Critique of Pure Reason 10 - Separating Time from Space
Details
READ FOR NEXT TIME
Read §§3 through the final conclusion of the Transcendental Aesthetic after §8, and Section I of the Transcendental Logic.
A31 - A55
B40 - B79
Guyer, pages 178 - 195
09/14/25 - Session 10, Finish Transcendental Aesthetic
09/28/25 - Session 11, Start the Transcendental Logic
10/12/25 - Session 12, be well into the Transcendental Analytic
WHAT DID WE JUST COVER?
TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR THE IDEALITY OF SPACE
- The transcendental explanation of space takes the phenomenon of space and mathematics as its premise and shows how space makes geometry, as well as mathematics generally, possible.
- Spatial intuition connects our senses to the outer world and indirectly connects our logical way of thinking to the world. It's not simply that objects need to be given to us before we can perceive, but also how our understanding connects to the world through that perception.
- We uncover fundamental truths in geometry, such as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Mathematics applies logic to space, and through that application, we understand the world. Pure logic has placeholders, mathematics has actual objects.
- Intuition connects us sensually to the outer world, and mathematics connects us intellectually to the outer world--but the latter would not be possible without the former, and hence its placement at the start of the book.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SPACE
- Space is not a property that exists independent of our subjective way of experiencing objects.
- Our capacity to be affected by objects requires a prior form that structures appearances. Space is that form, given a priori in the mind.
- Space is empirically real, but transcendentally ideal.
- Empirically real - all outer appearances necessarily conform to the spatial form that is universally valid for human experience.
- Transcendentally ideal - space has no meaning apart from our way of sensing; it is not a property of things-in-themselves.
- Sensations (color, sound, warmth), by contrast, are also “in us" but are mere matters of sense, not pure forms. They lack objective validity as different observers experience them differently.
- Space and time are subjective in origin but objectively valid in scope.
NOTES/RESOURCES
1. Here's a thesis I found online that explains Kant's account of sensation compared to Leibniz'. In addition to helping us understand certain comments Kant makes in the Transcendental Aesthetic, this will come in handy later on when we get into the Amphiboly. The reason why Leibniz is is wrong here is the same as why he's wrong there.
https://journals.flvc.org/UFJUR/article/download/135323/142655/268683
2. Updated slides about space in the Critique of Pure Reason (If anyone out there has an idea to easily visualize Slide #4 that analyzes judgments of knowledge according to a priori, a posteriori, synthetic, and analytic, contributions and suggestions are welcome).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AopD6LLjsnlaW70xVjf-45pWTOEyfE7M/view?usp=share_link
3. This meetup is for the Critique of Pure Reason. Anyone interested in teleology and the Critique of Judgment should come to the meeting I host on that subject. Next one is below.
Critique of Pure Reason 10 - Separating Time from Space