Thursday, April 07, 2005
Transcendental Logic
Requirements For Experience:
Sensory abilites -> perception
Conceptual abilites -> thought processes (SPACE & TIME)
Intuition -> stream of data
Simultaneous Function
Consciousness (Subject)
[There is a reflexive (reciprocal) relationship between the intuition and the conceptionof OBJECTS.]
*Summary of Transcendental Aesthetic*
+> SPACE and TIME are foundation of experience
-> these conditions are intuited under all experience
-> SPACE and TIME cannot be understood as real objects
*Real objects exist for us to experience => definition of real is bound within human social constructs
+Transcendental Aesthetic: describes the conditions under which something can be sensed
+Transcendental Logic: devoted to the higher cognitive powers of the conceptualising and understanding.
1. Analytic of concepts which is concerned with the conceptualisation involved in cognition
2. Analytic of Principles - judgements of propositions
3. Dialectic -inference and reasoning
*Sensing involves its own formal and necessary features, whcih cannot be dependant on the functionality of the intellect.
TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
objects are made to conform to our cognition, which is the reverse of prior thinking. Thus objects do not hold an essential truth; however they may be 'other' than how we percieve them.
Empirically real objects can only be experienced in cirtue of transcendental ideals.
(general logic)-> is only a map -> thematic understanding is not possible -> a reflective capacity of our awareness is unavailable /\ intuition is merely giving raw information into the aesthetic - once we begin to cognize, or express via language, intuition it is no longer intuition but concept.
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC
Intuition and Sensibility (condition by SPACE and TIME) are delivery avenues for raw/pure data [ie no cognition]
KANT divides 'concept' and 'intuition' (how we experience) => the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) attempts to show how the two are ultimately melded together (but we must understand the difference) {DOES THIS SUCCEED?}
HEGEL attempts to map experience without such a division
Differentiation between TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC from GENERAL LOGIC/FORMAL LOGIC
T.L - Is a form of thought is directed at the knowledge of objects -> that is the end result extends our knowledge
G.L - lacks content and is used to merely understand how something works by negative deduction -> works similarly to understanding grammar within a language (not necessary to use the language and contains no language because it is merely a method of structuring information) *(A 56-7)
The content that is delivered by intuition cannot be made sense of without transcendental schema - this schema is TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC -> which isnt found within objects -> it is a product of the intellectual domain -> it is tied to the domain of concepts therefore it is A PRIORI => a function of the mindedness of mankind
---> it is universally bound (similar to language) and thus it is an instrument of exchange within the realm of intuition! It is the way we communicat intuition
CONCEPT-INTUITION RELATION (A 50 / B 74)
The CPR preserves the distinction between the intuitive and the conceptual knowledge not as separate worlds, but rather as separate source of a unified knowledge.
Intuition cannot make the distinction between representation and object (presentation)
Sensory abilites -> perception
Conceptual abilites -> thought processes (SPACE & TIME)
Intuition -> stream of data
Simultaneous Function
Consciousness (Subject)
[There is a reflexive (reciprocal) relationship between the intuition and the conceptionof OBJECTS.]
*Summary of Transcendental Aesthetic*
+> SPACE and TIME are foundation of experience
-> these conditions are intuited under all experience
-> SPACE and TIME cannot be understood as real objects
*Real objects exist for us to experience => definition of real is bound within human social constructs
+Transcendental Aesthetic: describes the conditions under which something can be sensed
+Transcendental Logic: devoted to the higher cognitive powers of the conceptualising and understanding.
1. Analytic of concepts which is concerned with the conceptualisation involved in cognition
2. Analytic of Principles - judgements of propositions
3. Dialectic -inference and reasoning
*Sensing involves its own formal and necessary features, whcih cannot be dependant on the functionality of the intellect.
TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
objects are made to conform to our cognition, which is the reverse of prior thinking. Thus objects do not hold an essential truth; however they may be 'other' than how we percieve them.
Empirically real objects can only be experienced in cirtue of transcendental ideals.
(general logic)-> is only a map -> thematic understanding is not possible -> a reflective capacity of our awareness is unavailable /\ intuition is merely giving raw information into the aesthetic - once we begin to cognize, or express via language, intuition it is no longer intuition but concept.
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC
Intuition and Sensibility (condition by SPACE and TIME) are delivery avenues for raw/pure data [ie no cognition]
KANT divides 'concept' and 'intuition' (how we experience) => the Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) attempts to show how the two are ultimately melded together (but we must understand the difference) {DOES THIS SUCCEED?}
HEGEL attempts to map experience without such a division
Differentiation between TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC from GENERAL LOGIC/FORMAL LOGIC
T.L - Is a form of thought is directed at the knowledge of objects -> that is the end result extends our knowledge
G.L - lacks content and is used to merely understand how something works by negative deduction -> works similarly to understanding grammar within a language (not necessary to use the language and contains no language because it is merely a method of structuring information) *(A 56-7)
The content that is delivered by intuition cannot be made sense of without transcendental schema - this schema is TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC -> which isnt found within objects -> it is a product of the intellectual domain -> it is tied to the domain of concepts therefore it is A PRIORI => a function of the mindedness of mankind
---> it is universally bound (similar to language) and thus it is an instrument of exchange within the realm of intuition! It is the way we communicat intuition
CONCEPT-INTUITION RELATION (A 50 / B 74)
The CPR preserves the distinction between the intuitive and the conceptual knowledge not as separate worlds, but rather as separate source of a unified knowledge.
Intuition cannot make the distinction between representation and object (presentation)
Labels: notes, philosophy
¶ 4:21 pm
Comments:
<< Home
Real objects exist for us to experience => definition of real is bound within human social constructs
objects are made to conform to our cognition, which is the reverse of prior thinking. Thus objects do not hold an essential truth; however they may be 'other' than how we percieve them.
The reality states "that the ability to control your perception" defines reality. It seems odd that objects would not hold the essential truth of it's own existance. Couldn't you argue that if you know that your in reality and find an object the only essential truth is it exist? However, that would mean you conceptialize reality. What happens if we don't conceptialize reality? Do we even exist? So all percieved truth are gathered and we don't even know they exist?
objects are made to conform to our cognition, which is the reverse of prior thinking. Thus objects do not hold an essential truth; however they may be 'other' than how we percieve them.
The reality states "that the ability to control your perception" defines reality. It seems odd that objects would not hold the essential truth of it's own existance. Couldn't you argue that if you know that your in reality and find an object the only essential truth is it exist? However, that would mean you conceptialize reality. What happens if we don't conceptialize reality? Do we even exist? So all percieved truth are gathered and we don't even know they exist?
The above comment is the skeptics argument. An argument that KANT doe snot approve of and circumvents by assenting to a fact namely that real objects exist.
The point that KANT asserts is that real objects exist in space and time for us to sense. However the truth of the object, as we know it, is bound to the human perspective (or on an individual level the perspective of 'I'). So that KANT says that we cannot doubt the existence of objects in space and time, what we can question however is our perception of it and how we experience these objects.
Thus KANT concludes with the phrase that "objects are made to conform to our cognition". That is any meaning, relative or not, is associated by our own means. FOR EXAMPLE the MAPLE LEAF does not in its essence contain CANADA, but within our REALITY, the MAPLE LEAF has an essential characteristic to CANADA and the representations of both objects that we hold. (Remember this is an example and all examples can be destroyed on basis of perspective...instead of attacking the example try and attack the logic of the arguement - KANT is not inafallible, and there is much writing that picks apart and disagrees with this thought..i will try to post some coutner arguments when my study reaches them!)
Post a Comment
The point that KANT asserts is that real objects exist in space and time for us to sense. However the truth of the object, as we know it, is bound to the human perspective (or on an individual level the perspective of 'I'). So that KANT says that we cannot doubt the existence of objects in space and time, what we can question however is our perception of it and how we experience these objects.
Thus KANT concludes with the phrase that "objects are made to conform to our cognition". That is any meaning, relative or not, is associated by our own means. FOR EXAMPLE the MAPLE LEAF does not in its essence contain CANADA, but within our REALITY, the MAPLE LEAF has an essential characteristic to CANADA and the representations of both objects that we hold. (Remember this is an example and all examples can be destroyed on basis of perspective...instead of attacking the example try and attack the logic of the arguement - KANT is not inafallible, and there is much writing that picks apart and disagrees with this thought..i will try to post some coutner arguments when my study reaches them!)
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home