David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Research Archives 14:343-358 (1988)
This essay attempts a re-reading of the meaning and import of “synthetic propositions a priori” in the light of two other background concepts in Kantian epistemology: Erklärung and Begründung. The significance of this pair of concepts lies in the fact that they represent the “philosophical motive” of Kant---leading him, inevitably, to take the “transcendental turn”. (And, on this point, I believe that some commentators have reversed the dialectic of Kant’s thinking: they make him take the “transcendental turn” first, and then envision the Erklärung and the Begründung.) And the distinction between the “sensible world” and the “intelligible world” was the consequence. Did this distinction also provide the ontological matrix for the epistemological distinction between “analytic propositions” and “synthetic propositions”? I take that to be evident. What is less evident is that Kant was more interested in the relation between the two worlds than in these worlds in isolation. He was concerned with demonstrating the possibility (i.e., the “transcendental possibility” and not merely the “logical possibility”) of the sensible in the light of the intelligible. This he sought to do by elucidating (with the help of “transcendental arguments”) the a priori conditions of possible experience. This was the hidden dialectic of the transformation of the image of mind, from the Lockean “mirror” to the Kantian “prism”. The synthetic propositions a priori (I argue) articulate the relation of the a priori conditions of experience to the possible objects of experience. (That is why Kant takes the metaquestion, “How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?”, to be the main problem of the Kritik der reinen Vemunft.) The significance of the work of Kant for what we moderns call the “philosophy of science” is noted in the conclusion
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Seung-Kee Lee (2009). The Synthetic a Priori in Kant and German Idealism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (3):288-328.
M. C. Dillon (1987). Apriority in Kant and Merleau-Ponty. Kant-Studien 78 (1-4):403-423.
Vasilis Politis (1997). The Apriority of the Starting-Point of Kant's Transcendental Epistemology. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (2):255 – 284.
Robert Hanna (1998). A Kantian Critique of Scientific Essentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (3):497-528.
Lucy Allais (2010). Kant's Argument for Transcendental Idealism in the Transcendental Aesthetic. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (1):47-75.
Avery Goldman (2002). The Metaphysics of Kantian Epistemology. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 76:239-252.
Mark Pickering (2011). The Systematic Unity of Nature as a Transcendental Illusion. Kantian Review 16 (3):429-448.
Glen Hoffmann (2011). Two Kinds of A Priori Infallibility. Synthese 181 (2):241-253.
Elena Ficara (2009). »Transzendental« bei Kant und Fichte. Fichte-Studien 33:81-95.
Manuel Bremer (2008). Transcendental Logic Redefined. Review of Contemporary Philosophy 7.
Melissa McBay Merritt (2006). Science and the Synthetic Method of the Critique of Pure Reason. Review of Metaphysics 59 (3):517-539.
Jason S. Baehr, A Priori and a Posteriori. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Glen Hoffmann (2012). Infallible A Priori Self-Justifying Propositions. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 12 (1):55-68.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads9 ( #159,507 of 1,102,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,556 of 1,102,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?