Prolegomena: Session 3 - “We don’t need to know”

THE PROLEGOMENA

Wow, don't know about you guys but after our recent convocation, my brain is stuffed (with synthetic a priori judgments), but thanks to you all, what a rich, delicious conversation it was.

We'll have another transcendental pizza party in two weeks. Make sure to first read and digest pages 35 to 49 in the Ellington translation, which comprise Sections 14 through 27 (Kant's enumeration) or Sections 294 through 311 (translator's enumeration) of the Second Part of the Main Transcendental Question, "How is Pure Natural Science Possible"?

I recommend reading all of it before the meeting was f you can (you will never be excluded if you can't) BUT during our discussion, we can discuss any part of the text we've read so far. If you're stuck on anything from our earlier reading, or just curious, please let me know. I tend to follow a circular process of interpretation that prefers depth over breadth. Let's have our cake and eat it too, achieving breadth through the reading assignment, and depth through in-depth discussion about whatever we've read so far.

Glossary/cheat sheet

science- any discipline that provides or discovers new knowledge using consistent methods based on a set of principles
metaphysics- the study of being using logic and reason, not empirical
cognition- ways of knowing of learning, e,g, empirical vs rational
analytic a priori a judgment or proposition that is true by definition
synthetic a posteriori- judgment contingent upon observation in nature
synthetic a priori-
representation-
pure mathematics vs pure physics -
intuitive vs discursive -

What Kant is responding to
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics. . . let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning containing quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. —Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Kant’s response
But, when I say they [space and time] existed prior to my experience, this means only that I must begin with the perception present to me and follow the track indicated until I discover them in some part or region of experience. . . . But with this we have not to do; our concern is only with the law of progression in experience, in which objects, that is, phenomena, are given. It is a matter of indifference, whether I say, “I may in the progress of experience discover stars, at a hundred times greater distance than the most distant of those now visible,” or, “Stars at this distance may be met in space, although no one has, or ever will discover them.” For, if they are given as things in themselves, without any relation to possible experience, they are for me non-existent, consequently, are not objects. . . —Critique of Pure Reason

Kant begins with a little jab at the historians of philosophy
"There are some scholars for whom the history of philosophy . . . is philosophy itself; for these the present Prolegomena are not written. . . . Unfortunately, nothing can be said which, in their opinion, has not been said before, and truly the same prophecy applies to all future time; for since the human reason has for many centuries speculated upon innumerable objects in various ways, it is hardly to be expected that we should not be able to discover analogies for every new idea among the old sayings of past ages."

The question--what makes metaphysics possible?--seems to cast doubt as to whether metaphysics "exists" or not. To be sure, Kant believes that something exists. . . but does it exist as a science? And to the extent that there is something science-like, what is the nature of that science?

Resistance to the question is expected, both from those who are heavily invested in metaphysics and from those who have never been exposed to any alternative other than the prevailing metaphysics.

Answer this question for extra credit
1. Why does Kant refer to the Critique of Pure Reason as a synthetic work and the Prolegomena as an analytic work?
2. What is the meaning of the Horace quote, “A peasant waits for the river to flow away, but it flows on and will so flow forever.”?

Concerning metaphysical knowledge
In Section K2, Kant says that the law of contradiction, while necessary, is not sufficient for determining the truth of mathematical propositions. Why is that? What more is needed?