Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason Preface B, Introductions A & B

Preface B 1)Logicvs.Science a) Mathematics b) Natural Science / Physi 2) [c) Metaphysics?] Intuition  conform to  objecta priori? No Object  conform to  Intuitiona priori? Yes Concept  conform to  Objecta priori? No Object (given via exp.)  conform to  Concept a priori? Yes 3) Thus: Experience is a species of knowledge, which involves understanding, which has rules, which I must presuppose to be prior to my experience of objects [i.e., rules must be a priori]. 4) Good and Bad implications for Metaphysics: Good: a priori Bad: cannot transcend limits of the given (via experience) The Beyond = The Unconditiond (Bxxx) Foreshadowing (Bxxv – xxvi): Space, Time, and the Thing in itself

Introduction B I) A priori and a posteriori II) Necessary, universal; space, time III) Beyond knowledge: God, freedom, immortality IV) Analytic and Synthetic Judgments V) Synthetic a priori sciences (math, physics, metaphysics) VI) How are synthetic a priori judgments possible? VII) Reason, Pure Reason, transcendental, and methodology

Methodology and Conclusion Methodology: “… it must first have a doctrine of the elements, and secondly, a doctrine of the method of pure reason” (A15-B29). The two stems of human knowledge: Sensibility and understanding Through sensibility, the object is given to us. Through Understanding, the object is thought. Insofar as sensibility may be found to have a priori representations constituting the condition by which objects are given to us, it will be included in our transcendental philosophy. Since objects must be given before they are thought, this givenness will be considered first in the science of the elements.