Kant "so confused"

After reading parts of the book, I still really do not know what its about. I just found it very confusing to read and by far the hardest material yet. I enjoyed reading about the math section on how pure math is possible. You can tell by just this book that he is all about the sciences. I dont think that when it comes down to the science section that there could be any right or wrong answer, with how he is trying to prove metaphysics.

Kant "Theological"

Kant does seem to believe in a higher power. He creates this third transcendental idea called the Theological idea, which he finds the most important idea. He believes that with "pure reason" you can believe in a perfect being. He said that this definitely did not start by experience. He believes that it starts with an idea. I would have to agree. There is not particular way to know if God really exists, because we cannot just ask him (obviously). Anyways he thinks you start off with making an hypothesis. I know that I believe in God because I was brought up to believe in him, but I wouldn't dare to ask questions or experiment. I actually find it comforting believing that there is a higher, more perfect power to look up to and pray to.

Kant "Psychological"

"If space and the appearances in it are something existing outside us, then all the criteria of experience outside our perception can never prove the actuality of these objects outside us," said Kant on page 73. This quote is saying that that if something really exists that we can not prove it to be true if it is outside of our bodies. We cannot perceive something outside of our surroundings. They Psychological idea that Kant speaks about is done by experience or experimenting. Kant is conscious of his body, appearance, and his soul. He said that space could be absolutely nothing but a for of his sensibility.

Kant- Critique page 75-82

Kant says, "....If we, as is commonly done, represent to ourselves the appearance of the sensible world as things in themselve, if we assume the principles of their combination as principles universally valid of things in themselves and not merely of experience, as is usually, nay, without our critique, unavoidably done, there arises an unexpected conflict which never can be removed in the common dogmatic way; because the thesis as well as the antithesis can be shown by equally clear, evident, and irresistable proofs-for I pledge myself as to the correctioness of all these proofs- and reason therefore perceives that it is divided against itself, a state at which the skeptic rejoices, but which must make the critical philosopher pause and feel ill at ease." When I read this paragraph, I thought of it as a great way to end my series of posting. He goes on to say how when philosohpers write they must make sure not to sound like they are lying or contradicting. After reading 4 philosophers and they all contradict it is hard to say who is to beleive. What he talks about for a great deal of his book later and in the conclusion is about critique. In today's world we are critiqued as well. As college students, we get critiqued by our way of writing of papers, or comments etc. Philosphers must have also been critiqued which adds a whole new dynamic of what must have influenced then to write what they wrote based on what they were feeling.

kant- space and time

Kant says, "When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not og things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance, i.e. of experience, as a particular way of cognizing objects which is only afforded to man." He then says, "Objects of the sense therfore exist only in experience, whereas to give them a self-subsisting existence apart from experience or prior to it is merely to represent to ourselves that experience actually exists apart from experience or prior to it." This section made me think of a few things. First of all time. People say like from the beginning of time, so what is the beginning of time? The first time we used a watch or calendar?, the first time of humans? the first time of earth? Either way, these are limits. If there is a beginning to something that means there is a limit. The opposite would be if the earth was always here and then no body knows the time or how old eveyrthing is. We can guess all we want but we will never know.

Kant- the pyschological ideas- page 69-71

In this section Kant is explaining how our mind cognizes things. He says that "pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its own subject, and for this subject which is itself necessarily nothing but predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). This section made me think a lot. Have you ever thought about something and just wanted to know everything about it? What is stopping us? The fact that what we see and perceive is basically everything that we know about a subject. For us to learn more we have to go out of our way and learn it. How come our mind just can't let us know that the sky is blue for a certain reason? This section started bringing way out there ideas to my brain but that is why i decided to blog about it. Another thing I was thinking about while reading was haven't you ever wished you can experience everything. Or like hear everything that has ever been said. There is so much out there that we much go seek and unless we do it we would never learn.

Kant- how is pure natural science possible?

Kant says, nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. He says that the nature of things in themselves are neither a priori nor a posteriori. He says that things with the nature or things with experience are a priori. Things such as physics, mathematics, and substance. Kant asks this, "how can we cognize a priori that things as objects of experience necessarily conform to law?" He answers, "...whenever an event is observed, it is always referred to some antecedent, which it follows according to a universal rule; or else, everything of which experience teaches that it happens must have a cause. This section really made me think about Hume's book and his section on miracles and how they are impossible to occur.