Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Study of Scientific Knowledge

Posted on Dec 10, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

1. Analysis of Scientific Knowledge: Transcendental Terms of Scientific Knowledge

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is concerned with identifying the problem of knowledge and analysis of the possibility of metaphysics as a science, with the same rigor and accuracy that at that time had reached mathematics and physics. Kant meant by metaphysical discipline philosophical traditions inherited from above (as the medieval scholastic school or rationalist) that was seen as the foundation and basis not only of all the sciences but also of values, morality, politics, etc.

In a dictionary of Kant’s time, it is considered as “The science that deals with the first principles of our knowledge, ideas universal and spiritual beings, but completely a priori, outside experience, i.e. in the form of conceptual knowledge Ideas. From the reason, I can know something perfectly and I can apply it to other objects, since reason has ideas innate, fundamental body of knowledge, and demonstrate whether they are true. Therefore from something known truth, I can understand their causes and consequences.”

Rationalists believed that the mind could know the reality without the help of the experience, the mind possessed innate principles. On the other hand, the empiricists believed that all knowledge came from experience, of what our senses pick up, so simple charlatanism was rationalism that had no basis that did not depend on experience. Metaphysics fell into general contempt, and that Kant worried, because although it was not a metaphysical science, dealt with the major problems of mankind, which, although they did not have a scientific answer were the most important.

According to Kant, mathematics and physics have entered the secure path of science, but metaphysics for the following reasons:

The lack of unanimity. In the physics all scientists agree on theories, but in metaphysics Queen disagreement. And worst of all is that there is no criterion to know what are true and which are not.
The stagnation. While the rest of the advanced science of metaphysics still standing, because nobody could agree.

Kant asked about the possibility of metaphysics as a science, but also had to wonder how it was possible science. Kant does not ask at any time if the science is true or not, because for him it is clear that it is. What I want to know is why it is true. Want to know what elements make up scientific knowledge, to compare with metaphysics, and if it meets them may someday come to be regarded as a science, but no.

Kant will submit to the court metaphysics of criticism, a critical understanding of “rational analysis or examination.” The reason is self-analysis to determine their limits. The problem of metaphysics is that it has corrected its own principles after a rational analysis. Rationalism has argued that the reason a number of innate principles and, from these principles, by rational deduction (thinking), without recourse to sensory experience, could get up the building of knowledge, reality could be known in its entirety.

However, empiricism, to reject the nativism and argue that all knowledge comes from experience, leads to skepticism. A Hume occurred to him that since he could not prove the existence of God, could not demonstrate the relationship between thoughts and reality. Even scientific laws are secure. If these laws are mere generalizations from experience and it is contingent and particular, nothing assures me that always and in all cases natural phenomena will behave the same way.

Hume concluded that we must admit that reason is unable to provide a foundation of knowledge, so that instead of seeking an absolute or metaphysical certainty for knowledge, must be content with a moral certainty sufficient to lead us in our daily lives. For Kant only that which contains necessity (which is necessarily so and can not be otherwise) and universality (which always happens or act the same way) can guarantee a reliable knowledge.

Scientific laws or have universal validity and express the existence of a necessary connection in nature or are not scientific laws. The rationalists say that the experience was good for nothing and empiricists say that everything came from the experience, but for Kant the two did have a point, since experience is necessary for knowledge, but not enough. This field experience is independent of it, which are what give the notes to the knowledge of universality and necessity.

According to Kant in all sorts of knowledge under two conditions: some are external or materials associated with the senses, and others are specific to the individual or formal, which are the human mind imposes on the information coming from abroad. The first are from outside the human mind (intuition) and the latter are completely a priori elements. Kant’s thesis is a synthesis between rationalism and empiricism.

Affirms that all human knowledge has its starting point in the experience, but on the other side denies all knowledge comes from her, because there are a number of elements inherent in the human reason that does not come from experience. The aim of Kant was to find and define these elements, i.e., find out what’s in a priori knowledge. The importance of these elements a priori is that the universality and necessity of knowledge can only come from them.

Critique of Pure Reason asks. What I can know? There are questions on the principles from which scientific knowledge is possible, and secondly also wondered about the limits within which that knowledge is possible.

Is it possible to metaphysics as a science?
How is science possible?, Words, science is possible under certain conditions wondered why What are the transcendental conditions that make scientific knowledge possible?
If science is a set of trials. What judgments are possible about science?, Is, What are the transcendental conditions that make scientific judgments possible? Analyze how they occur, causes and consequences, in the two stages of knowledge (understanding and sensitivity), as they provide the degree of universality and necessity of the science.
What are the transcendental conditions that make synthetic judgments a priori?
Do these conditions exist in the judgments of metaphysics? No, then metaphysics is not possible as a science.

Science is vital, no doubt, and is therefore universal, valid, objective and necessary. “Synthetic judgments a priori” = to make the object you express what you choose to reason, or their demands, is the same as saying that knowledge of the experience more elements that incorporates a priori knowing subject “The metaphysics will deal with transcendent moral world, the metaphysics of morals, it is what goes beyond experience, and is responsible for ethics and values. It consists of ideals. This establishes what Kant after the critique of metaphysics.

1.2. Classification of the Types of Trials

Since science is a set of trials, the previous question can be expressed more precisely in the following way: what are the conditions that make possible the trial of science? This requires establishing the basic types of trials, for which Kant presents us with two classifications:

The trials divided into analytical and synthetic judgments and addresses whether the concept predicate concept is contained in the subject:

Analytical trials if the predicate is included in the subject are judgments a priori if its truth can be known independently of experience, are universal and necessary judgments, to establish the trial is sufficient to analyze the concept of subject to attribute a predicate., so do not give us any new information, “The triangle has three sides “
Synthetic judgments if the predicate is not included in the subject: are judgments that broaden our knowledge information. Are a posteriori and are not universal and necessary judgments.

The second classifies them as a priori and a posteriori and serves the way of knowing its truth: and subsequent trials if the truth is known from experience, are contingent and particular. The most important trials of science can not be either analytic or synthetic a posteriori but synthetic judgments a priori: to be synthetic, give information, expand our knowledge, for being a priori, are universal and necessary and knowledge of its truth not from experience. Precisely the fundamental principles of science (mathematics and physics) are of this type.

1. The Possibility of Metaphysics as a Science: The Conditions of Scientific Knowledge

Metaphysics in which Kant was formed (Wolffian rationalist metaphysics) took the mathematical ideal of science and believed that philosophy should be a deductive activity, based on pure reason. Kant defended at first this kind of philosophy but soon wanted to find a new foundation of metaphysics: it has been tried, dogmatically (through the use of pure reason) to develop philosophical systems but all have failed have failed because no progress or agreement among researchers, failure seemed to lead to skepticism.

Kant thought it necessary for philosophy and for the interests and ultimate aims of man a Critique of Reason itself about itself, about its scope and its limits, a “critical organ” of knowledge. It is urgent to consider the question whether metaphysics is possible as a science. The critical task will be to clarify the principles and limits of reason. Kant believed that the mistakes came from an “overshoot” of Reason: not respecting their own limits and seek to achieve a knowledge beyond all experience (dogmatic use of reason leads to the dogmatic philosophy).

In contrast, the setting of limits established by the Critique, Kant hopes to obtain two advantages: to avoid further failures to show the human capacity to achieve a metaphysical knowledge by pure reason, and make it safe level of the intelligible, ruin the claims of atheism, materialism and determinism (this use of reason is a critical use and brings a critical philosophy).

**1.2. A priori Transcendental Conception of the “Transcendental Aesthetic”: The a priori forms Sensitivity**

Sensitivity is the ability or power of feelings. Aesthetics explains how to have feelings and to be “momentous” deal with the transcendental knowledge of the conditions (universal and necessary) that allow sensitive knowledge, a precursor to all knowledge. Kant distinguishes two moments in perception: the subject and form. Matter is made by the insights that we have ordered the knowing subject by the way, or as Kant called “pure intuition” and are a priori in the spirit.

The union of sensations or empirical (matter) and form a priori is called Phenomenon. The pure forms or principles of a priori sensibility, are the conditions of space and time (found in mathematics and physics) Space and time are a priori conditions of sensibility.

“Transcendental Analytic” Spontaneity Understanding what is perceived understanding the proper function of the Understanding

Kant considers this option in the Transcendental Analytic. Our expertise also includes concepts of perception, for understanding the phenomena is able to refer to a concept, if not the sense impressions can refer to a concept, our understanding of those impossible. This activity concepts refer to phenomena are carried out through litigation. The understanding can be seen, therefore, as the faculty of concepts, or as the power of trials, the right to judge.

Concept: Ideas that we are in our thinking or framework that recognizes and identifies the phenomenon. Ultimately they are “pure concepts” or “categories.” Rules by which we make, and we relate the data collected by the sensitivity, without them we could not know. “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind” Kant distinguishes two kinds of concepts, empirical, which come from experience and are a posteriori, and the pure concepts or categories that do not originate from the experienced and a priori categories (substance, causality, unity,…); need are notions that do not refer to empirical data but they are not built, “invented” by man empirically, because they belong to the structure of understanding (are a priori). Without them there would be knowledge, judgments or empirical concepts. (Cantidad. Value, quality and modality) Knowledge is possible, because we apply the categories to the manifold given in sensation.

The pure concepts are transcendental conditions are necessary, our knowledge of the phenomena and that understanding can not think if not applicable to this category. The categories are only source of knowledge applied to phenomena. The fallacy of dogmatic philosophy (based on the pure use of reason) is to use categories to describe transempirical or transcendent realities (God and the soul, e.g.).

Physics is possible as a priori know that the world has a mathematical structure (to be subjected to time and space) and because the categories have an empirical validity, because all phenomena are structured according to categories. This is Kant philosophically legitimized Newtonian universe.

II.3. The “Transcendental Dialectic”: Reason and its Demand for the Unconditioned

“Transcendental Dialectic” Reason and examines the question whether metaphysics can be a priori knowledge, and concludes that metaphysics as a scientific discipline is impossible. Metaphysics want to achieve things as they are in themselves, their objects are transcendent (not empirical), the soul, freedom and immortality, God and the world as a whole, but necessarily uses science classes, they can only be used legitimately applied to phenomena, to the given in experience.

Theoretical reason, in a lax sense, is what makes the world’s knowledge, and strictly speaking the power of the arguments. Intellectual knowledge and make judgments about judgments connect with other reasonable means. But there is a peculiar trend in the use of Reason: Reason seeks to find general judgments increasingly capable of covering a multitude of private lawsuits they serve basis.

Reason aspires to the unconditioned, the foundation of the basics. When Reason in the search for the conditions of the conditioned, more general laws and deep, remains in the limits of experience, its use is correct and does not lead to contradictions, science progresses precisely from this trend of Reason, but this trend inevitably leads to push the limits of empirical experience in search of the unconditioned: thus, all physical phenomena is intended to unify and explain with metaphysical theories about the world, like all psychological phenomena through metaphysical theories about the soul, and finally, some other phenomena and seeks to explain and unify through metaphysical theories about a supreme cause of both types of phenomena, physically and mentally, God.

“God,” “soul” and “world” are thus three ideas of reason, ideas that have no objective reference, do not have a constitutive use in the sense that we can not know the objects that refer (God, soul and world as a whole), but they allow regular use of research orientation and direct the use of reason in the quest for an ever deeper explanation of reality.

1.3. The Sea-Change

Science has found clear, certain knowledge and ability to progress through a change método.En, metaphysics always discusses about the same, (if the world is finite or infinite, if God exists or not, questions about freedom …) Metaphysics and is not progressing at the same point where it started, i.e., “has not found the sure path of science” but humans must know the answers to these questions.

The achievement of science is that scientists do not expect to tell the nature of things, it forces him to answer questions posed. Metaphysics must follow the same procedure if you want to be a science and progress, to find the safe path of ciencia.Kant proposes a new method in terms of epistemology, where he proposes to reverse the direction of the relationship established between objects in the world and the subject, calls it “The turn or Copernican revolution,” because until then the subject was submitted to the object.

Metaphysics should be modeled on the method of science to progress. This method seeks to justify that knowledge and science, having to be experimental can not avoid being universal and necessary, i.e. constant in time and fixed. Kant presents a new methodology where objects are made subject to human rationality. Knowledge consists of two components:

One outside the subject and to reach sensitivity: intuition
Another independent of the perceived object, which provides the knowing subject and the object that allows to know: A priori.

Through the A priori, will exceed the contingency of the sensory and experimental to the universal and necessary features required by the knowledge.

Premises:

The experience can not be universal and necessary because we have intuitions sensitive individuals.
Science is universal and necessary.
There are two elements in the development of knowledge: the object and mind.
The universality and necessity puts the subject in its own way to know is what a priori, independent of experience.
The subject provides knowledge outside the experience, and makes science a universal and necessary knowledge.
The subject places a number of conditions of human perception of the object.

The turnabout is consistent with the “critical philosophy” (to prosecute the possibilities of knowledge) and “transcendental” (part of the knowledge outside the experience)

Meaning of the word metaphysics:

Traditional Metaphysics: science of the supersensible (soul, God) It is a science of objects intended to show that is the soul itself “(free, indivisible, immaterial …)
The new metaphysical criticism: theory of rationality, or metaphysics of the subject, which shows (as transcendental) how and why those notions we are to know anything for them.

Contains:

Metaphysics of Nature: an explanation of how we see the world and its limitations (seeing the world as if it were the work of a rational being.)
Metaphysics of Morals: as we know rationally the moral high ground (free and autonomous beings)
rationalist metaphysics of history
Explanation of “Natural Arrangement” of human reason in the metaphysical questions that we ask and think, but can not resolve them or know.

2. Transcendental Critique of Metaphysics

2.1. Distinction between Phenomenon and Noumenon

Phenomenon: The scope of the senses. That given to sensitivity. Object undetermined empirical intuition. What being empirical human subject is offered to affect them. Only our knowledge of phenomena. When the object from the outside world is ordered under the structural conditions of space and time as a priori constraints of the object and without which we can not know anything, so the object is revealed as something intelligible, orderly and sentido.
Noumenon: Notion that means one thing to be thought (by the pure understanding) as a thing in itself and not as objects of the senses. noumenon is the thing itself, that we do not know considerably, but we assume it exists. It can not be science, not the subject of the experience. This is the negative conception of the noumenon: what is the object of sensible intuition.

La Concepción is positive: the noumenon can be non-sensible intuition or intelligible or intellectual intuition, that is direct and immediate uptake of the things that generate a different understanding of science. From this conception is not achieved true knowledge but covers the subject of human morality under a methodology hermenéutica.La intelligible or intellectual intuition is that which is not peculiar to human subjectivity, but the intuitive understanding and divine (God), that know that things need not be given through sensibility. Its object is the intelligible object, the object is not sensible.

2.2. Sense Negative Criticism: Theoretical Limitation of the Use of Reason to the Phenomena

Criticism positively and negatively defines the territory of the reason for drawing boundaries that can know and think. Beyond these borders will fall right into contradictions (antinomies), which lost the true knowledge, experience. If we want to know can only be through phenomena, metaphysics can not be a science of the supersensible. The reason compels us to seek legislation within the limits of experience. But the right wants to know things in themselves, the unconditioned, but you must think he can not meet without conditions. This claim of natural or legal knowledge is (always have). Any attempt to know anything that is not supported on the experience is a failure. Metaphysics is a natural disposition of reason. The failure of metaphysics is due to make a constitutive use of the ideas, which leads to error.

God, the soul and the world exist and serve to meet the rest of existing things. Metaphysics move ahead if it regulative use of ideas, ideas, ideals seek knowledge. “God, soul, and world.” This metaphysics is called the “metaphysics of as if”

2.3. Positive Sense of Criticism: The Defense of the Practical Use of Reason

The theoretical reason is concerned to know how things are, however, practical reason is concerned about how being human behavior – The theoretical reason (scientific) make judgments.- The practical reason made mandatory. Kant’s ethics is a real novelty in the history of ethics, to him, all were called ethical ethical materials, to his ethics is called formal.

Critique of Kant to the ethics materials. The ethics materials are empirical, a posteriori, i.e., its content is drawn from the experience. The ethical precepts of the materials are conditional or hypothetical, because they start from the assumption that certain actions or decisions made will achieve its objective, not valid in an absolute way to an end, because we have no security to achieve our goal. The materials are heteronomous ethical (as opposed to independent). If autonomy is that the subject gives himself the law, heteronomy is to receive the law from outside your own reason, which must be imposed on our behavior, our goal and how we get it accepted moral standards that have established other (Christians). The ethical pursue the happiness materials, i.e. tell us the goal to be achieved and how that behavior, do it.

Characteristics of formal ethics of Kant.

An ethics that is strictly universal and rational, not be empirical, but has to be a priori.
Its imperatives are not to be hypothetical but categorical. (Will Segura, firm, coming from outside)
It must be autonomous but heteronomous. It imposes on itself the reason, the rules of conduct and not from outside, are not external.
A formal ethics is an ethics meaningless. This means two things:
- that does not provide any goods or purpose.
- That does not tell us what we do but the way we act, how we should behave.
It is consistent because we realize our decisions will.

Fundamental concepts of formal ethics of Kant.

GOOD WILL: It is impossible to imagine anything in the world or outside it that can be called absolutely good except goodwill. Example: The wealth can be abused, therefore it is not a pure or absolute, the same is true of intelligence, because a criminal may possess and misused his talent. The same is true of natural features of the character, eg courage, because you can use or display in the pursuit of an evil end. Instead, good will can not be bad in any case. To clarify the meaning of “good” applied to the will, it uses a different concept than “duty” is the most prominent feature of the moral conscience, a will that will work to duty, it is a good will and authentic.
THE DUTY AND INCLINATION: Kant distinguishes types of actions:
- natural inclinations of the people, “stay alive”
- Shares made pursuant to a duty-interest “to go to school to pass” These are social obligations to achieve profitability, is hypocrisy.
- Actions on duty: it is by no need to keep it, but we betray ourselves.
PRINCIPLES OF THE PURE WILL: It distinguishes two types of principles:
1. Has met so unconditionally, without expecting nothing in return but only because it corresponds to our goodwill. Only then will we really libres.
2. To be free also to be racionales.El moral categorical imperative is universal and necessary principle of practical reason is expressed by these maxims:
  - Act in such a way that you want the maxim of your action becomes the law of universal nature or behave the same way that we want others to behave in our situation. “We want to rob us?”
  - Act in such a way that you treat humanity, both to yourself as any other, always as an aim in itself and not as a medium.Treating a person as a human, and not as a mere means or tools. For example: it gives a seller a heart attack, I must help, not go to another store. I have not just a business deal.
Objectives or moral law: That in turn may be hypothetical or categorical. The two show how to act. The hypothetical ordered the action as a means to achieve something. Categorical imperatives will require an absolute way. “Work in a way that the maxim of thy will may be valid as long as both the principle of universal law.” The attitude of the will on the categorical imperative can occur in three ways:
- Santa or good will: one that acts out of respect for the law, for the sake of duty. The actions of this will are called “actions on duty.
- Of the morality or legal will: Work under the law, or moral law-abiding but respect for her but for other inclinations. These are called “actions under the duty.”
- The willingness morally wrong: it violates the moral law. Of these three types of modes of action will, only the first is true moral courage.

“Postulate of reason PRACTICE: guarantees as to whether the reason is space Audio propositions: Propositions that are not self-evident, that can not be proven, but accepted. According to Kant there are three:

The obligation to act from duty, is freedom.
That the human will is free.
The existence of a spiritual and immortal soul. (The quest for perfection is the line of duty) (under)
that God exists. (Guarantee that virtue will be rewarded with happiness) are propositions which are neither evident nor demonstrable, but you have to believe in them and accept them as true if we do not want to sink moral.La order rational will, it should be governed by same with autonomy, give ourselves rules

Freedom: Freedom is the absence of cases. Being free is not to get carried away by the impulse to do good. This will only happen if we think that freedom is a thing in itself can not know and not subject to the concept of causality in science. So then, can not be known scientifically.

2.4. Metaphysics, Criticism and Illustration

Since s. Eighteenth century until “The Age of Enlightenment.” They want to shed the reason for society, immersed in darkness of ignorance. But while metaphysics is impossible in the realm of reason, it is possible and apodictic (necessary) on a practical level, the question of what I can learn? is not alone.

The ideas of reason are as useful to order the thoughts, regulating the principles of understanding and therefore of knowledge, although they can not produce for themselves or expand their field of objects. Metaphysics enters the field of rational faith, thus, although he has taken his intended character of science, it has been grounded in a blameless for any further scientific process.

Now finally, we can say that Kant sees metaphysics as a natural disposition. Under this name, we understand the peculiar metaphysics as knowledge, so rooted in the rational structure of human beings, it is almost impossible without it. The objects of this knowledge are eternal questions that have plagued humans since its origin: God, freedom and immortality. Hence the ongoing attempts to solve intricate problems, although this reason has often had to move away from the experience and get lost in their own fallacies. Never, then, can man escape his spell, and although they often attempt to depart, “will always return to her as a lover with whom he has had a falling out.”