outside discourse (ii)
Some email replies to me about "Outside Discourse" have noted how neo-Kantian the setup sounds ... these nomological tendencies, and math and logic ... how do they differ from Transcendental Ideas.
The path that led me here is very similar to Kants ... the path that leads through Newton and Hume. Kant famously claims that Hume woke him from his dogmatic slumber. Kant was very well versed in Newton before coming upon Hume. I found Hume first and Newton later, so for me it has been a matter of how far Newton can take us, and Kant has the original best hypothesis of "all the way".
At core, though, I am far more Humean than Kantian. I am highly influenced by Kant but only as an exempler of a notion with which i do not agree.
The key phrase is "synthetic a priori" ... are such observations possible. Kant says yes. Hume says no. I take Kant's claim seriously. The "Ideas" he picks out as being synthetic a priori i do consider to be special cases ok knowledge ... the most interesting cases of knowledge. They are just not a priori in any strong metaphysical sense.
Kant needs the synthetic a priori to metaphysically ground science. I am happy to leave science ungrounded, but the notion of the limits of science fascinate me, and the pursuit of those limits have led me to the same notions (at least modern interpretations of them ... eg. no longer things like Newtonian space-time and a significant difference in theory of perception/cognition) of Kant's Ideas ... but not to ground anything, but rather, to see the edge of the thing, the limit to re-use that word again.
The most contentious part of the move in the circles (analytic philosophy) that i travel is placing math and logic back into the emperical world. Kant (and many later big names, Wittgenstein and Kurt Goedel included, in some senses) classed these as "analytic a priori".
I throw out the notion of analytic pretty much altogether. All real (always a loaded word, of course) knowledge is synthetic. What, then, kind of knowledge are the kinds we call analytic ... the basic truths of math, geometry, logic? I tie this question directly to the truths of "science at its best" and believe there to be a common thread.
Did that answer the questions?
The path that led me here is very similar to Kants ... the path that leads through Newton and Hume. Kant famously claims that Hume woke him from his dogmatic slumber. Kant was very well versed in Newton before coming upon Hume. I found Hume first and Newton later, so for me it has been a matter of how far Newton can take us, and Kant has the original best hypothesis of "all the way".
At core, though, I am far more Humean than Kantian. I am highly influenced by Kant but only as an exempler of a notion with which i do not agree.
The key phrase is "synthetic a priori" ... are such observations possible. Kant says yes. Hume says no. I take Kant's claim seriously. The "Ideas" he picks out as being synthetic a priori i do consider to be special cases ok knowledge ... the most interesting cases of knowledge. They are just not a priori in any strong metaphysical sense.
Kant needs the synthetic a priori to metaphysically ground science. I am happy to leave science ungrounded, but the notion of the limits of science fascinate me, and the pursuit of those limits have led me to the same notions (at least modern interpretations of them ... eg. no longer things like Newtonian space-time and a significant difference in theory of perception/cognition) of Kant's Ideas ... but not to ground anything, but rather, to see the edge of the thing, the limit to re-use that word again.
The most contentious part of the move in the circles (analytic philosophy) that i travel is placing math and logic back into the emperical world. Kant (and many later big names, Wittgenstein and Kurt Goedel included, in some senses) classed these as "analytic a priori".
I throw out the notion of analytic pretty much altogether. All real (always a loaded word, of course) knowledge is synthetic. What, then, kind of knowledge are the kinds we call analytic ... the basic truths of math, geometry, logic? I tie this question directly to the truths of "science at its best" and believe there to be a common thread.
Did that answer the questions?
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 2:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home