good as well. So how do we know- we learn, but how do we learn? Some argue that we are conditioned and that is our process of learning. But that is not in the philosophical interest of Kant that is more of psychological interest of Paula.

Instead we learn by acting. Why was skepticism such a treat to Kant that he presented the argument that could do nothing but bring distress to such an argument that ultimately, after closer analysis has holes in it? Why not come up with a better argument that works just as good? Why did he go about his plans the way he did?

Kant had a specific agenda, to answer the last question, and it asked questions as well. Those questions were not why questions, but rather what questions. What can we learn and know, what is right and moral, and what are the reasons for wanting to know them e.g. what can we hope to find? In our analysis we have answered all the questions directly and indirectly. We can only learn and know enough to give us a reason for morality. Too much knowledge strips us of our maxim moral be.

We are conditioned to morals because we don't know what enough about the noumena of things to just have morals. That's why Kant has us treat each individual as an end and not a means because who is to say what they are worth in the whole scheme of things. And we can only have faith in God and we are propositioned to have this faith because there is reason to believe in God, freedom, and most important immorality. That is why Kant takes the position initially to go with synthetic and pragmatic arguments against Skepticism.

Skepticism has no hope and there is no hope in analytical a posteriori statement or certainty and especially when that certainty does not need to be learned. An analytical statement teaches us nothing. Synonymous-pragmatics teaches us more ultimately, because we stand the greatest chance to learn more form synthetics than anything. Not being able to learn would be striping freedom.

And we would be preconditioned as apposed given the chance to be conditioned, have a chance; but not simply to behave in a conditioned way, rather to act so that the feasibility of our action agrees structurally with the prospects of the world. As the words show, this is not reducible to an exclusively ethical question. We are here with the general task of and for education. It is not nearly enough for us as free beings to handle intelligent instrumentality and not enough to attain and achieve some conditioned skills. Instead we should aspire morally toward "Acting as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law". Kant didn't condone Humean Skepticism because that was the ultimate immoral action to not believe in anything.

Ultimately this is why I feel and asserts Kant as pragmatism because he true belief leads to maxim action (true morality). Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber and recognized the good attributes in Hume's Skepticism but he also saw the danger. Knowing there was no way to prove ultimately Skepticism was wrong he attacked the one thing he could. People can still choose to doubt everything and be reasonable because there really are counter examples for it all and even as Kant asserts. His contemporaries accuse him of Skepticism because he sets out a system not based on knowing them most but one that works for the right moral reasons.

He shows in his critiques of everything and his ultimate end the categorical imperative that we can only believe and that we can hardly know anything. He also knew he would be wrong sometimes but unlike skepticism that can't stand when poked, deontology is still around strong today as an accepted moral philosophy, in fact regarded highly. He discovered a base that had a solid a priori knowledge along with the synthetic reasoning and it stands on its own. Another thing that he knew and is why he like some of Hume's work, despite the criticism he knew it may take. Immanuel Kant concluded and I agree, that David Hume had a good argument. He argued that there were very little certainties that we could have knowledge of and less knowledge to have than that, and Kant smartly adopted this for his system.

This allows his deontology to work so "pragmatically" well. Whether or not any of it is possible e.g. God, freedom, immortality, doesn't matter because morality (like Hume's certainty) is impossible to defend with out it (faith / belief ). Kant might argue that Hume's argument, as good as it could have been, had no chance because of the morality behind Kant's actions. Hume, David.

A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford, University Press, 1978. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press 1997 Mautner, Thomas.

The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. penguin Group, England, 2000. Philosophy Pages. web Garth Kemer ling, 1997-2000 Quine, W.V.O., Two Dogmas of Empiricism published The Philosophical Review 60 (1951): 20-43. Reprinted in W.V.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View (Harvard University Press, 1953; second, revised, edition 1961), . my. dream wiz. com / reality /data / philosophy information 2 quine. htm.