Cambridge UP 2000. Dryer, P. D.: Kant’s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics. Allen & Unwin, London 1966. Gardner, Sebastian: Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. Routledge, London 1999.
Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979. 330. Kant, Immanuel.
Kant's Categories Reconsidered ABSTRACT: Adopting a Quinean criterion of ontological commitment, I consider the question of the ontological commitment of Kant's theory of our a priori knowledge of objects. Its direct concern is the customary view that the ontology of Kant's theory of knowledge in general, whether a priori or empirical, must be thought in terms of the a priori conditions or representations of space, time, and the categories. Accordingly, this view is accompanied by the customary interpretation of ontology as consisting of Kantian "appearances" or "empirical objects." I argue against this view and interpretation. My argument turns on the opposition between the necessity and universality of the a priori and the particularity and contingency of the existent.
Our experience of objects come from them being given to use through the framework of our mode of cognition, via sensible intuition. In essence, we experience an object of the corporeal world through sensations, and from that come to understand its properties. “Metaphysic” i... ... middle of paper ... ...ive and determined by our mode of cognition. The quote from Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” proceeds from four premises: that it has been previously supposed that all our knowledge must conform to objects, that everything metaphysics has tried to do by means of concepts have not works to that point, that we would better succeed in the problem of metaphysics by supposing objects must conform to our mode of cognition, and that metaphysics required a priori knowledge to make sense of what is given to us by experience. From this argument raises a set of implications, most of which involve shifting notions of concepts.
Necessity of Causal Judgments and particular laws of causation Sahar Heydari Fard R11290057 Introduction Kant had been faced with a ground braking critique, based on causation, which could be terminated by attenuation of metaphysics and science in general. Distinction between a priori and a posteriori judgments and proving the possibility of metaphysics and science as a priori synthetic knowledge, was his response to such critique. He introduced a system in which judgments could be granted as necessary, according to a priori concepts of understanding. One of these concepts is causation, which he introduces as the principle of temporal sequence according to the law of causality. In this paper I will argue that the law of causality is divided to general and empirical law of causality.
Kantian Ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print. Hayry, Matti. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics, USA: Routledge, 2013.
Kant's theory can be categorized as a deonotological because "actions are not assessed to be morally permissible on the basis of consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent's will in acting," (Dodds, Lecture 7) therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. Kantianism is based on three principles: maxims, willing, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a "general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it" (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle be universalisable and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone that encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. The second aspect of Kant's theory is willing.
These things are contingent- they could be different. “The connect... ... middle of paper ... ...n ‘a priori’ aspects. Therefore, the future will resemble the past, because we make it resemble the past. Kant used understanding, the second faculty of the mind to explain causality. “As the understanding stands in need of categories for experience, reason contains in itself the source of ideas.”(76) The function of understanding is thinking, and thinking must use concepts to be an objective thought.