Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, a slow reading, a careful study (Session 23)

For overall group description, see the page that announced first event, which lists required reading,

https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/

then come back to this page to see where we are at now and to RSVP to upcoming meeting.

EPISODE XXIII: In the last episode, people wanted to spend more time on the then current reading, the Amphiboly. We will make sure to do that in our next episode. We will start with questions about the current reading and then see where the discussion moves organically from there.

Next session, please read the introduction to the Transcendental Dialectic, both sections of that intro, Parts I and II, which are on pages 384 to 393.

To assist me in navigation during the meeting, please provide the Guyer/Wood page #. If you are not using Guyer/Wood, then perhaps Matt can help us cross reference with his very handy spreadsheet.

NEW REDDIT. I created a new reddit just for our group. The other one was more generally about Kant. The new reddit is

https://www.reddit.com/r/CritiqueofPureReason/

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Continuing discussion of phenomena and noumena (I promise to post questions about Dialectic later.) Kant states 7 + 5 = 12 is synthetic. What about nonsensical equations, can 1 + 1 = 3 be considered synthetic even though we know this to be impossible? Can we have statements that are in synthetic or analytic form which just happen to be false?
2. Continuing discussion of synthetic a priori, how is it possible for the a priori to be necessitated by contingent human mind? We necessarily think in terms of space and time, but if our minds were different, Kant says we might think differently. Therefore, we think contingently and only in a sense necessarily. Does anyone see contradiction? And if so, how do we square it? Do you think Kant reconciles it? Does he do so explicitly or implicitly?
3. TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC. Kant begins the "Transcendental Dialectic" with the footnote, ". . . and now the sciences." Does this give an indication as to what Kant means by "dialectic"? The application of reason to the sciences and thereby working out an appropriate methodologies for each particular science?
4. AMPHIBOLY, A272/B328/p373, "Of course, if I know a drop of water as a thing in itself according to all of its inner determinations, I cannot let any one drop count as different from another if the entire concept of the former is identical with that of the latter." Why should the thing itself preclude individual distinction?
5. TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION. Guyer/Wood is translating the German word, Schein, into "illusion," as in "transcendental illusion." You all know that's not really what Schein means, right?
6. DIALECTIC. The translator's footnote, #1, the first such footnote to the Dialectic, states, "Kant introduced very early the term 'dialectic' as the title for 'the theory of the subjective laws of the understanding, in so far as they are held to be objective'." What does this mean?
7. TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION. What is the difference between "transcendental" illusion and "logical" illusion?
8. MORE TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION. , Why is the proposition, "the world must have a beginning in time," a transcendental illusion and not a logical illusion? Why should it be any kind of illusion at all?
9. BACK TO THE AMPHIBOLY. What is transcendental reflection?
10. TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION AND REASON IN GENERAL. Kant states that cognition begins with the senses, then moves to the understanding, and ends with reason [A299/p387]. Can we discern from this sentence what Kant means by "cognition and "reason"? Clearly cognition and understanding are not the same thing since understanding, at least pure understanding, is given while cognition is something that is developed first through the senses.
11. FROM ILLUSION TO FULL-OUT CONFUSION. "Thus every syllogism is a form of derivation of a cognition from a principle." Isn't this a contradiction to A299 wherein all cognitions proceed from senses? Isn't a syllogism by definition, not sensible?
12. TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC. Title to Subsection B of Transcendental Dialectic "On the Logical Use of Reason." As opposed to?