Kant’s purpose in the Prolegomena is to explain how Metaphysics as a science is possible. By definition, metaphysics explains the fundamental nature of being and the world. In order to understand metaphysics as a science we need to know the difference between these two terms: categories and ideas. The categories are pure concepts of understanding and the ideas are pure concept of reason. Metaphysics become subjective when everyone gives their own nature of reasoning. However, due to transcendental reasoning metaphysics become objectively possible because it includes the absolute totality of all possible experience. Metaphysics is based upon “synthetic propositions a priori”. The objects of experience have the relations of subsistence, causality, and community. The pure concept of understanding is result of experience. In the same way, transcendent concepts of reason cannot be confirmed by experience because they do not exist in mere appearances. Therefore, in order to know the pure concepts of understanding and pure concept of reasoning we need to be in the boundary of limitation of experience. According to Kant, we cannot know things as they are in themselves. Before, Kant metaphysics went beyond the boundaries of limitations of experience. Kant supports the fact that we cannot know the “things as they are in themselves”. And it is not about “a thing as it appears to us”. According to previous philosophers like Descartes claim that the soul is indivisible and therefore it is immortal substance. Then, Kant makes it clear that to enlighten about the soul as an indivisible, immortal substance is to explain about a “thing as it is in itself”. They are things in it which cannot be known directly but they are pure concepts of understanding which are derived from our experiences.
Knowledge depends on experience, therefore the limits of reason is based on experience. If our reason goes beyond its own limits, it will become dogmatic. For Kant, dogmatic statements are those statements that are accepted as true even though they go beyond the limitation of experience. Therefore we need to concise ourselves in the boundaries of limitations. Metaphysics itself is the critique of pure reason in relation to a priori knowledge. It is the basic foundation of science because science itself seeks for pure reasoning. The reason of nature must stay within the boundary of appearances. However, the reason of appearances wants to go beyond the appearances in order to recognize the source of appearances.
In the past, as you have said, philosophers have exceeded the boundaries of experience. Metaphysics concerns things within this realm, but Kant asserts that we are not able to know these things as actual through mere experience. You made reference to Descartes in regard to the idea of the soul, and said that Kant would refute the notion that it was indivisible and immortal because that would imply knowing a thing in itself. In addition to this, Kant also states that the soul dies along with one’s body, as well as, with experience and cannot be known thereafter. Kant works to relate everything back to experience and manages to show that without this firm grip in transcendental reality, pure reason is conjured. He shows how pure reason is in some way summoned by pure intuitions and concepts of understanding. Although there are things in reason that are not fully seen within experience, the categories and forms of intuition make ideas in reason possible.
ReplyDeleteI would not exactly say that Metaphysics is itself the critique of pure reason and its relation to a priori knowledge, but that it consists of an analysis (critique) of pure reason and the way our a priori experience shapes it. Metaphysics is a type of science, but not necessarily the basic foundation of science. In context, science is something that has actuality, universality and necessity, so in this sense science itself seeks or aims for just that.
Kant has successfully in his own way stayed within the limitations of experience. He goes beyond appearances and establishes categories that generally encapsulate pure reason. There is much ambiguity in these categories, making reason “divided against itself”, though each proof has truth within it. Perhaps for metaphysics, this is acceptable.
I really appreciate for your comment Janay. However, I was trying to put my view regarding metaphysics. Your points are really strong. After, reading your comment and professor's lecture, I understood more about metaphysics as a science.
ReplyDelete