On the left you have the action – the type of judgment we can make. Then you have the pure concept of the understanding – the a priori concept we must have in our form of thinking which enables us to explain how we can make the judgments we can demonstrably make. The “Help” column is just some helpful words that give insight into how to understand the more technical language. Then you have some basic examples (some are problematic). Finally, on the far right, you have the division Kant makes between the mathematical and dynamical: quantity and quality pertain to objects of intuition, and relation and modality pertain to the existence of such objects (either in relation to each other, or to our understanding).
Get them here:
Empirical Reality vs. Absolute Reality vs. Transcendental Ideality
1. ER applies to all possible objects that could be sensed; i.e. all possible objects of empirical intuition (appearances)
2. AR: applies to all objects in themselves (Kant refutes this view with respect to Space/Time)
3. TI: applies to a priori: it is nothing at all (“just an idea”) once we remove the subjective conditions of the sensible intuitions
Remember these are not the same: sensations, intuitions, concepts, ideas
Steps of CPR
1. Analysis of Sensibility,
2. Analysis of Understanding,
3. Analysis of Reason
To get a trust-able estimation of theoretical use of Reason, Kant realizes you have to do 1&2 or else you will “epic fail,” as gamers would say. The goal we expect in the title is a direct criticism of Reason; yet Kant realizes you can’t “step skip,” and the effective goal becomes getting our thinking grounded and orderly (Sensibility & Understanding as COGNITION).
Thus, this is Kant to his audience wanting to jump to the ideas of Reason:
The Transcendental Pieces
1. Transcendental Aesthetic pertains to the object as GIVEN
2. Transcendental Logic pertains to the object as THOUGHT
The necessity of both pieces as a GROUND: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind” (193)
Transcendental Logic, Part II of the Adventure
General Logic vs Transcendental Logic:
1. general logic (2 modes): 1a. pure logic, which is the “canon of understanding”, pertaining to the principles of formal USE (form of thinking in general); 1b. applied logic, which is empirical ans concerns the “common understanding” (the inherited “logics” of your way of life, etc.); thinking under the conditions of the subject (empirical psychology)
2. transcendental logic: has to do not just with the form of our thinking, but the origin of our conceptions (this is what we are after next week)
WEEK2 Transcendental Aesthetic / Craig (wileyc2@) & Eliot (elhcorb@)
WEEK3 Transcendental Analytic / Corey (cjf5@) & Vic (vaque@)
WEEK4 Transcendental Dialectic / Kadrina (kadrinaq@) & Jacqueline (jacqma@)
WEEK5 Antinomies & CPrR / Caryn (h070095@), Richie (nelsor4@), Evan (porksoda@)
WEEK6 Examples Overview
WEEK7 Analytic of the Beautiful / Hana (hanaryan@) & Jacob (jbreier@)
WEEK8 Analytic of the Sublime / Brandon (weavb@) & Sam (samhus85@)
WEEK9 Teleological Judgment / Josh (jishirt@) & Stephanie (shaire81@)
There is a course reader for the seminar for download on the site. There will be two versions, since at the end of the class we’ll be adding our writings to it and re-doing the ToC to reflect those additions. The version posted now is the version we’ll use throughout the quarter.
However, most of the readings contained in there are purely optional. The required material is very short (the items on Kant, and one critic’s text, e.g.) – the miscellanea section is entirely optional and makes up the bulk of the reader.