,illu/ration3 ,immanuel ,kant 99,,! ,,philosophy ,,( ,,immanuel ,,kant99 ,,by ,a4 ,d4 ,,l9dsay1 ,m4,a4 ,,fell[ ,,& ,,tutor ,,( ,,balliol ,,college1 ,,ox=d ,,london3 ,t4 ,c4 ,e4 ,c4 ,,jack1 ,,ltd4 #ce ,,pat]no/] ,,r[1 ,e4,c41 ,,ed9burgh ,,new ,,york3 ,,dodge ,,publi%+ ,,co4 99,,=eword99 ,!re is a /ory t ,s*op5hau] us$ to beg9 8 lectures on ,kant by say+3 ,let no "o tell y :at is conta9$ 9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason4 ,! writ] ( ?is little book hopes t no "o w imag9e t he has disreg>d$ ?is w>n+4 ,!re are no %ort-cuts to ! und]/&+ ( a great philosoph]1 & ! only way to appreciate ! greatness ( a philosophic sy/em is to /udy ! philosoph]'s own writ+s4 ,all t ! writ] ( a book l ?is c hope to d is to p]suade o!rs to und]take t /udy by int]e/+ !m 9 ! problems ) :i* x deals1 & by (f]+ a few sugge/ions :i* may help to an und]/&+ ( x4 ,i h said no?+ ab\t ! num]\s o!r works :i* ,kant wrote4 ,= ! ?ree ,critiques conta9 8 sy/em1 & ! und]/&+ ( t is all-important4 99,,cont5ts99 ,,*ap4 ,i4 ,,! ,,idea ,,( ,,criticism ,,ii4 ,,kant',s ,,/atem5t ,,( ,,! ,,problem4 ,,syn!tic ,a ,,priori ,,judgm5ts ,,iii4 ,,kant',s ,,idealism4 ,,"t ,,& ,,space ,,iv4 ,,! ,,categories ,,& ,,! ,,pr9ciples ,,( ,,pure ,,und]/&+ ,v4 ,,! ,,ant9omies ,,& ,,criticism ,,( ,,! ,,pro(s ,,( ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,,god ,,vi4 ,,kant',s ,,moral ,,!ory ,,vii4 ,,! ,,critique ,,( ,,judgm5t ,,bibliography 99,,! ,,philosophy ,,( ,,kant99 99,,*apt] ,i99 99,,! ,,idea ,,( ,,criticism99 ,x is a difficult matt]1 says ,he9e1 to write ! life hi/ory ( ,immanuel ,kant1 = he _h nei!r life nor hi/ory4 ,he liv$ a me*anically ord]$1 ab/ract1 old ba*elor k9d ( exi/5ce 9 a quiet1 retir$ alley 9 ,ko5igsb]g1 an old t[n 9 ! nor?-ea/ corn] ( ,g]many4 ,! times he liv$ 9 7 /irr+ en\gh4 ,he 0 born 9 #agbd1 & di$ 9 #ahjd4 ,he liv$ ?r\gh ! ,sev5 ,ye>s' ,w> t fir/ made ,g]many a nation1 he foll[$ ) sympa?y ! ,unit$ ,/ates ,w> ( ,indep5d5ce1 he saw ! ,fr5* ,revolution & ! beg9n+ ( ! c>e] ( ,napoleon4 ,yet 9 all 8 long life he nev] mov$ out ( ! prov9ce 9 :i* he 0 born1 & no?+ 0 all[$ to int]rupt ! /eady c\rse ( 8 lectur+1 /udy+1 & writ+4 ,gett+ up1 cont9ues ,he9e1 dr9k+ c(fee1 lectur+1 eat+1 go+ = a walk1 ev]y?+ _h its fix$ "t2 & ! neighb\rs knew t x mu/ be exactly half-pa/ f\r :5 ,immanuel ,kant1 9 8 gray frock-coat1 ) 8 ,spani% cane 9 8 h&1 /epp$ f 8 door & walk$ t[>ds ! little lime-tree av5ue1 :i* is call$ aft] him ! ,philosoph]'s ,walk4 ,/range contra/1 reflects ,he9e1 betwe5 ! man's outw>d life & 8 de/ructive1 _w-sma%+ ?\ghts4 ,z ! political hi/ory ( ! eighte5? c5tury came to an end :5 ! ,fr5* ,revolution spill$ ov] ! bord]s ( ,france & drove ,napoleon up & d[n ,europe1 break+ up ! old political sy/ems & inaugurat+ mod]n ,europe1 s its oppos+ curr5ts ( ?\ght 7 ga!r$ toge!r 9 ! m9d ( a weak-*e/$1 half-invalid little man 9 ,ko5igsb]g1 & f _! meet+ a new era 9 philosophy began4 ,!re are "s philosoph]s to :om tru? seems to come almo/ uns\ght1 z an imm$iate au?oritative vision4 ,kant 0 n "o ( ^!4 ,8 greate/ "w1 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 0 conceiv$ :5 he 0 =ty-eight1 & publi%$ 9 #agha1 :5 he 0 fifty-sev54 ,x 0 ! outcome ( half a lifetime's pati5t /udy & ?\ght4 ,he9e says ( him3 ,he 0 ! p]fect type ( ! small %opkeep]4 ,nature _h meant him to weigh c(fee & sug>1 b fate will$ t he %\ld weigh o!r ?+s & put a ,god on 8 scales1 & 8 weigh+ 0 exact4 ,! sne] is unju/1 b !re is some?+ 9 ! simile2 = ,kant's philosophy 0 a k9d ( tak+ /ock1 a survey ( ! great movem5t ( ?\ght f ! "t :5 ! ,r5aissance & ! ,re=mation made ?\ght free1 an attempt to e/imate ! a*ievem5ts ( ! new sci5ces1 to deal ) _! conflict+ claims & ideals & say :at x all came to4 ,9 ,kant mod]n sci5ce1 :i* began ) ,desc>tes & ,galileo1 fir/ became consci\s ( itself4 ,?is tak+ /ock ,kant call$ ,criticism4 ,8 great books are all call$ ,critiques--! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason1 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t4 ,he call$ 8 philosophy ! ,critical ,philosophy or ,critical ,idealism4 ,ess5tial to an und]/&+ ( ,kant is an und]/&+ ( :at he meant by criticism1 & :y he opposes x to dogmatism & scepticism2 = ! necessity & possibility ( su* a criticism 0 8 great philosophical discov]y4 ,we h call$ ,kant's "w a survey ( ! a*ievem5ts ( ! ?\ght ( 8 times1 b x 0 v mu* m ?an t1 & has a mu* m univ]sal significance ?an c\ld belong to any hi/ory ( ! ?\ght ( "o epo*4 ,= ^! a*ievem5ts ( ?\ght1 ?\gh great1 7 conflict+ & p>tial4 ,!y contra/$ ) failure & b>r5ness 9 o!r directions1 & !y seem$ to be due to diff]5t me?ods4 ,?is success ( ?\ght 9 "o direction & its failure 9 ano!r1 & ?is unc]ta9ty ab\t ! true me?od ( sci5ce1 7 problems :i* at once pres5t$ !mselves to an imp>tial obs]v]1 & ,kant held t !y c\ld be answ]$ only by tak+ /ock ( actual atta9m5ts1 & by criticism ( ! p[]s & range ( human ?\ght 9 g5]al4 ,! problem t pres5t$ itself to him w be und]/ood if we look = a mom5t at ! hi/ory ( ?\ght 9 ! sev5te5? & eighte5? c5turies4 ,"o ?+ t ,kant not$ 9 x 0 ! /eady & sure progress ( physics4 ,) ! exp]im5ts ( ,galileo & ,torricelli1 he says 9 ! preface to ! second edition ( ! fir/ ,critique1 a new light fla%$ on all /ud5ts ( nature4 ,! cont9u$ success ( physics meant ! successful application ( ma!matics to ! concrete _w1 & along ) x a rem>kable developm5t ( ma!matics itself4 ,?is sudd5 success inspir$ m5 to feel t !y _h discov]$ a way ( expla9+ ! univ]se2 !y contra/$ ! f]tility ( _! new me?ods ) ! b>r5ness ( s*ola/ic speculation 9 morals & !ology2 !y felt confid5t t all t 0 want$ to ! atta9m5t ( c]ta9 k 9 all sph]es ( human int]e/ 0 ! ext5sion ( ^! me?ods4 ,if m5 w\ld only set to "w ! "r way1 !y 7 sure t all difficulties w\ld be ov]come2 &1 by reflection ^u _! own success1 !y hop$ to expla9 :at ! "r way 04 ,un=tunately ?is 0 n easy1 = ! advance f pure ma!matics to physics1 f a /udy ( ! nature ( pure ma!matical conceptions to an inquiry into ! laws ( fall+ bodies1 impli$ a *ange ^: nature 0 n cle> to ! m5 :o _h !mselves made ! advance4 ,a conflict arose betwe5 ^? :o ?\ght m ( ! fact t k1 to be c]ta91 mu/ be capable ( ma!matical expression1 & ^? :o ?\ght m ( ! basis ( exp]im5t & obs]vation on :i* ! new sci5ces dep5d$1 :o rememb]$ t ^! sci5ces began :5 ,galileo1 in/ead ( ?9k+ 9 ! ab/ract h[ bodies ought to fall1 dropp$ bodies ( diff]5t weights f ! top ( ! lean+ t[] ( ,pisa & obs]v$ :at actually happ5$4 ,desc>tes 0 ! great repres5tative ( ! fir/ s*ool4 ,he began by insi/+ on ! diff]5ce betwe5 ma!matical tru? :i* c\ld be1 z he said1 cle>ly & di/9ctly conceiv$1 & ord9>y op9ion ab\t ?+s :i* 0 full ( guesswork & imag9ation4 ,sci5tific k 0 possible1 he ?\ght1 only by appreh5d+ ! real or prim>y qualities ( ?+s :i* 7 ma!matical1 9 contradi/9ction to _! second>y qualities--_! col\r1 smell1 c4--:i* 7 less real4 ,!nce he came to ?9k t ! real _w 0 ma!matical 9 nature1 l a huge1 intricate geometrical figure4 ,! elem5ts ( m]e fact1 9 our pres5t k1 its dep5d5ce on obs]vation & exp]im5t1 he ?\ght ( z tempor>y defects :i* ! progress ( sci5ce w\ld remove4 ,:at we ord9>ily call p]ception1 inde$1 9 ! s5se ( aw>5ess ( ?+s 9 "t & space1 0 describ$ by ,desc>tes' successors z confus$ ?9k+4 ,our k ( ! _w w\ld1 x 0 hop$1 become a va/ ma!matical sy/em1 all ! detail & complexity ( :i* w\ld be rigor\sly d$ucible f a few c5tral tru?s4 ,?is g5]al way ( ?9k+ 0 call$ ,rationalism4 ,kant ord9>ily calls x ,dogmatism4 ,x 0 attack$ by o!r sci5ti/s = its view ( ! nature ( space & "t4 ,no "o :o reflects at all c fail to di/+ui% a diff]5ce betwe5 ! way 9 :i* we see ! tru? ( a geometrical proposition--t1 e4g41 ! ?ree angles ( a triangle are equal to two "r angles--& ! way 9 :i* we judge t su* & su* a figure drawn on a bo>d is a triangle1 or make judgm5ts ab\t ! way 9 :i* ?+s are actually arrang$ 9 space or succe$ 9 "t4 ,judgm5ts ( ! latt] k9d involve words l "h & !re1 n[ & !n1 words :i* are all a k9d ( po9t+4 ,x seems impossible f consid]+ ! nature ( a triangle to d$uce :y any exi/+ ?+ %\ld be call$ triangul>1 & all /atem5ts ab\t ! position ( ?+s 9 space & "t seem to be d]iv$ n f a consid]ation ( ! g5]al nature ( space & "t1 b f obs]vation4 ,n[ ! sci5ce :i* _h made p]haps ! mo/ /rik+ progress 9 ! "t we are speak+ (1 physical a/ronomy1 involv$ any numb] ( /atem5ts ab\t ! position ( bodies 9 space4 ,! ,rationali/ s*ool admitt$ ?is1 b held t t 0 due to ! fact t sci5ce 0 n suffici5tly ?\ght out4 ,9 "t1 !y hop$1 all /atem5ts ab\t position 9 space w\ld disappe>4 ,to ?9k ( ?+s 9 spatial ord] 0 to ?9k confus$ly4 ,newton1 on ! o!r h&1 held t space c\ld n be expla9$ away1 t a/ronomy impli$ an absolute space 9 :i* ?+s exi/$1 t ! spatial relations ( ?+s c\ld n be expla9$ by ! nature ( ! ?+s !mselves1 b only by a ref]5ce to absolute space 9 :i* !y all 74 ,?is meant t obs]vation or p]ception 0 some?+ ( :i* y c\ld n hope & %\ld n wi% to get rid1 & t an ideal ( k 9 :i* all appli$ ma!matics %\ld h be5 transmut$ into pure ma!matics 0 a va9 "o4 ,a/ronomy impli$ bo? m]e obs]vation & appreh5sion ( necess>y relations4 ,"h 0 a sci5ce :i* seem$ to employ bo? me?ods toge!r4 ,galileo1 9 fact c\ld n h made 8 discov]y )\t obs]vation b m5 _h obs]v$ bodies fall+ = ages )\t discov]+ ! laws ( motion4 ,fur!r1 ! laws ( motion1 once discov]$1 made m5 9 "s degree indep5d5t ( obs]vation1 made !m able to say ( actual concrete ?+s n only :at _h happ5$1 b :at mu/ happ54 ,su* difficulties z ^! arose f reflection on ! aims & me?ods ( ! ma!matical sci5ces1 b !re 0 mu* g5u9ely sci5tific inquiry 9 ! sev5te5? & eighte5? c5turies1 :i* %[$ no signs ( tak+ ma!matical =m2 *emi/ry & biology1 = example1 7 /ill almo/ entirely empirical4 ,fur!rmore1 ?9k]s 7 n conc]n$ ) sci5ce alone4 ,^! c5turies saw a great revival ( int]e/ 9 speculation on human affairs1 hi/ory1 politics1 morals & !ology4 ,engl&1 :i* 0 ! home ( free discussion on que/ions ( politics & morals1 & :]e1 m ?an 9 mo/ o!r c\ntries1 !re 0 free discussion on !ology1 became also ! home ( empiricism4 ,! empirical movem5t1 inde$1 drew mu* ( its impetus f a reaction aga9/ ,hobbes1 ! only great ,engli% ?9k] :o unhesitat+ly appli$ ! me*anical & det]m9i/ic assumptions ( ! new sci5ces to morals & politics1 & arriv$ by ?is uncompromis+ me?od at results s obvi\sly repell5t t no man ( any s5se c\ld accept !m1 & s consi/5tly pres5t$ t !y c\ld n be refut$ save by a refutation ( ! assumptions ^u :i* !y 7 f\nd$4 ,su* a refutation 01 9 fact1 und]tak5 by ,locke1 ! fir/ great repres5tative ( ! empirical s*ool4 ,he 0 int]e/$ alike 9 ! m obvi\sly empirical sci5ces ( *emi/ry & biology1 & 9 politics4 ,he 0 n a v consi/5t or sy/ematic ?9k]1 b he _h o!r gifts p]haps z valuable4 ,he 0 a man ( great common s5se & bread? ( view1 & 0 able !reby to take a conspectus ( ! g5]al situation 9 ! v>i\s sph]es ( inquiry1 to notice ! obvi\s diff]5ces 9 our k ( ma!matics1 ( *emical & biological fact1 & ( !ology1 & to see t ^! con/itut$ a problem4 ,we f9d 9 him ! fir/ /atem5t ( ! necessity ( philosophical criticism4 ,x is conta9$ 9 8 acc\nt ( ! orig9 ( ! ,essay conc]n+ ,human ,und]/&+4 ,7 x fit to tr\ble !e ) ! hi/ory ( ?is ,essay1 ,i %\ld tell !e t five or six fri5ds1 meet+ at my *amb]1 & disc\rs+ on a subject v remote f ?is 7!y 7 discuss+ ! pr9ciples ( morality & reveal$ religion71 f\nd !mselves quickly at a /&1 by ! difficulties t rose on e side4 ,aft] we _h a:ile puzzl$ ourselves1 )\t com+ any ne>] a resolution ( ^? d\bts :i* p]plex$ u1 x came into my ?\ghts t we took a wrong c\rse2 & t1 be=e we set ourselves ^u inquiries ( t nature1 x 0 necess>y to exam9e our own abilities1 & see :at objects our und]/&+s 71 or 7 n1 fitt$ to deal )4 ,we h "h ! same g5]al />t+ po9t ( inquiry z we %all aft]w>ds f9d 9 ,kant4 ,!re are c]ta91 ob/9ate puzzles :i* we meet ) 9 discussion :i* c only be solv$ by go+ back & inquir+ into ! nature ( k & ! p[]s ( our m9ds4 ,un=tunately1 z ,kant po9ts out1 ,locke w5t ! wrong way ab\t 8 task4 ,he describes x z a pla9 hi/orical inquiry4 ,he ?\ght t he _h only to look into 8 m9d & see :at 0 9 x1 z he might op5 a door & look into a room4 ,! result is t he ?9ks ( all k z consi/+ simply 9 look+ at :at is pres5t to ! m9d4 ,we c "k1 !re=e1 :atev] c be pres5t to ! m9d1 & ! limitations ( k are discov]$ by ask+ :at c be s pres5t to ! m9d4 ,! conclusions to :i* he comes z to diff]5t sph]es ( human inquiry are r\ghly ^!3 ,we c h k ( ma!matics because !re we are conc]n$ only ) ideas pres5t to ! m9d1 & ) not+ _! agreem5t & disagreem5t4 ,we c h no k ( su* que/ions z ! immortality ( ! s\l1 or ! nature ( spirits1 = !y are beyond our obs]vation4 ,z reg>ds exi/+ ?+s1 we c h k ( !m1 9 s f> z !y are pres5t to our m9ds1 & no fur!r4 ,! mean+ ( pres5t to ! m9d 0 nev] cle>ly analys$ by ,locke2 b he meant1 = example1 t we c obs]ve t an object :i* is yell[1 & :i* we call gold1 is also heavy1 & c be dissolv$ by ,aqua ,regia1 b we _c say :y t is s1 & we ought n1 on ,locke's pr9ciples1 to h any gr\nd = suppos+ t ^! qualities w g on co-exi/+4 ,! elem5t ( tru? 9 ,locke's position is ?is4 ,:5 we are exam9+ concrete ?+s l pieces ( gold or any *emical sub/ance1 we f9d 9 !m a numb] ( v>y+ qualities ^: connection we _c und]/&4 ,we d n "k :y a metal ( a c]ta9 specific gravity %\ld also be yell[2 we c only note ! fact4 ,h5ce 9 *emi/ry our me?od mu/ be q diff]5t f ! me?od ( ma!matics4 ,9 ma!matics we />t f ! def9ition1 & we c und]/& ! connection ( ! prop]ties ( a geometrical figure1 & see t !y all foll[ necess>ily f ! def9ition4 ,b 9 sci5ces l *emi/ry a def9ition does n take u any fur!r2 we c only f9d out ! prop]ties ( a sub/ance by obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,locke expla9s ?is diff]5ce by say+ t 9 ! =m] case we are only conc]n$ ) agreem5t among our own ideas1 9 ! second place we are conc]n$ someh[ ) ?+s outside u4 ,?is explanation w n /&4 ,x is n true t ma!matics is simply analysis ( an arbitr>y def9ition1 z ,locke seems to sugge/4 ,x involves con/ruction1 or1 z ,kant calls x1 syn!sis4 ,x is a process ( discov]+ new tru?s4 ,secondly1 our /atem5ts ab\t concrete objects are n /atem5ts ( qualities we see co-exi/+ at ! mom5t4 ,!y are /atem5ts ab\t all gold or all m52 9 o!r words1 !y are univ]sal1 & ,locke f\nd x impossible to expla9 ! univ]sality ( su* propositions--:at we mean1 e4g4 :5 we talk ab\t ! nature ( gold or ( man1 n ( ?is gold or ?is man t ,i see be=e me4 ,la/ly1 ?is di/9ction ( ma!matics & ! empirical sci5ces by a di/9ction ( sph]es does n all[1 z we saw1 = a sci5ce l a/ronomy1 :i* builds on ma!matics & yet applies to ! concrete _w4 ,^! difficulties 7 se5 m cle>ly by ,hume1 at once ! greate/ & ! mo/ ?or\gh-go+ ( empirici/s4 ,he cut ! knot 9 reg>d to ma!matics by ass]t+ t geometry1 j because x has cle>ly an application to ! exi/+ _w1 _h no m c]ta9ty ?an any o!r empirical inquiry1 :ile ari?metic & algebra1 he agre$1 7 c]ta91 b conf9$ _! application to ! sph]e ( our own ideas4 ,bo? positions are almo/ obvi\sly inconsi/5t ) ! facts4 ,9 consid]+ ! nature ( our judgm5ts ab\t concrete exi/5ces he rais$ a m pr(\nd problem4 ,all su* judgm5ts1 z he said1 imply ! pr9ciple ( causation1 or ( :at is call$1 9 mod]n times1 ! pr9ciple ( ! uni=mity ( nature4 ,t pr9ciple we take ) u 9 our inve/igation ( ! exi/+ _w4 ,yet1 z ,hume saw1 we d n obs]ve causes2 we only obs]ve succession & *ange4 ,we seem1 !re=e1 to put into ! _w we see a necessity & uni=mity :i* ! obs]v$ facts d n w>rant4 ,h[ is ?is to be expla9$8 ,hume's answ] is +5i\s4 ,! pr9ciple ( causation _c be rationally ju/ifi$1 & ! necess>y connection we pr$icate ( *anges 9 ! outside _w is n 9 ! ?+s2 x is only a feel+ 9 ourselves1 & is ! result ( cu/om4 ,aft] see+ ! same succession sev]al times1 we come someh[ to feel diff]5tly ab\t x1 & t feel+ ( diff]5ce we express by say+ t we h be=e u an in/ance n ( simple succession1 b ( cause & effect4 ,?is is n ! place to discuss ! difficulties ( ,hume's position2 x is en\gh to notice h[ entirely passive x makes ! m9d1 & h[ ali5 su* an explanation is f ! _s ( inquiry & discov]y4 ,if cause is simply ! effect ( cu/om on ! m9d1 !n ! facts ei!r produce t effect or !y d n4 ,9 nei!r case is !re any?+ to f9d out4 ,b ! sci5ti/1 9 inve/igat+ causes1 h[ev] /rongly he may hold t he has to obs]ve ! facts1 kn[s also t he has a problem to solve1 t he has to discov] ! "r way to g ab\t x1 mu/ adopt "s pr9ciple 9 deal+ ) ! facts4 ,pure passivity w help him little4 ,hume's acc\nt ( causation1 !n1 is really a d5ial ( ev5 empirical sci5ce1 & yet x help$ to make cle> an important tru?2 =1 al?\gh we d n get ! pr9ciple ( causation f exp]i5ce1 we h to g to exp]i5ce to discov] causal laws4 ,we d n discov] causation by analys+ a cause & see+ t x is su* t1 f its nature1 x mu/ produce a c]ta9 effect4 ,all k ( causation goes back to obs]v$ succession1 ?\gh all cases ( obs]v$ & ev5 repeat$ succession are n cases ( causation4 ,hume1 !re=e1 0 "r 9 say+ t :]e !re c\ld be no obs]v$ succession !re c\ld be no k ( causation4 ,bo? ! rationali/ic & ! empirical explanations ( sci5ce _h fail$1 ! "o because x c\ld f9d no room = obs]vation ( facts1 ! o!r because x c\ld f9d no room = pr9ciples gov]n+ t obs]vation2 & we %all see t ,kant />t$ ) a consci\sness ( ?is d\ble failure4 ,he saw t ,hume's criticism ( causation rais$ problems = :i* ! rationali/ _h no answ]1 & yet t ! position rea*$ by ,hume 0 incompatible ) ! exi/5ce ( sci5ce4 ,! same failure ( bo? rationalism & empiricism _h become evid5t 9 ano!r sph]e--t ( morals & religion4 ,! relation ( philosophy to sci5ce is always tw(old4 ,philosophy is p>tly conc]n$ ) analys+ & reflect+ on ! me?ods ( ! diff]5t sci5ces1 p>tly ) seek+ to adju/ ! rival & conflict+ claims ( ! two great dep>tm5ts ( man's life--sci5ce & religion4 ,x might seem1 at fir/ sight1 z ?\gh 9 morals & religion rationalism 7 ! only possible me?od to be approv$ by philosophy1 =1 inasmu* z morals are conc]n$ ) :at ought to be1 n ) :at is1 !y _c dep5d on obs]vation1 b mu/ be d$uc$ f "s pr9ciple above exp]i5ce2 nor are objects ( religion1 ,god & ! s\l1 objects ( obs]vation4 ,no man c by se>*+ f9d out ,god4 ,x 0 natural1 !re=e1 t bo? on ! ,cont95t & 9 ,engl& morality & religion began by be+ rationali/ic4 ,desc>tes believ$ t 8 ma!matical me?od c\ld be appli$ ) success to demon/rate ! tru?s ( religion1 :ile ,locke includes morality along ) ma!matics among ! a priori & c]ta9 sci5ces4 ,b ! hi/ory ( eighte5? c5tury controv]sy %[$ t1 9 spite ( rationali/ me?ods1 nei!r morality nor religion c\ld atta9 t c]ta9ty & g5]al agreem5t :i* m>k$ ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,sp9oza1 apply+ ! same me?od z ,desc>tes1 b ) m consi/5cy1 arriv$ at a conception ( ,god :i* mo/ ( 8 contempor>ies reg>d$ z horrid a!ism1 & ! g5]al result ( rational !ology is well describ$ by "o ( ,kant's correspond5ts :5 he says t ! m pro(s ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god he le>nt1 ! m 8 d\bts increas$4 ,9 ,engl& ! attempts made to f\nd morality ^u rationali/ pr9ciples produc$ sy/ems too b>r5 to )/& ! attack ( empiricism =tifi$ by ! gr[+ int]e/ 9 hi/ory & an?ropology4 ,! ,dei/ movem5t1 an attempt to free religion f ! incru/ations ( fai? & d$uce x f pure reason1 %[$ t a religion f\nd$ on pure reason conta9$ no?+ wor? believ+4 ,9 ,hume we h ! f9al discr$it+ ( reason 9 ^! sph]es4 ,he %[s +5i\sly t ! good ,b]keley's argum5t = ! exi/5ce ( ,god c\ld be turn$ r\nd to disprove ! exi/5ce ( ! s\l1 & he conclud$ t religion 0 a sph]e ) :i* reason _h no conc]n4 ,9 ! sph]e ( morals ! di/9ction betwe5 :at ought to be & :at is1 ! di/9ction on :i* rationali/ic morals are bas$1 _h be5 discr$it$ by a r$uction ( all conduct to ,utilit>ianism1 a se>* = pleasure & a flight f pa9 m$iat$ by sympa?y4 ,! consequ5ces are describ$ by ,kant 9 8 preface to ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason3 ,at pres5t1 aft] ev]y?+ has be5 tri$1 s !y say1 & tri$ 9 va91 !re reign 9 philosophy we>9ess & complete indiff]5tism1 ! "m ( *aos & night 9 all sci5ces1 ?\gh he hopefully cont9ues1 b at ! same "t ! s\rce1 or at lea/ ! prelude1 ( _! ne> re=m & ( a new light1 aft] an ill-appli$ /udy has r5d]$ !m d>k1 confus$1 & useless4 ,! e>li] ( ! mod]n ?9k]s--,desc>tes among ! rationali/s1 & ,bacon among ! empirici/s--are full ( hope4 ,!y h confid5ce 9 ! human _s4 ,b increas$ reflection seem$ only to br+ di/ru/ ) x4 ,! hi/ory ( rationalism 9 !ology %[$ t1 9 su* matt]s1 reason c\ld prove absolutely oppos+ positions4 ,mo/ m5 7 ready to accept ,hume's dictum t any "o :o foll[s 8 reason mu/ be a fool & take refuge 9 an indiff]5tism :i* accepts :atev] happ5s to be !re4 ,! rem$y = ?is /ate ( affairs1 ,kant f9ds1 is ! critical me?od2 = disbelief 9 reason is ! reaction f ov]confid5ce 9 x4 ,m5 _h ?\ght t reason c\ld prove ev]y?+4 ,because ^! hopes _h be5 fru/rat$1 !y n[ ?\ght t x c\ld prove no?+4 ,philosophy1 he 0 conv9c$1 w\ld oscillate betwe5 ov]we5+ confid5ce & unw>rant$ di/ru/ 9 itself until x _h criticis$ human reason & discov]$ :at x c\ld d & :at x c\ld n4 ,?is is ! task he set be=e himself4 ,z ! failure ( eighte5? c5tury philosophy1 :i* _h l$ to di/ru/ ( all philosophy1 _h be5 tw(old--failure to give an intelligible explanation ( ! processes ( sci5tific ?\ght1 & failure to f9d any /&>d by :i* to m$iate betwe5 ! conflict+ claims ( sci5ce & religion--! task ( ! critical philosophy is tw(old4 ,x attempts to expla9 & to ju/ify ! me?ods & assumptions ( ! sci5ces1 & to f9d "s solution ( ! conflict betwe5 !ories ( ! _w :i* seem to be bas$ ^u ^! me?ods & ! assumptions & claims ( morality & religion4 99,,*apt] ,,ii99 99,,kant',s ,,/atem5t ,,( ,,! ,,problem4 ,,syn!tic ,a ,,priori ,,judgm5ts99 ,9 ! preface to ! second edition ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason ,kant f9ds ! necessity ( criticism 9 ! contra/ betwe5 c]ta9 rational sci5ces & metaphysics4 ,ma!matics & physics1 he obs]ves1 are obvi\sly c]ta9 sci5ces4 ,!y are n empirical1 !y make /eady progress1 ! results !y h rea*$ are secure & unanim\sly accept$1 & h a c]ta9ty :i* no m]e empirical inve/igation c\ld atta94 ,metaphysics1 on ! o!r h&1 ?\gh z anci5t an inquiry1 seems incapable ( any settl$ results4 ,its hi/ory is a record1 n ( /eady progress1 b ( bewild]+ m>*es & c\nt]m>*es4 ,! confid5t conclusions ( "o philosoph] are z confid5tly d5i$ by ano!r1 & ! endless indecisive conflict produces 9 ! m9ds ( mo/ m5 ! conviction t 9 philosophy "o doctr9e is z good z ano!r1 & !re=e none are wor? v mu*4 ,9 ! sph]e :]e reason might be expect$ to be mo/ at home1 reason is impot5t2 yet ! a*ievem5ts ( reason 9 ^? o!r sph]es ( ! a priori sci5ces %\ld pres]ve u f any g5]al scepticism ( ! p[]s ( reason4 ,! task ( criticism w be to exam9e ! "p play$ by reason 9 sci5ce1 & to ask h[ f> its failure 9 metaphysics is due to mi/akes 9 me?od1 & h[ f> to ! diff]5t nature ( ! objects ( ! a priori sci5ces & ( metaphysics4 ,kant po9ts out t x 0 "s "t be=e ei!r ma!matics or physics foll[$ ! secure pa? ( a sci5ce4 ,! contra/ betwe5 ! haphaz>d & empirical obs]vations ( ! ,babylonians or ,egyptians & ! sci5ce ( ! ,greeks 0 due to ! discov]y ( a new me?od4 ,! discov]y by ,galileo & ,torricelli ( mod]n physics came ab\t by a simil> revolution 9 me?od4 ,! ,critique1 !re=e1 is to be a treatise on me?od4 ,x w exam9e ! me?od ( reason 9 ! sci5ces1 & ask :at conclusions c be drawn z to ! prop] me?od ( metaphysics4 ,9 ! ,prolegom5a1 a "w 9 :i* he summ>ises ! results ( ! fir/ ,critique1 ,kant describes ! ,critique z an answ] to ?ree que/ions3 ,h[ is ma!matics possible8 ,h[ is pure sci5ce ( nature or physics possible8 &1 ,h[ is metaphysics possible8 ,some?+ ( ! nature ( 8 answ] to ! ?ird1 & = him ! mo/ important1 "q1 may be ga!r$ f ! fact t he expla9s t ! ?ird "q %\ld n be put 9 ! =m1 ,h[ is metaphysics z a sci5ce possible8 ,t "q c only be answ]$ by say+ t x is n possible4 ,b x is /ill all[able & necess>y to ask1 ,h[ is metaphysics possible z a natural disposition ( ! m9d8 ,= ! ma9 result ( 8 inquiries into ! place ( reason 9 ! sci5ces is to %[ t reason is successful 9 ! sci5ces only because ( ! pres5ce ( c]ta9 conditions :i* are want+ 9 metaphysics4 ,at fir/ sight we might ?9k x natural t ! objects ( metaphysics :i* ,kant enum]ates z ,god1 ,fre$om1 & ,immortality %\ld be und]/ood by reason1 & f9d x m difficult to expla9 h[ reason %\ld apply to ! _w ( ord9>y exp]i5ce4 ,! k ( ev]yday ?+s is ?\ght ( z empirical1 a matt] ( obs]vation2 :ile we are incl9$ to ?9k t1 if !re is rational k1 x is k ( some?+ else1 ( ! m]e agreem5t or disagreem5t ( ideas 7z ,hume ?\ght71 or ( ! ess5ces ( ?+s1 kn[n indep5d5tly & ap>t f p]ception1 z ,plato ?\ght4 ,kant argues t ! comb9ation ( a priori reason+ & empirical obs]vation1 :i* e>li] ?9k]s _h f\nd s puzzl+ 9 ! exact sci5ces1 exhibits ! only possible use ( reason1 t reason1 divorc$ f & ) no ref]5ce to ! _w ( exp]i5ce1 is b>r51 & t consequ5tly metaphysics1 if t be tak5 to mean a rational k ( objects :i* are outside ( our exp]i5ce1 does n exi/4 ,we are left ) metaphysics z a natural disposition2 = ,kant holds t ! que/ions :i* metaphysics seeks to answ] arise f ! nature ( reason & its relation to exp]i5ce1 ?\gh _! answ] is to be s\ght n 9 k b 9 action4 ,?is la/ po9t mu/ be elucidat$ lat]4 ,9 ! meantime we mu/ see h[ ?is inquiry into ! nature ( reason cry/alises itself into a seem+ly ab/ract & trivial "q3 ,h[ are syn!tic a priori judgm5ts possible8 ,x is baffl+ at fir/ to f9d an inquiry ( ! scope we h indicat$ sudd5ly take su* a n>r[ =m1 b a little consid]ation w %[ ! importance ( ! "q4 ,k may be reg>d$ z ei!r analysis or syn!sis1 z a puzzl+ out or unravell+ ( :at we someh[ "k already1 or z a putt+ toge!r ( :at _h previ\sly be5 kn[n or obs]v$ sep>ately4 ,! rationali/ s*ool1 :om we describ$ 9 ! la/ *apt]1 7 incl9$ to reg>d all k z analytical4 ,!y ?\ght ( progress 9 k z an advance f obscure to cle> appreh5sion1 & z a ?9k+ out or mak+ cle> ( some?+ :i* _h always be5 kn[n someh[4 ,ma!matics1 ! typical =m ( k = ! rationali/s1 _h be5 ?\ght ( z ! analysis ( :at 0 impli$ or giv5 9 ! def9itions4 ,! conception ( analytic a priori k 0 ?us famili> & simple4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! empirici/s _h ?\ght ( k z prim>ily syn!sis--or1 z !y call$ x1 association--a connect+ toge!r ( ideas 9 _! nature sep>ate4 ,k ( a ?+ 0 ?\ght ( z ! obs]v+ toge!r ( sev]al ideas4 ,judgm5ts ab\t objects 7 reg>d$ z judgm5ts ab\t ! co-exi/5ce ( sep>ate ideas1 ideas :i* 7 n ?\ght ( z be+ b\nd by any logical necessity4 ,we d n und]/& :y a sub/ance ) ! specific gravity ( gold %\ld be yell[2 we only obs]ve ! co-exi/5ce ( c]ta9 qualities4 ,! judgm5t1 !n1 gold is yell[1 is syn!tic2 x is an ass]tion ( ! co-exi/5ce ( sep>ate qualities4 ,x is also empirical2 x does n express a reason$ insight into ! necess>y connection ( gold & yell[4 ,x seems r a record ( obs]vation4 ,syn!tic k1 !n1 0 ?\ght ( z 9 its nature empirical & a po/]iori4 ,hume1 :o ?\ght ( all k ( ! _w 9 exp]i5ce z syn!tic1 d5i$ to su* k any necessity or c]ta9ty4 ,hume1 h[ev]1 _h notic$ t ! pr9ciple ( causation1 ! judgm5t t e ev5t has a cause1 is bo? a priori & syn!tic4 ,x is n1 he held1 d]iv$ f exp]i5ce2 r x is a pr9ciple :i* guides our inve/igation ( exp]i5ce4 ,x is n got f analysis ( ! notion ( causation1 nor is x simply conc]n$ ) ! agreem5t or disagreem5t ( our ideas4 ,x ass]ts ! necess>y connection ( two p]fectly sep>ate exi/+ ?+s4 ,hume himself1 z we saw1 tri$ to expla9 away ^! uncom=table facts4 ,he 0 too w$d$ to 8 belief t all k 0 d]iv$ f passively receiv$ impressions to face !m rightly4 ,kant1 com+ to ! problem ) diff]5t prepossessions1 ) ! belief t mo/ k 0 analytic1 0 impress$ ) ,hume's pro( t ! pr9ciple ( causation c\ld n be d]iv$ f analysis4 ,! v basis ( all sci5ce ( nature1 !n1 contradict$ ! belief t k 0 analytical4 ,kant 0 also1 ) ,hume1 conv9c$ t ! pr9ciple ( causation 0 n d]iv$ f exp]i5ce1 = he saw t exp]i5ce assum$ x4 ,at ! same "t1 he 0 n prep>$1 l ,hume1 to expla9 x away4 ,fur!r1 he saw t ! problem rais$ by ! pr9ciple ( causation 0 a wide "o4 ,= o!r judgm5ts1 he held1 are bo? syn!tic & a priori1 among !m ma!matical judgm5ts4 ,z we %all see aft]w>ds1 ,kant prov$ ! impossibility ( arriv+ at k ( ,god or ! s\l by m]e analysis ( concepts4 ,! judgm5ts ( metaphysics1 ab\t ,god or ! s\l1 are also syn!tic4 ,b ! validity ( ! judgm5ts ( metaphysics is "u dispute4 ,if we exam9e ! syn!tic a priori judgm5ts ( ma!matics & ( sci5ce ^: validity is c]ta91 we may !n discov] :e!r su* judgm5ts 9 metaphysics c or c n h simil> c]ta9ty4 ,we may ?us see t ! problem ( ! possibility ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts is a re/atem5t 9 logical t]ms ( ! problem ( ! relation betwe5 ! a priori sci5ces & metaphysics4 ,some?+ m mu/ be said ( ! importance ( syn!tic a priori judgm5ts 9 ,kant's acc\nt ( k4 ,_! exi/5ce1 we h se51 exposes ! %ortcom+s ( bo? rationalism1 :i* all[$ only = analytic a priori judgm5ts1 & empiricism1 :i* all[$ only ( syn!tic a po/]iori judgm5ts4 ,bo? ^! !ories t5d$ to reg>d k z an analysis or description ( :at 0 pres5t to ! m9d1 & diff]$ really only 9 _! view ( :at 0 pres5t4 ,=1 ?\gh ! empirici/ ?\ght ( empirical k z syn!sis1 ! syn!sis 0 n ascrib$ to ! m9d1 b to associat+ ideas2 ! m9d only obs]v$1 & k 0 m]ely ! appreh5sion ( objects by ! s5ses4 ,we see :at is be=e our eyes1 & notice ! diff]5ces & simil>ities 9 :at is be=e u4 ,! rationali/ conceiv$ ( ?\ght z simply appreh5d+ ! nature ( ! real1 fre$ f ! illusions ( s5se p]ception4 ,! ma!matician has be=e 8 ?\ght ! nature ( a triangle1 & sees intellectually :at t nature implies4 ,we may try to m$iate betwe5 ! two by say+ t :ile all kn[+ is obs]v+1 "s is obs]v+ ( objects ( ?\ght & "s ( objects ( s5se1 ! "o be+ call$ und]/&+1 ! o!r p]ception4 ,9 mo/ sci5tific judgm5ts1 h[ev]1 we are n simply obs]v+ objects ei!r ( ?\ght or ( s5se4 ,sci5tific judgm5ts are m ?an descriptions ( :at is pres5t to ! m9d or to ! s5ses2 !y are ess5tially anticipations4 ,!y g beyond :at is imm$iately giv54 ,?is is %[n by ! fact t x is ! *>act]i/ic ( a sci5tific proposition t x c be v]ifi$4 ,if we und]/& x rightly1 we see t x implies t1 "u su*-&-su* conditions1 su*-&-su* ?+s w be exp]i5c$4 ,h5ce ! importance ( exp]im5t to sci5ce4 ,a sci5tific proposition is1 ( c\rse1 gr\nd$ on obs]vation ( p]ceiv$ fact & und]/&+ ( univ]sal connection1 b x is an ass]tion ( some?+ beyond t4 ,if1 !n1 all sci5tific judgm5ts are syn!tic1 & if bo? rationalism & empiricism fail$ to acc\nt = ! mann] 9 :i* su* judgm5ts g beyond :at is imm$iately giv5 to ! m9d1 ought we n to say t ! real problem = ,kant is to %[ n m]ely h[ syn!tic a priori judgm5ts are possible1 b h[ any syn!tic judgm5ts are possible8 ,?is seems at fir/ sight plausible1 b ! sugge/ion mu/ be reject$2 =1 :5 ,kant asks h[ a judgm5t is possible1 he is n ask+ h[ we come to make x1 b h[ we "k t x is valid4 ,n[1 if we consid] any empirical judgm5t ab\t ! facts ( nature1 we mu/ recognise t ,locke & ,hume 7 "r 9 d5y+ c]ta9ty to su* judgm5ts4 ,9 all g5]al /atem5ts ab\t concrete facts we to a c]ta9 ext5t g beyond our evid5ce4 ,empirical sci5tific /atem5ts are n !oretically c]ta94 ,!y may1 ( c\rse1 be c]ta9 en\gh = all practical purposes4 ,!y are reasonable expectations ( :at w happ51 b reasonable expectation is a v diff]5t ?+ f ! c]ta9ty ( ma!matical insight4 ,n[ ,kant ma9ta9$ t1 :ile su* empirical judgm5ts are n c]ta91 !y all imply ! c]ta9ty ( a numb] ( g5]al pr9ciples on :i* !y dep5d4 ,^! g5]al pr9ciples are ! syn!tic a priori judgm5ts ) :i* he is especially conc]n$4 ,:5 we apply ! pr9ciples ( trigonometry to an eng9e]+ problem1 we "k t our measurem5ts are only approximate1 & t ! result also w only be approximate2 b ! possibility ( arriv+ at su* approximate results dep5ds on ! absolute tru? ( ! trigonometrical pr9ciples1 & on ! assumption t !y express n simply ! agreem5t or disagreem5t ( ideas1 b hold ( ! real4 ,:5 we apply ! rules ( ari?metic to c\nt+ objects1 !re may be a c]ta9 arbitr>9ess 9 decid+ on our unit4 ,!re is no su* arbitr>9ess 9 ! rule4 ,all sci5tific judgm5ts ( causation are only approximately c]ta91 b !y all imply ! c]ta9ty ( ! pr9ciple ( causation1 & are bas$ on ! assumption t su* a pr9ciple is ( univ]sal application4 ,?is & ! o!r pr9ciples assum$ 9 our empirical judgm5ts are1 !n1 ! syn!tic judgm5ts ) :i* ,kant is conc]n$4 ,n[1 x is ( ! nature ( our empirical k t x is fragm5t>y & n uni=m1 t we are conc]n$ ) an indef9ite numb] ( ?+s ^: connections we d n :olly und]/&1 & :i* we _c !re=e anticipate4 ,yet we assume t all ^! objects w obey ! rules ( ari?metic & geometry1 & w all be subject 9 _! *anges to ! pr9ciple ( causation4 ,on su* assumptions all ! sci5ces ( appli$ ma!matics dep5d4 ,h[ are !y ju/ifiable8 ,t is ,kant's "q4 ,kant1 :5 he consid]s ma!matics1 is conc]n$ ) ! assumptions ( appli$ ma!matics1 ( ^? sci5ces :i*1 ?\gh ma!matical1 make /atem5ts ab\t exi/+ objects1 & 9 :i* ! old di/9ction betwe5 und]/&+ & p]ception :i* 0 bas$ on ! diff]5ce 9 ! objects ( ^! two faculties breaks d[n4 ,! sci5ces :i* ,kant is inve/igat+ imply t pr9ciples :i* are cle>ly n d]iv$ f m]e obs]vation are yet ! basis on :i* we ord] & arrange :at we obs]ve4 ,n[1 if we held t ! objects ( ma!matics 7 indep5d5t entities q sep>ate f ! ?+s we p]ceive1 x w\ld be impossible to expla9 h[ we might assume t ! ?+s we p]ceive w\ld be subject to ! rules ( ma!matics4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 we held t 9 ma!matics we 7 simply conc]n$ ) ! v>i\s objects ( ! s5ses1 x w\ld be impossible to expla9 h[ ma!matics c h a g5]ality & necessity :i* no /atem5ts c h :i* re/ on obs]vation ( ! v>i\s ?+s we see4 ,! exi/5ce ( appli$ ma!matics implies fir/ly t und]/&+ & p]ception are di/9ct1 & t nei!r ( !m c be r$uc$ to ! o!r1 = t w\ld mean t we %\ld h to give up ei!r ! elem5t ( obs]vation & exp]im5t or ! elem5t ( necessity & a priority1 & secondly1 t und]/&+ & p]ception are comb9$1 & mu/ be comb9$ = any advance 9 sci5ce4 ,n[1 ,kant f9ds 8 answ] to ! problem he has rais$ by conc5trat+ 8 att5tion on ! fact t1 :ile und]/&+ & p]ception are di/9ct1 !y are bo? pres5t 9 all k4 ,8 argum5t is t we are necess>ily 9 a difficulty if we ?9k ( und]/&+ & p]ception z hav+ ea* its sep>ate objects1 & !n try to expla9 _! comb9ation4 ,if we beg9 ) _! comb9ation1 we may see t ! ref]5ce ( pr9ciples ( ?\ght to objects ( s5se is n an accid5t1 b t ^! pr9ciples ( ?\ght or ( und]/&+1 z ,kant calls !m1 are only conc]n$ ) objects ( s5se1 & h no o!r mean+4 ,if we object1 ,b h[ c pr9ciples ( ?\ght be univ]sal if !y are conc]n$ ) ! _m & v>y+ objects ( s5se8 ,kant's answ] is t !y are n conc]n$ directly ) ^! objects1 b ) ! conditions "u :i* ^! objects c be und]/ood4 ,!y are !re=e n /atem5ts ab\t objects1 b /atem5ts ( ! conditions ( possible exp]i5ce4 ,if we f9d out t all p]ceiv+ & ?9k+ imply c]ta9 conditions1 !n we c affirm ! validity ( pr9ciples bas$ ^u ^! conditions1 s long z we d n try to apply ! pr9ciples beyond our p]ceiv+4 ,we may put ! po9t 9 ano!r way by ask+ by :at "r ! m9d c prescribe to or anticipate exp]i5ce4 ,kant's answ] is j 9 s f> z we c det]m9e ! conditions "u :i* alone objects c be kn[n4 ,if t c be done1 we c say1 ,^! pr9ciples w hold ( objects 9 s f> z !y are kn[n4 ,9 ! preface to ! second edition ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason ,kant rev]ts to ! discov]ies ( ,galileo & ,torricelli1 & po9ts out t _! success 0 due to _! ask+ ( nature ! "r "q1 & ! "r "q 0 t :i* reason c\ld und]/&4 ,:5 ,galileo let balls ( a p>ticul> weight1 :i* he _h det]m9$ himself1 roll d[n an incl9$ plane1 or ,torricelli made ! air c>ry a weight1 :i* he _h previ\sly det]m9$ to be equal to t ( a def9ite volume ( wat]1 a new light fla%$ on all /ud5ts ( nature4 ,!y compreh5d$ t reason has insight into t only :i* %e h]self produces on h] own plan1 & t %e mu/ move =w>d ) ! pr9ciples ( h] judgm5ts1 accord+ to fix$ law1 & compel nature to answ] h] que/ions1 b n let h]self be l$ by nature1 z x 7 9 lead+-/r+s4 ,o!rwise accid5tal obs]vations1 made on no previ\sly fix$ plan1 w nev] conv]ge t[>ds a necess>y law1 :i* is ! only ?+ t reason seeks or requires4 ,reason1 hold+ 9 "o h& its pr9ciples1 accord+ to :i* alone concordant ph5om5a c be admitt$ z laws ( nature1 & 9 ! o!r ! exp]im5t :i* x has devis$ accord+ to ^? pr9ciples1 mu/ approa* nature 9 ord] to be taught by x1 b n 9 ! "* ( a pupil :o agrees to ev]y?+ ! ma/] likes1 b z an appo9t$ judge1 :o compels ! witnesses to answ] ! que/ions :i* he himself proposes4 ,kant1 "h1 is conc]n$ ) reason 9 its application to exp]i5ce1 & he makes x cle> t !re is mu* 9 all su* inquiries :i* _c be anticipat$ a priori4 ,reason mu/ approa* nature 9 ord] to be taught by x4 ,! answ] to ! que/ions & exp]im5ts _c be kn[n be=eh&4 ,! empirical elem5t 9 sci5ce _c be expla9$ away4 ,reason dictates n ! answ] b ! "q1 & s f> ! =m ( ! answ]4 ,reason1 !n1 x is sugge/$1 is conc]n$ ) ! pr9ciples or conditions1 accord+ to :i* we c und]/& ?+s4 ,x is n a me?od ( obs]v+ or analys+ objects2 r x /ates ! me?ods & pr9ciples accord+ to :i* objects mu/ be obs]v$ if !y are to be und]/ood4 ,! pr9ciples are n /atem5ts ab\t ! nature ( objects1 b pr9ciples ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is new attitude to reason ,kant describes z ! ,cop]nican *ange 9 philosophy4 ,x con/itutes ,kant's idealism4 ,its nature & importance we mu/ exam9e 9 ! next *apt]4 99,,*apt] ,,iii99 99,,kant',s ,,idealism4 ,,"t ,,& ,,space99 ,! great discov]y :i* ,kant consid]$ he _h made z to ! nature ( reason 0 t reason 0 n a me?od ( obs]v+ objects z !y really exi/1 b 0 conc]n$ directly only ) our ways ( und]/&+ objects4 ,?is discov]y is ! ess5ce ( ,kant's idealism1 & its ma9 purport is express$ 9 ! di/9ction ,kant s (t5 makes betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ph5om5a4 ,?is di/9ction is us$ z ! key to ! solution ( all 8 difficulties4 ,b ! doctr9e x implies is v easy to misund]/&1 p>tly because idealism is g5]ally us$ 9 a v diff]5t s5se f t 9 :i* ,kant uses x1 p>tly because ,kant's /atem5t ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves & ph5om5a dep5d$ on a view ( k :i* he 0 v mu* conc]n$ to refute1 b ) :i* we are n n[ famili>4 ,if we are to und]/& ,kant's philosophy1 we mu/ "k :at he means by idealism1 & :]e9 8 idealism diff]s f t ( 8 pr$ecessors4 ,! ^w idealism is1 naturally1 contra/$ ) realism4 ,x sugge/s an ass]tion t some?+ is n real1 b only an idea4 ,if we "k x to be comb9$ ) a di/9ction betwe5 ?+s 9 !mselves1 & ph5om5a1 or appe>ances1 x seems to sugge/ t ! objects ( k are someh[ illusions1 or only appe>ances 9 ! m9d1 z contra/$ ) real ?+s4 ,some?+ l ?is _h be5 held by ,kant's pr$ecessors4 ,= ! fundam5tal pr9ciple ( ! idealism on :i* mo/ ( ,kant's pr$ecessors _h be5 agre$1 & :i* is sometimes call$ ,c>tesian1 & sometimes subjective idealism1 is t ! m9d someh[ kn[s itself & its own actions & /ates1 ) m directness & c]ta9ty ?an x kn[s ext]nal objects4 ,! doctr9e is commonly bas$ ^u a confus$ view ( s5se p]ception4 ,s5se p]ception is obvi\sly possible only ?r\gh processes 9 ! s5sory organs1 & objects 7 ?\ght ( z produc+ impressions ?r\gh ! s5sory organs 9 ! bra91 & ! m9d z !n becom+ aw>e ( !m 9 ! bra94 ,h5ce1 :5 ,locke says t ! m9d only kn[s its own ideas1 he t5ds to mean 7?\gh ! facts are sometimes too mu* = him & he is nobly inconsi/5t7 t ! m9d only kn[s objects inside ! bra94 ,! ma9 objection to ?is doctr9e1 ap>t f ! fact t x is bas$ on a confusion1 is t x makes x q inexplicable h[ ! notion ( an outside _w ev] arises4 ,= if we "k1 & mu/ et]nally "k1 only ideas inside our head1 :y %\ld we ev] imag9e t !re an outside _w exi/s4 ,yet if no?+ outside u 7 obs]v$--if we knew ( no process :i* w5t on betwe5 outside objects & ! bra91 ! doctr9e w\ld h no basis on :i* to re/4 ,!re _c be any mean+ 9 say+ some?+ is only an idea1 if we d n "k :at is real 9 ! s5se ( its hav+ an exi/5ce indep5d5t ( our m9ds4 ,locke suppos$ t1 al?\gh we knew only ideas1 we c\ld someh[ ref] f our ideas to an outside _w4 ,= he ?\ght t tru? 0 conc]n$ ) ! agreem5t ( our ideas ) reality4 ,?is =m ( ! doctr9e1 ! commone/1 is sometimes call$ ,repres5tationism4 ,= x ?9ks ( ! m9d z conc]n$ ) repres5tations1 or pictures1 or images :i* x may comp>e ) ! real objects4 ,its futility is obvi\s en\gh4 ,we c only comp>e a picture ) ! ?+ x repres5ts1 if we c "k bo?4 ,if we c only "k ideas1 we c nev] "k t !y are only ideas1 & c nev] comp>e !m ) any?+ else4 ,?is difficulty 0 se5 by ,b]keley1 ! mo/ consi/5t ( subjective ideali/s1 & l$ him to d5y ! exi/5ce ( outside objects1 & hold t exi/5ce or reality meant be+ p]ceiv$ & no?+ m4 ,b if we take ,b]keley's position1 x becomes v difficult to say :at we mean by judgm5ts be+ true4 ,if ?+s only exi/ z we ?9k ( !m1 or p]ceive !m1 or r if !y are only our ?9k+ ( or p]ceiv+ !m1 ! "q ( ! tru? or falsity ( our /atem5ts ab\t !m _c arise4 ,?is idealism ,kant is c>eful to refute1 & he po9ts out t !re is no evid5ce = its fundam5tal proposition t we "k our m9d m directly ?an we "k objects4 ,we are only consci\s ( ourselves 9 kn[+ some?+ n ourselves4 ,we d n inv5t ! notion ( ext]nality or outsid5ess 9 space f an exp]i5ce 9 :i* x orig9ally has no "p4 ,ext]nality is impli$ 9 our mo/ simple exp]i5ce4 ,we beg9 ) consci\sness ( outside ?+s1 & only become consci\s ( our own m5tal /ates or processes lat]4 ,b x is important to obs]ve t1 ! tru? or falsity ( subjective idealism has no be>+ :atsoev] on ! "q ) :i* ,kant 0 conc]n$4 ,if ,i ask h[ ,i c lay d[n rules ab\t :at ,i h n yet exp]i5c$1 ,i am n 9 ! lea/ help$ by be+ told t ,i only exp]i5ce :at is 9 my m9d4 ,= ! "q w equally arise1 ,h[ d ,i "k :at is go+ to be 9 my m9d8 ,! "q idealism ord9>ily discusses1 z to :e!r ! objects ( our aw>5ess are 9 our m9d or outside1 are 9 _! nature m5tal & dep5d5t on ! m9d or n1 is entirely & absolutely irrelevant to ,kant's purposes4 ,b x is a fact1 & "o t has got to be expla9$ t 9 judgm5t we g beyond :at is pres5t to our m9ds1 & t1 9 s anticipat+ :at we %all exp]i5ce1 we assume t c]ta9 pr9ciples hold ( all t has be5 or may be pres5t4 ,) t difficulty idealism1 z ord9>ily und]/ood1 has no?+ to d4 ,repres5tationism tri$ to give "s acc\nt ( ?is go+ beyond :at is pres5t to our m9ds by sugge/+ t tru? is a ref]5ce f ideas to reality2 b1 z we saw1 if we "k only ideas1 su* a ref]5ce is impossible4 ,! doctr9es oppos$ to repres5tationism1 t only ideas exi/1 or t we directly "k real objects1 all[ ! exi/5ce ( no?+ contra/$ ) :at we are appreh5d+ to :i* a ref]5ce 9 judgm5t c be made4 ,no "o :o is satisfi$ ) any ( ^! positions c h se5 ,kant's problem4 ,if ,kant !n1 is n a subjective ideali/ :at does he mean by say+1 z he con/antly does1 t we only "k ph5om5a1 & :y %\ld t limitation ( k help him 9 any ( 8 difficulties8 ,he means1 9 ! fir/ place1 t all k dep5ds ^u p]ception4 ,! fir/ p>agraph ( ! fir/ "p ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason makes t cle>4 ,:atev] ! process & ! means may be by :i* k rea*es its objects1 !re is "o t rea*es !m directly & =ms ! ultimate mat]ial ( all ?\ght1 viz4 p]ception4 ,?is is possible only :5 ! object is giv51 & ! object c be giv5 only 7to human be+s1 at lea/7 ?r\gh a c]ta9 affection ( ! m9d4 ,n[1 al?\gh we p]ceive an objective reality1 s5se p]ception obvi\sly gives a v imp]fect k ( objects4 ,we see only "s sides & aspects ( ?+s1 & n o!rs4 ,:at we see dep5ds on *anges 9 our position4 ,fur!r1 we "k t :at we see is only a small "p ( ! nature ( any?+4 ,we ?9k ( reality z an int]connect$ sy/em1 b we only p]ceive a v small "p ( x1 & :at we p]ceive dep5ds ^u ! p>ticul> "t & ! p>ticul> "p ( space 9 :i* we live4 ,9 our exp]i5ce we are nev] really cont5t simply ) :at we p]ceive2 we p]ceive mu* too little = t4 ,we are always inf]r+ f :at we see to some?+ beyond x4 ,:at is t some?+ beyond1 :i*1 z we h se51 is impli$ 9 all judgm5t8 ,we might hold t x 0 ! ?+s z !y really are z di/+ui%$ f ?+s z !y appe>1 or ph5om5a1 & t1 :5 we turn$ f p]ception to ?\ght1 we turn$ f illusion to reality4 ,kant d5i$ ?is4 ,he held t1 if y exam9e a sci5tific judgm5t ab\t any?+ y p]ceive1 su* z t yell[ ?+ is gold1 y w f9d t1 if y "k :at ! judgm5t means1 y w be able to say3 ,!n1 "u su*-&-su* conditions--if y weigh x1 = example--y w h su*-&-su* a p]ception4 ,! appeal is n f :at y p]ceive to :at y ?9k1 b f :at y p]ceive n[ to :at y w p]ceive "u su*-&-su* conditions4 ,su* a ref]5ce inde$1 implies ?\ght & :at is ord9>ily call$ a concept2 b our k ( concepts us$ 9 sci5ce always means t1 if we "k :at is meant e4g4 by call+ any?+ gold1 we "k h[ x w behave "u su*-&-su* conditions4 ,! concept1 9 ,kant's words1 is a function ( unity 9 our repres5tations4 ,! task ( ?\ght1 !n1 is n to turn ! m9d away f :at we p]ceive1 b to help u to transc5d "s ( ! limitations ( our p]ceptions1 or1 to speak m accurately1 to set some:at fur!r back ! limits ( our p]ception2 = ?\ght nev] entirely transc5ds ^! limits4 ,our k is always condition$ by ! fact t we are f9ite m9ds liv+ 9 a p>ticul> place & at a p>ticul> "t2 b ?\ght c ext5d ! range ( our p]ception 9 space & 9 "t4 ,! limitations ( our p]ception h1 = ,kant1 a d\ble aspect1 :i* det]m9es 8 division ( ! fir/ "p ( ! ,critique into two p>ts--! ,a,esthetic & ! ,analytic4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 our direct k ( space at any "o "t is always k only ( a "p ( space2 our direct k ( "t1 :e!r 9 pres5t consci\sness or 9 memory ( our own exp]i5ce1 is k ( only a "p ( "t2 & ! ?+s 9 ! space we directly p]ceive1 or 9 ! "t we exp]i5ce1 are :at !y are by _! relation to space outside ! space we see1 & "t beyond ! "t we exp]i5ce1 & t limit$ space & "t we treat1 !re=e1 z p>ts ( "o all-embrac+ space & "o all-embrac+ "t1 & 9 ! conception ( an indef9itely ext5d$ space & "t we c ?9k ( ! space 9 :i* all ?+s exi/1 & ! "t 9 :i* all ?+s occur1 ( :i* we only see & exp]i5ce a small "p4 ,! sci5ce ( a/ronomy obvi\sly talks ( space & "t f> beyond any?+ we c\ld ev] p]ceive1 b we g beyond su* direct p]ception 9 su* simple expressions z =ty miles f "h or ?ree days h5ce4 ,&1 :5 ,kant says t space & "t are only ph5om5al1 he does n mean t !y are m5tal1 b t we only "k !m ?r\gh p]ception1 & t we get at absolute space & "t n by go+ f :at we p]ceive to :at we ?9k1 b by ?9k+ ( :at we p]ceive indef9itely ext5d$4 ,all def9ite /atem5ts ab\t space mu/ come back 9 ! end to s f> f "h1 all ab\t "t to s long f n[1 & ! fact t all our k ( space & "t is got by add+ to or ext5d+ 9 ?\ght ! space & "t we directly p]ceive does1 accord+ to ,kant1 solve "s ob/9ate puzzles ab\t ! nature ( space & "t4 ,9 ! second place1 if we consid] our k ( objects1 we realise t1 z we said1 at any "o mom5t we only p]ceive !m 9 "p or f "o position4 ,:at we directly p]ceive ( !m is fragm5t>y & discont9u\s1 "o aspect se5 n[1 & ano!r aspect se5 at ano!r "t4 ,b we d n ?9k ( ! ?+s z exi/+ 9 t discont9u\s way2 we ?9k ( !m z hav+ a nature ( _! own4 ,t does n contradict1 b is some?+ v mu* m ?an1 :at we p]ceive1 & our k ( any object is got by piec+ toge!r ! aspects we directly p]ceive2 b t piec+ toge!r1 or syn!sis1 is n haphaz>d4 ,x is gov]n$ by rules--rules p>tly d]iv$ f ! nature ( ! p>ticul> ?+ we are conc]n$ )1 & p>tly m g5]al rules1 :i* come f ! relation ( ?is "w ( piec+ toge!r to ! framework ( space & "t by help ( :i* x is done4 ,kant's conception ( k1 !n1 is some?+ l ?is4 ,ea* ( u is 9 direct contact ) reality1 b we p]ceive directly only a small "p ( x1 &1 z our consci\sness moves on 9 "t1 & z we *ange our position 9 space1 we are directly consci\s ( diff]5t small portions ( reality4 ,a "p ( ! :ole is illum9$ by direct p]ception1 b ! :ole /ret*es beyond t indef9itely 9 space & "t4 ,9 ! "p we directly p]ceive !re is a temporal ord] & a spatial ord]4 ,?+s are giv5 to u arrang$ 9 space & ord]$ 9 "t1 & ^! arrangem5ts or ord]s 9 ! space & "t t is directly giv5 to u 9 p]ception h c]ta9 rules1 & we ?9k ( ^! pr9ciples ( arrangem5t z ext5d+ indef9itely beyond ! space & "t giv5 to u 9 p]ception4 ,:5 we make judgm5ts ab\t reality beyond our p]ception1 we ?9k ( ?+s z s arrang$ 9 ! space & "t beyond our p]ception z we %\ld see !m arrang$ 7 ! range ( our p]ception suffici5tly wide4 ,fur!r1 x is mo/ important to rememb] t we d n rema9 9 "o place & at "o "t & make guesses ( :at may happ5 9 ! d>kness beyond4 ,?\gh our p]ception at any "o mom5t is limit$1 we c connect :at we see at "o "t ) :at we see at ano!r4 ,we c1 by means ( language & writ+1 use ! p]ception ( o!rs to fill out our exp]i5ce1 until gradually our sci5tific judgm5ts1 our k ( :at we %\ld p]ceive "u all sorts ( possible exp]i5ce1 seems to bulk mu* m l>gely ?an c\ld our individual p]ceptions4 ,b we are /ill1 ,kant w\ld say1 gett+ at our k ( :at is beyond by piec+ toge!r :at we & o!r p h p]ceiv$1 & ! :ole is always mu* m ?an t4 ,:at1 !n1 is meant by ! cont5tion t we c "k ?+s 9 !mselves :i* ,kant is e>ne/ to refute8 ,x might mean t we d 9 p]ception atta9 to a complete k1 b t w\ld be obvi\sly untrue4 ,z ,kant und]/ood ! claim1 x meant r some?+ l ?is3 ,9 ?\ght we are obvi\sly n limit$ by our p]ception4 ,we are always assum+ c]ta9 pr9ciples1 su* z ! laws ( space or ! pr9ciple ( causation1 to hold ( all reality1 bo? :at we d & :at we d n directly p]ceive4 ,may we n say1 !n1 t ^! pr9ciples hold ( all reality1 & argue f t fact to :at ! nature ( ! :ole mu/ be8 ,if ev]y?+ t we "k is caus$1 e4g41 may we n apply ! pr9ciple ( causation to all reality & say t x mu/ h a cause8 ,:5 we come to consid] ! ,dialectic1 ! second ma9 division ( ! fir/ ,critique1 we %all notice ,kant's detail$ analysis ( ^! argum5ts1 & h[ he po9ts out t y c 9 ?is way get contradictory results4 ,9 ! meantime x mu/ be obs]v$ t 9 ^! argum5ts we />t f pr9ciples appli$ to :at we p]ceive & express+ connections betwe5 ! diff]5t ?+s we p]ceive1 & !n apply !m beyond ev]y?+ we d or c\ld p]ceive4 ,t means t we imag9e t we c take ^! pr9ciples out ( relation n only to ?is or t detail ( p]ception1 b out ( relation to any p]ception at all1 & ?us appreh5d reality by ?\ght indep5d5tly ( p]ception4 ,kant's answ] is t ?\ght _c directly appreh5d ! nature ( ! :ole1 & ^! univ]sal pr9ciples1 su* z ! pr9ciple ( causation1 are only pr9ciples by :i* we connect "o p]ception ) ano!r to am5d ! discont9u\s & fragm5t>y nature ( our p]ception2 !y are rules = ! syn!sis ( :at we p]ceive4 ,by s syn!sis+ our p]ceptions we come to a less imp]fect k ( ! :ole1 b ap>t f p]ceptions ! pr9ciples h no mean+ at all4 ,kant's idealism1 i4e4 8 insi/5ce t we "k only ph5om5a1 n ?+s 9 !mselves1 is relevant to 8 problem1 because x implies ! d5ial ( ! view t ?\ght has objects appreh5d$ indep5d5tly ( p]ception1 & because x insi/s t we c only "k directly :at we p]ceive1 or ?+s z !y appe> to u1 t 9 our process f p]ception to k we />t ) :at is pres5t to our p]ception & end ) :at is or ) :at might be pres5t to our p]ception1 & t ?is process is possible by reason ( our cont9u$ consci\sness 9 "t4 ,! process1 ,kant holds1 is gov]n$ by c]ta9 pr9ciples4 ,^! dep5d ^u ! "p play$ by space & "t 9 all our p]ception1 & ! mann] 9 :i* we employ space & "t 9 piec+ toge!r our discont9u\s p]ceptions4 ,n[1 obvi\sly x is q possible to hold ?is position )\t hav+ ?\ght out :at is impli$ 9 be+ pres5t to ! m9d 9 p]ception4 ,?is is :at ,kant did4 ,he describes p]ception 9 diff]5t & inconsi/5t ways4 ,! reason = ?is inconsi/5cy is t ,kant is n conc]n$ ) ! nature ( p]ception1 b ) ! relation ( :at is imm$iately p]ceiv$ to :at is n b may be imm$iately p]ceiv$1 & he !re=e nev] work$ out any consi/5t acc\nt ( p]ception4 ,he sometimes talks ( p]ception rea*+ objects directly1 & refutes ! view t we p]ceive only :at is 9 our m9d4 7,?is1 inde$1 is impli$ 9 8 di/9ction ( space & "t z =ms ( ext]nal & int]nal s5se respectively47 ,b usually he takes ! ord9>y ideali/ view t we d n p]ceive ?+s1 b affections produc$ 9 u by ?+s4 ,ow+ to ?is inconsi/5cy ,kant con/antly seems to be /at+ v mu* m ?an he has any "r to4 ,?is is especially true 9 all t he says ab\t k be+ conf9$ to ph5om5a & n ext5d+ to ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,:5 he talks ( our kn[+ only ph5om5a1 he sometimes seems to mean t we "k objects1 ?+s 9 !mselves1 only 9 "p1 9 s f> z !y appe> to u4 ,t w\ld make ! di/9ction betwe5 ! ph5om5on & ! ?+ 9 itself a di/9ction betwe5 ! same ?+ imp]fectly & p]fectly und]/ood4 ,he sometimes1 & ?is is 8 m usual view1 seems to mean t we are aw>e ( appe>ances1 entities sep>ate & di/+ui%able f ! objects :i* produce !m 9 our m9ds4 ,b if we "w out 9 any ( ,kant's argum5ts ! po9t ( 8 appeal to ! fact t k is only ( ph5om5a1 we %all f9d t 9 e case ! diff]5ce betwe5 a subjective ideali/ & a reali/ view ( p]ception1 ( :at be+ pres5t to ! m9d means1 is irrelevant1 & t 8 argum5t holds on ei!r !ory4 ,we mu/ n[ turn to ,kant's acc\nt ( space & "t :i* is giv5 9 ! ,a,esthetic1 ! fir/ "p ( ! ,critique4 ,he beg9s by %[+ ! impossibility ( ! two views ( ! nature ( space & "t :i* !n held ! field1 ! views ( ,newton & ,leibniz4 ,newton _h ?\ght ( space & "t z realities1 ?+s 9 !mselves exi/+ along ) o!r ?+s4 ,b obvi\sly we _c ?9k ( space z a sep>ate ?+ exi/+ by itself2 = space )\t ?+s w\ld h no det]m9ation or possibility ( det]m9ation1 & w\ld be to u j no?+1 :]eas1 z x is1 x is some?+ to u4 ,! same holds ( "t4 ,! ,newtonian doctr9e1 ,kant says1 =ces u to assume two et]nal1 inf9ite1 & self-subsi/+ non-realities1 :i* are !re1 )\t any reality 9 !m1 only t !y may compreh5d all reality4 ,j because ?+s are 9 space & "t1 space & "t are n !mselves ?+s4 ,b if ?is makes u say t space & "t are only relations betwe5 or qualities ( ?+s1 we f9d ourselves 9 difficulties z obvi\s4 ,we d n come to appreh5d space & "t by comp>+ ?+s & see+ t !y h a common quality ( be+ spatial or temporal1 z we come to appreh5d r$ness1 e4g41 by see+ r$ ?+s4 ,! p]ception ( space & "t is impli$ 9 ea* & e p]ception ( ?+s4 ,we _c1 !re=e1 d]ive !m f our /udy ( ?+s2 we mu/ beg9 ) !m4 ,fur!r1 ,kant notices1 z aga9/ ,leibniz1 t space & "t are n ord9>y concepts because !y h no in/ances4 ,diff]5t m5 are in/ances ( man1 b diff]5t spaces or times are only p>ts or det]m9ations ( ! "o space & ! "o "t4 ,z aga9/ ! view1 !n1 t w\ld make space & "t only relations1 d]iv$ f our comp>ison ( ?+s :i* are n temporal or spatial1 ,kant insi/s t space & "t are a priori4 ,we _c see ?+s )\t see+ !m outside "o ano!r--i4e4 9 space--or exp]i5ce succession or *ange )\t exp]i5c+ x 9 "t4 ,space & "t1 !n1 h a c]ta9 indep5d5ce ( ?+s 9 space & "t4 ,! qualitative diff]5ces ( ?+s 9 space or ev5ts 9 "t d n affect ! nature ( space & "t1 & we c & d /udy & discuss spatial & temporal relations q indep5d5tly ( su* diff]5ces4 ,space & "t1 !n1 c be ab/ract$ f ?+s 9 space & "t4 ,yet1 on ! o!r h&1 we _c ?9k t space & "t exi/ indep5d5tly ( ?+s4 ,!y d n exi/ 9 ab/raction2 =1 ?\gh ! specific diff]5ces ( ?+s 9 space & "t are irrelevant to ! nature ( space & "t1 if !re 7 no ?+s1 or if !re 7 no diff]5ces1 !re c\ld be no space & "t z we "k !m4 ,! empirical p]ception1 says ,kant1 is n comp\nd$ ( ph5om5a & space1 ( ! s5sation & ! empty p]ception4 ,space & "t1 !re=e1 ,kant says1 are n ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,:at1 !n1 are !y8 ,kant's answ] is t !y are =ms ( our p]ception4 ,space is ! =m ( ext]nal p]ception1 & "t is ! =m ( int]nal p]ception1 & ,kant holds t by ?is answ] we c und]/& bo? h[ our k ( space & "t may be a priori1 h[ spatial & temporal di/9ctions may be ab/ract$ f ! diff]5ces ( ?+s1 & h[ we may avoid ! difficulties consequ5t on reg>d+ "t & space z indep5d5t ?+s4 ,:at1 !n1 does ,kant mean by =m8 ,he seems to mean two ?+s1 :i* he does n cle>ly di/+ui%4 ,! fir/ mean+ is be/ describ$ 9 8 own words3 ,9 ! ph5om5on ,i call :at corresponds to ! s5sation ! matt] ( ! ph5om5on1 & t :i* causes t ! manifold ( ! ph5om5on is p]ceiv$ z arrang$ 9 specific relations ,i call ! =m ( ! ph5om5on4 ,we are "h face to face ) ! ultimate diff]5ce ( =m & matt]1 or ord] & t :i* is ord]$4 ,:5 ,kant calls "t & space ! =m ( our p]ception he is simply call+ att5tion to ! fact t 9 all t we p]ceive we f9d ?is di/9ction4 ,x is some?+ f\nd1 giv51 n made by u4 ,by ! ^w =m ,kant does n mean any?+ specially subjective z contra/$ ) matt] or cont5t1 = he c>efully di/+ui%es betwe5 space & "t1 & su* qualities z col\r1 :i* get _! nature 9 "p1 he ?9ks1 f ! specific nature ( ! s5se organ4 ,comp>$ ) su* qualities space & "t are objective4 ,! phrase =ms ( our p]ception1 !n1 does n really expla9 any?+ ab\t space & "t2 x only emphasises ! fact t ! di/9ction betwe5 space & "t & objects 9 !m is f\nd 9 :at we p]ceive1 & t !re is no mean+ 9 discuss+ ei!r side ( ! di/9ction z ?\gh x 7 q indep5d5t ( :at we p]ceive4 ,b =m has also ano!r mean+ :i* ju/ifies ,kant 9 call+ space & "t only =ms ( our p]ception1 & h5ce subjective4 ,=1 :ile ^! =ms are f\nd 9 :at we p]ceive1 ! di/9ctive "p :i* !y play 9 our k is due to ! fact t we use space & "t z a framework by :i* to connect our scatt]$ exp]i5ces4 ,we come to ?9k ( ! space & "t we p]ceive z p>ts ( an absolute space & an absolute "t4 ,we p]ceive p>ts ( space & "t1 b absolute space & absolute "t we d n p]ceive4 ,!y are ! =m we p]ceive imag9$ indef9itely ext5d$4 ,we ord] ! p>ticul> p>ts ( space & "t :i* we d p]ceive 9 ref]5ce to absolute space & "t4 ,yet absolute space & "t are only kn[n ?r\gh ! f9ite p>ts ( space & "t :i* we actually exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce absolute space & "t are n p]ceiv$ realities or p]ceiv$ ord]s1 b ways 9 :i* we organise & arrange :at we p]ceive4 ,n[1 ! qualities ( space & "t :i* are h>d to ?9k ( z ! qualities ( a ?+ t exi/s1 i4e4 _! inf9ite divisibility & inf9ite ext5sion1 are qualities ( absolute space & "t4 ,:5 we say t space is inf9itely divisible1 we d n mean t any exi/+ ?+ is made up ( an inf9ite numb] ( p>ts4 ,! divisibility ( space & ! divisibility ( matt] are q diff]5t4 ,an in* z a spatial det]m9ation is inf9itely divisible1 b ! divisibility ( ! actual /uff :i* any in* may measure is a matt] ( empirical inve/igation1 & ought to admit ( a def9ite answ]4 ,t means t1 :ile we use det]m9ations ( space :i* we consid] inf9itely divisible & inf9itely ext5sible to measure ?+s 9 space1 we d n consid] t ^! det]m9ations1 fractions1 or multiples ( in*es or c5timetres1 h any?+ to d ) ! con/itution ( ! ?+ !y measure4 ,x 0 n put toge!r 9 fractions ( in*es4 ,?us we mu/ di/+ui% betwe5 space z ! =m ( :at we p]ceive1 ! next-ea*-o!rness ( ?+s1 & ! use we make ( t =m to con/ruct by means ( measurem5t ord] 9 all diff]5t p]ception4 ,! fir/ is obvi\sly ! =m only ( :at we p]ceive1 & gives rise to no transc5d5tal que/ions4 ,b ! second1 inf9ite space1 ?\gh x seems to transc5d our p]ception1 has /ill only mean+ 9 ref]5ce to p]ception1 is only a way ( ord]+ our p]ceptions4 ,! same holds good ( "t4 ,we c see n[ :at ,kant means by say+ t "t & space are empirically real & transc5d5tally ideal4 ,kant does n ma9ta9 t space & "t are illusions4 ,!y are a con/ant elem5t ( :at is giv5 u 9 p]ception4 ,x is only :5 we try & g beyond our p]ceptions1 & take space & "t z ?+s exi/+ indep5d5tly ( :at we p]ceive1 ?us try+ to transc5d ! limits ( possible p]ception1 t we fall into illusion4 ,space & "t h mean+ only z elem5ts 9 :at we p]ceive1 or 9 connect+ :at we p]ceive n[ ) :at we may p]ceive4 99,,*apt] ,,iv99 99,,! ,,categories ,,& ,,! ,,pr9ciples ,,( ,,pure ,,und]/&+99 ,kant makes ! di/9ction betwe5 p]ception & und]/&+ dep5d ^u ! di/9ction betwe5 ! receptivity & ! spontaneity ( ! m9d4 ,9 ! ,a,esthetic he has be5 conc]n$ ) "t & space z elem5ts 9 :at seems to be giv5 to ! m9d4 ,be=e we beg9 to ask ! que/ions ( sci5ce1 be=e we analyse1 describe1 or classify1 be=e we h to ?9k1 we p]ceive4 ,"t & space are n got at by ?9k+ or g5]alisation4 ,= be=e we c say any?+ ab\t any "p ( our exp]i5ce1 x is giv5 u 9 a c]ta9 spatial & temporal ord]4 ,if we op5 our eyes at any mom5t1 we are1 )\t any consci\s ef=t ( ?\ght on our "p1 confront$ ) an elaborate cont5t4 ,x seems simple to di/+ui% ?is receptive attitude ( ! m9d 9 p]ception f its activity 9 ?9k+4 ,! di/9ction is n really s simple z x appe>s4 ,= we all "k t :at we p]ceive dep5ds1 at lea/ to "s ext5t1 on ! m9d's activity4 ,we are famili> ) ! reflection t m5 see :at !y want to see or :at !y are look+ =4 ,?is is cle>ly %[n 9 ! case ( he>+ by ! diff]5ce 9 :at we he> :5 we are li/5+ to a language we und]/& & :5 we are li/5+ to an unfamili> language1 or 9 ! common exp]i5ce :51 aft] fail+ to he> :at someone has said1 we ?9k :at x mu/ h be51 & !n seem to recall ! s\nd1 n z we he>d x1 b z we %\ld h he>d x if we _h he>d x rightly4 ,anyone :o reflects on ! process ( fa/ read+ w realise t we d n p]ceive or notice all ! lett]s on a page2 we fill 9 f our imag9ation1 z we discov] :5 we read words t are n on ! page4 ,x is a v h>d ?+1 giv+ up all int]pretation & inf]5ce1 to describe fai?fully j :at is !re to see4 ,passive p]ception1 !n1 does n exi/1 & our ?\ght affects our p]ception4 ,yet1 at ! same "t1 ! di/9ction betwe5 ?\ght & p]ception1 al?\gh n simple1 is real4 ,= al?\gh our previ\s ?\ght affects our p]ception & we see ?+s already classifi$1 see books1 & tables1 & *airs1 n m]ely col\r$ surfaces1 yet we c di/+ui% betwe5 simple imm$iate p]ception & ! process ( ?\ght :i* beg9s :5 we ask1 ,:at is t8 i4e4 :5 we beg9 to make judgm5ts4 ,! *>act]i/ic ( ?\ght1 accord+ to ,kant1 is syn!sis1 or putt+ toge!r1 & all syn!sis is ! "w ( ! m9d4 ,:5 we beg9 to describe & classify ! cont5ts ( our p]ception1 we pick out sep>ate qualities f ! cont9u\s :ole we p]ceive1 & gr\p !m toge!r4 ,?is gr\p+ is1 ( c\rse1 det]m9$ by ! lik5esses & diff]5ces :i* we p]ceive ev]y:]e1 b we d n1 9 judg+1 conf9e ourselves to notic+ lik5ess & diff]5ce4 ,= any cont5t ( our p]ception has "s po9t ( resemblance1 & "s ( diff]5ce ) any o!r4 ,we are conc]n$ ) lik5esses t g ) or are ! signs ( o!r lik5esses4 ,on ! basis ( p]ceiv$ lik5ess we erect ! notion ( ?+s & qualities ( a c]ta9 k9d4 ,9 do+ ?is we g beyond :at we see1 & unite & arrange ! cont5ts ( our p]ception ?r\gh concepts4 ,t is :at we are do+ :5 we say t is a s-&-s4 ,= example1 if ,i say t rock is l a dog1 ,i am simply express+ a lik5ess ,i p]ceive4 ,i d n imply t ! rock is !re=e alive or w b>k2 ,i am n go+ beyond h[ ! rock looks2 b if ,i say t object is a dog1 ,i ass]t t all t is impli$ 9 be+ a dog w hold ( t object1 i4e4 t x w h a c]ta9 appe>ance & behavi\r1 :i* is kn[n4 ,i c anticipate1 !re=e1 h[ x w behave1 look1 & s\nd "u c]ta9 circum/ances4 ,all ^! ph5om5a1 ! appe>ance1 ! b>k+1 & runn+1 ?\gh ,i may p]ceive !m at diff]5t times & places1 are gr\p$ toge!r 9 ! judgm5t1 ,t is a dog4 ,?is is :at ,kant means by say+1 ,concepts dep5d on functions4 ,by function ,i mean ! unity ( ! act ( arrang+ diff]5t repres5tations "u "o common repres5tation4 ,concepts1 !re=e1 always ref] to p]ception1 & x is by means ( concepts t we are enabl$ to introduce su* ord] into :at we p]ceive1 t we c anticipate f :at we p]ceive :at we %all p]ceive4 ,p]ceptions )\t concepts are bl9d4 ,)\t concepts :at we p]ceive w\ld n lead u 9 any way beyond :at is imm$iately giv54 ,?\ghts )\t cont5ts are empty4 ,concepts are no?+1 & h no mean+ ap>t f ! cont5ts ( p]ception :i* !y unify4 ,mo/ ( ^! concepts are :at is call$ empirical4 ,we get at !m by obs]v+ lik5esses & diff]5ces 9 :at we p]ceive1 & obs]v+ :i* are significant & important1 & :i* are :at we call accid5tal4 ,sci5ce1 9 its discov]y ( laws1 is only c>ry+ fur!r ?is process :i* is impli$ 9 all simple judgm5ts4 ,by obs]v+ lik5esses & diff]5ces1 _! uni=mities & v>iations1 & discov]+ ^? :i* are a key to ! re/1 we improve our concepts1 & !reby h m k ( :at we call natural laws1 & c m & m anticipate exp]i5ce4 ,) ^! empirical concepts & _! developm5t ,kant is n conc]n$4 ,b !re are c]ta9 concepts ( :i* ,hume _h obs]v$ t !y are n obta9$ 9 ! ord9>y way f an exam9ation ( ! cont5ts ( exp]i5ce4 ,! two ) :i* he *iefly conc]n$ himself 7 sub/ance & cause4 ,^! concepts seems to play an especially important "p 9 ! ord]+ & arrang+ ( ! concepts ( exp]i5ce4 ,= ! "w ( sci5ce1 9 mov+ f a simple obs]vation ( lik5esses & diff]5ces to a k ( empirical laws1 dep5ds ^u c]ta9 assumptions or pr9ciples1 l ! pr9ciple ( causation or ! pr9ciple ( ! cons]vation ( en]gy4 ,^! pr9ciples imply concepts n d]iv$1 l ! o!rs1 f g5]alisation f exp]i5ce2 !y are ! syn!tic a priori judgm5ts :i*1 z we h se51 con/itut$ a special problem = ,kant4 ,kant is fir/ conc]n$ to ask :]e ^! a priori concepts come f1 & h[ _m ( !m !re are4 ,?is inquiry he calls ! metaphysical d$uction ( ! categories4 ,hav+ answ]$ t "q1 he !n goes on to ask by :at "r we assume ^! pr9ciples 9 our deal+ ) exp]i5ce4 ,?is1 ! mo/ important & difficult section ( ! ,critique1 he calls ! transc5d5tal d$uction ( ! categories4 ,mo/ concepts1 z we saw1 are empirical4 ,we take c]ta9 lik5esses & diff]5ces we obs]ve z ! m>k ( a real unity 9 ! ?+s4 ,! diff]5t natures ( diff]5t ?+s we d n fully "k1 b we di/+ui% !m by ! diff]5t uni=mities we obs]ve1 & 9 ord] to expla9 our exp]i5ce we assume ! unity und]ly+ ^! p]ceiv$ lik5esses4 ,iron1 dog1 fire1 are names = ! natures ( ?+s :i* we see manife/$ 9 our exp]i5ce4 ,! concept1 !n1 is got f :at we p]ceive1 ?\gh x /&s = some?+ m ?an we p]ceive4 ,h[1 !n1 c !re be any concepts :i* are n got f ! empirical diff]5ces ( ?+s we p]ceive8 ,let u take su* a concept z sub/ance1 & see :e!r we c discov] :]e x comes f4 ,locke _h be5 puzzl$ by discov]+ t he c\ld n1 9 any object1 f9d any?+ :i* 0 its sub/antiality4 ,call+ any?+ a sub/ance is n l say+ t x is h>d1 or gre51 or heavy2 we are n conc]n$ ) specific diff]5ces 9 ?+s1 b we are n !re=e say+ :at is mean+less4 ,!re is some?+1 namely sub/ance1 :i* we c di/+ui% f ! h>dness1 or col\r1 or weight t we p]ceive4 ,t some?+ we d n p]ceive2 we assume x :5ev] we talk ( a ?+ be+ h>d1 & gre51 & heavy4 ,a ?+'s sub/antiality is j ! unity ( its p]ceivable qualities4 ,b su* a unity is impli$ 9 ! concept ( any object4 ,sub/ance1 !n1 is a "n = "o ( ! g5]al pr9ciples impli$ 9 our assum+ t :at we p]ceive are real objects4 ,kant g5]alises ! result ( ?is inquiry into p>ticul> concepts ( ?is k9d4 ,he holds t a priori concepts or categories 7i4e4 ! concepts :i* we d n get f empirical diff]5ces ( ?+s7 /& = pr9ciples impli$ 9 ?9k+ ( ?+s z objects or 9 judg+4 ,if we want1 !re=e1 to f9d out ! numb] ( ! categories1 we mu/ ask h[ _m diff]5t k9ds ( unity are impli$ 9 judgm5t1 or :at are ! conditions ( judg+ any object4 ,kant does n "h help1 b r misleads u 9 ?is inquiry4 ,= he un=tunately ?\ght t ! diff]5t k9ds ( judgm5t c\ld be discov]$ )\t fur!r ado by tak+ ! li/ giv5 9 =mal logic4 ,he !re=e fir/ makes a li/ ( categories1 bas$ on ! logical =ms ( judgm5t1 & !n tries to %[ ! connection betwe5 ^! categories & ! pr9ciples :i* 71 z he _h discov]$1 assum$ 9 ! ma!matical sci5ces4 ,! actual movem5t ( 8 ?\ght is1 ,i ?9k1 diff]5t4 ,he asks if !re are any g5]al conditions impli$ 9 all judgm5t4 ,8 answ] is t all judgm5ts1 all /atem5ts1 t is1 :i* claim to be true1 imply det]m9ation ( "t & space4 ,f t det]m9ation c]ta9 pr9ciples c be d$uc$4 ,if "t & space are impli$ 9 all judg+1 !n ^! pr9ciples w equally be impli$1 & w hold ( all ?+s :i* c be objects = u4 ,x w be easi] to und]/& ,kant's argum5ts if we inv]t ! ord] ( ! ,critique & beg9 ) exam9+ ! nature ( ! pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+ or ( "o ( !m4 ,! categories :i* are ( importance 9 ,kant's argum5t are quantity1 quality1 sub/ance1 causation1 & reciprocity1 & necessity1 possibility1 & actuality4 ,! la/ ?ree are less important ?an ! o!rs1 & we %all n deal ) !m4 ,to ! fir/ five ( ^! categories correspond ! foll[+ pr9ciples3 7#a7 ,quantity4 ,all ph5om5a are1 ) ref]5ce to _! p]ception1 ext5sive quantities4 7#b7 ,quality4 ,9 all ph5om5a ! real1 :i* is ! object ( a s5sation1 has int5sive quantity1 t is1 a degree4 ,! la/ ?ree are class$ "u a g5]al head+ ( ,analogies ( ,exp]i5ce1 ^: pr9ciple is3 ,exp]i5ce is possible only ?r\gh ! repres5tation ( a necess>y connection ( p]ceptions4 ,!y are 7#c7 ,! pr9ciple ( ! p]man5ce ( sub/ance4 ,9 all *anges ( ph5om5a ! sub/ance is p]man5t1 & its quantum is nei!r increas$ nor dim9i%$ 9 nature4 7#d7 ,pr9ciple ( ! succession ( "t1 accord+ to ! ,law ( ,causality4 ,all *anges take place accord+ to ! law ( connection betwe5 cause & effect4 7#e7 ,pr9ciple ( co-exi/5ce1 accord+ to ! law ( reciprocity or community4 ,all sub/ances1 s f> z !y c be p]ceiv$ z co-exi/5t 9 space1 are always affect+ ea* o!r reciprocally4 ,^! pr9ciples1 ,kant po9ts out1 are assum$ 9 ! sci5ces ( appli$ ma!matics4 ,! application ( geometry to ! _w we exp]i5ce assumes t all ph5om5a are ext5sive quantities2 physics assumes t quantitative expression c be giv5 to ! qualities ( objects o!r ?an _! size1 _! weight1 e4g41 & all sci5tific det]m9ation ( *ange assumes ! ?ree pr9ciples :i* ,kant calls analogies ( exp]i5ce3 ! p]man5ce or cons]vation ( am\nt 9 *anges1 ! necess>y connection ( ?+s 9 "t1 & ! reciprocal int]dep5d5ce ( ?+s :i* exi/ at ! same "t4 ,^! pr9ciples are n prov$ by sci5ce2 _! validity is assum$ 9 all sci5tific inve/igation4 ,on :at1 !n1 does x re/8 ,we %all foll[ ,kant's argum5t m easily if we take 8 acc\nt ( "o ( ^! pr9ciples--! pr9ciple ( causation4 ,= :at is said ( t w hold1 ) necess>y *anges1 ( ! o!rs1 &1 z we h notic$1 x 0 ,hume's criticism ( causation :i* fir/ l$ ,kant to =mulate ! critical problem4 ,hume _h po9t$ out t we _h nev] su* insight into causal connection z to be able1 f m]e inspection ( a cause1 to =etell ! effect )\t any ref]5ce to exp]i5ce4 ,he decl>$1 on ! contr>y1 t !re 0 no diff]5ce betwe5 obs]v$ succession & causation s f> z conc]n$ ! objects obs]v$4 ,9 ea* case we see fir/ "o ?+ & !n ano!r4 ,! diff]5ce1 !n1 betwe5 m]e succession & causal connection c only be 9 u1 9 ! way we come to feel ab\t c]ta9 successions we obs]ve4 ,9 te*nical language1 ! necessity ( causation is subjective4 ,h[ does ,kant answ] ?is position8 ,he beg9s1 z is usual ) him1 by tak+ ! problem a little fur!r back4 ,causation is a connection we pr$icate betwe5 :at we see at "o "t1 & :at we see at ano!r4 ,n[ if we take into acc\nt only ! fact t we see "o ?+ at "o "t & ano!r ?+ at ano!r1 !re is no diff]5ce betwe5 :at we see :5 we successively see two ?+s :i* we judge to co-exi/1 & :5 we see two ?+s "o ( :i* we judge to h succe$$ ! o!r 9 "t4 ,hume1 !re=e1 prov$ too mu*4 ,8 argum5t w\ld %[ t we h no gr\nds = di/+ui%+ betwe5 appreh5sion ( succession & succession 9 appreh5d+1 b su* a di/9ction is ! basis ( our appreh5sion & und]/&+ ( *ange or movem5t4 ,if1 !n1 we exam9e h[ we di/+ui% betwe5 appreh5sion ( succession & succession 9 appreh5d+1 we may see on :at ! pr9ciple ( causation is bas$4 ,an in/ance w help to make ?is po9t cle>4 ,suppose t ,i am sitt+ 9 a room1 & look fir/ at ! door & !n turn r\nd & look at ! w9d[4 ,!re are two successive acts ( appreh5d+2 ! cont5t ( ! fir/ is ! door1 ( ! second1 ! w9d[1 b ! succession1 ,i say1 is 9 my appreh5d+4 ,! door & ! w9d[ h co-exi/$ all ! "t4 ,suppose1 aga91 t ,i look out ( ! w9d[ & see a cab 9 front ( ! h\se opposite1 come back into ! room1 & !n look out aga9 & see ! cab 9 front ( a h\se fur!r d[n4 ,"h1 aga91 are two successive acts ( appreh5d+1 ! cont5t ( ! fir/ h\ses ) cab 9 front ( "o h\se1 ( ! second h\ses ) cab 9 front ( ano!r4 ,?is "t ,i say ! h\ses h gone on co-exi/+1 b ! cab has mov$4 ,! diff]5ce 9 :at ,i see ?is "t is due n to me1 b to ! cab4 ,! succession is 9 ! ?+ appreh5d$4 ,if we j ?9k ( ! cont5ts appreh5d$1 we h fir/ ,a1 !n ,b1 & say ,a & ,b co-exi/ 9 ! fir/ in/ance1 & h ,,cd & ,,ce1 & say ,d & ,e h be5 successive 9 ! o!r4 ,:y 9 ! second case d we n say :5 we look out ( ! w9d[ ! second "t3 ,"h is ano!r r[ ( h\ses1 :i*1 ?\gh !y look exactly ! same z ! ones ,i saw la/ "t1 h got ! cab 9 a diff]5t place8 ,t is ! l& ( ?+ "o does say 9 a dream4 ,:y w\ld x be inadmissible 9 wak+ life8 ,let u fir/ ask h[ we ev] come to make ! di/9ction betwe5 *ange 9 ! cont5t ( our p]ception1 :i* is due to *ange 9 u1 & *ange 9 ! ?+s we p]ceive4 ,look out ( a w9d[ into a busy /reet4 ,z we look c]ta9 ?+s rema9 ! same1 ! h\ses opposite1 ! lamp-po/s1 & s on1 b o!r ?+s *ange4 ,! p]man5ce ( "p ( ! cont5ts gu>antees u t ! *ange we p]ceive is n due to u3 if x 71 ^! w\ld *ange also4 ,!re=e x mu/ be 9 c]ta9 ( ! ?+s4 ,*ange is p]ceiv$ aga9/ a backgr\nd t is p]man5t & does n *ange4 ,b any su* p>ticul> p]ception is1 ( c\rse1 v limit$4 ,we d n see all ! _w at once1 & we only come to "k a l>g] ext5t ( reality by means ( memory1 :i* enables u to put toge!r :at we see at "o "t ) :at we see at ano!r4 ,we h got to try & und]/& h[ x is t we make ?is di/9ction1 :i* is cle> to u 9 small isolat$ bits ( exp]i5ce1 hold ( all exp]i5ce4 ,n[ if reality did n *ange1 & we 7 consci\s ( our own movem5ts1 we c\ld g f "o po9t to ano!r ( reality & back aga91 & c\ld be aw>e t ! *anges 9 our p]ception 7 all due1 n to *ange 9 reality1 b to u--7 our hi/ory4 ,we %\ld "k t ! diff]5t ?+s we saw 7 co-exi/+ all ! "t1 & we %\ld1 9 describ+ !m1 try to describe !m1 z 9 a map1 z we %\ld p]ceive !m if we saw !m all at once4 ,! succession w\ld be subjective1 ! co-exi/5ce objective4 ,if we p]ceiv$ no?+ b *ange1 we %\ld be incapable ( di/+ui%+ betwe5 our *anges & ! *ange outside u1 = all succession 9 our exp]i5c+ w\ld be exp]i5ce ( :at 0 successive1 & !re c\ld be no di/9ction betwe5 psy*ology & sci5ce4 ,our exp]i5ce ( reality is n l ei!r ( ^! suppositions1 b l bo? ( !m comb9$4 ,"s succession ( our exp]i5c+ is exp]i5ce ( ! co-exi/+1 "s exp]i5ce ( succession4 ,reality /ret*es out beyond u 9 space1 "s ( x *ang+ & "s ( x p]man5t2 we _c tell simply f ! diff]5ce 9 :at we p]ceive :e!r ! diff]5ce comes f *ange 9 u or *ange 9 ! ?+4 ,we c tell t only on ! assumption t we are hav+ fragm5t>y views ( a :ole t is cont9u\s4 ,! only cont9uity we "k is ! cont9uity ( our own exp]i5ce made possible by memory1 & we try to int]pret t exp]i5ce 9 ! light ( ! l>g] cont9uity ( ! _w :i* our exp]i5ce breaks up4 ,z we g f "o place to ano!r1 notice n[ ?is ?+1 n[ t1 we c te/ int]pretations made on ?is assumption4 ,wrong int]pretations are ^? :i* make our exp]i5ce inconsi/5t4 ,if we ?\ght t :at happ5$ at "o "t _h no relation ) :at happ5$ at ano!r1 t any?+ might happ5 any "t1 our exp]i5ce & our own life w\ld be ! m]e/ jumble4 ,our exp]i5ce atta9s consi/5cy only z we le>n m & m to dis5tangle ! diff]5ces 9 exp]i5ce :i* come f our *anges1 f ! *anges & ! v>iety :i* are "p ( ! :ole connect$ sy/em ( reality1 ( :i* we see n[ "o fragm5t1 !n ano!r4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 succession 9 our appreh5d+ & appreh5sion ( succession1 :i* is ! basis ( all exp]i5ce ( *ange1 implies ! recognition ( *ange z n arbitr>y b "p ( a connect$ sy/em ( reality4 ,z ,kant puts x 9 8 =mulation ( ! pr9ciple ( ! analogies ( exp]i5ce1 ,exp]i5ce is only possible by means ( ! repres5tation ( a necess>y connection ( p]ceptions4 ,b if our p]ception ( reality is fragm5t>y1 h[ c we ?9k ( reality z o!r ?an fragm5t>y1 h[ c we fill up ! gaps8 ,only by ?9k+ ( ! :ole z a connect$ sy/em 9 space & "t4 ,= x is ! nature ( space & "t t !y c be ?\ght ( indep5d5tly ( ! specific nature ( ! ?+s 9 space & "t1 & t ! space & "t we p]ceive 9 any "o exp]i5ce mu/ be ?\ght ( z p>ts ( an all-embrac+ space & an all-embrac+ "t4 ,we _c foll[ ! :ole hi/ory ( a *ange f ,a to ,b1 we c only say t1 if our exp]i5ce is to h any consi/5cy1 we mu/ ?9k t ! fact t we fir/ saw ,a & !n saw ,b implies 9 ?is case t ! *ange f ,a to ,b is "p ( ! cont9u\s sy/em ( *ange 9 "t1 t x is det]m9$ 9 "t4 ,b to ?9k ( an ev5t z det]m9$ 9 "t is n to ?9k ( x z det]m9$ by "t1 = "t 9 itself c\ld n produce "o ?+ m ?an ano!r4 ,x is to ?9k ( x z det]m9$ by ! nature ( :at prec$es x 9 "t4 ,we !re=e conclude t l causes h l effects2 =1 if any?+ c\ld cause any?+1 we %\ld nev] "k t *ange 9 :at we obs]v$ 0 due to *ange 9 u--9 ! position ( our bodies1 e4g4--& ! exp]i5ce ( objective *ange w\ld be impossible4 ,! pr9ciple does n tell u ( itself :at causes :at4 ,t c only be discov]$ by empirical inve/igation4 ,t is necess>y because we d n1 z we seem to h assum$ above1 simply see "o ?+ becom+ ano!r4 ,we see p>ts ( all k9ds ( *anges4 ,h5ce succession may be objective b n causal4 ,sci5ce has1 by obs]vation & exp]im5t1 to dis5tangle & isolate diff]5t *anges1 b x c\ld n d ?is )\t assum+ ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,causation1 !n1 & ! o!r assumptions ( ! physical sci5ces1 are %[n by ,kant to be gr\nds ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,we _c d5y !m )\t d5y+ elem5t>y di/9ctions 9 our exp]i5ce1 )\t :i* life w\ld be a *aos1 & :i* are assum$ & ju/ifi$ e mom5t4 ,:ile ,kant ?us demon/rates ! validity ( su* pr9ciples1 he is also insi/5t on ! limitations ( _! application4 ,!y are pr9ciples :i* give consi/5cy to exp]i5ce1 b mu/ n be appli$ save 9 ref]5ce to :at we exp]i5ce4 ,!y apply1 9 8 words1 only to ph5om5a4 ,! purport ( ?is limitation c1 aga91 be mo/ easily se5 by exam9+ ! pr9ciple ( causality4 ,by means ( t pr9ciple we connect "o ev5t ) ano!r1 b ! reality is n two diff]5t b connect$ ev5ts1 b a cont9u\s process4 ,! cont9u\s process escapes u1 because our p]ception ( x is fragm5t>y & discont9u\s4 ,inasmu* z a judgm5t ( causal connection ass]ts t ! ev5ts we sep>ately notice are connect$1 x is true1 b x is false if tak5 to imply t reality consi/s ( a s]ies ( discont9u\s ev5ts or /ages :i* are yet connect$4 ,su* an assumption w\ld mean1 9 ,kant's words1 t causation is appli$ n to ph5om5a 7?+s z !y appe> to u71 b to ?+s 9 !mselves 7?+s consid]$ ap>t f ! mann] 9 :i* !y appe> to u74 ,if we realise its falsehood1 we c1 he ?9ks1 evade ! contradictions :i* he exam9es 9 ! ,dialectic4 99,,*apt] ,v99 99,,! ,,ant9omies ,,& ,,criticism ,,( ,,! ,,pro(s ,,( ,,! ,,exi/5ce ,,( ,,god99 ,s f> we h be5 consid]+ ! positive side ( ,kant's argum5t1 8 attempt to confirm ! validity ( ! pr9ciples ( sci5ce4 ,we mu/ n[ notice ! negative side1 8 attempt to limit ! application ( ^! pr9ciples1 & 8 d5ial ( ! possibility ( k 9 c]ta9 sph]es4 ,we saw t ,kant 9 8 ,prolegom5a summ$ up ! argum5t ( ! ?ree *ief divisions ( ! ,critique z an answ] to ! que/ions3 ,h[ is ma!matics possible8 ,h[ is pure sci5ce ( nature possible8 &1 ,h[ is metaphysics possible8 ,he qualifi$ ! la/ "q by add+ z a natural disposition ( ! m9d4 ,! argum5t ( ! ,dialectic is t metaphysics1 9 ! s5se ( inquiry into objects :i* transc5d ! b\nds ( exp]i5ce1 is n possible z a sci5ce1 b t metaphysical que/ions arise naturally f ! nature ( human reason4 ,!y _c be answ]$4 ,all we c d is to see :y we _c answ] !m4 ,kant ?\ght ( k z a process ( ext5d+ ! b\nds ( p]ception1 ( piec+ toge!r ! fragm5t>y glimpses we get ( ! _w1 /ret*+ !m out 9 spatial & temporal det]m9ations t g beyond :at we h actually exp]i5c$1 connect+ & l9k+ up ! ev5ts :i* we p]ceive discont9u\sly4 ,z sci5ce ext5ds1 ! range ( our k wid5s1 b ! process ( ext5sion nev] rea*es its completion4 ,!re are always m facts to be discov]$ & expla9$4 ,sci5ce1 !re=e1 c nev] re/ cont5t ) its a*ievem5ts1 b mu/ always dem& t ! inve/igation ( conditions %\ld be pu%$ fur!r back & on4 ,f ?is s5se ( ! incomplet5ess ( all actual k1 & ( all !re is t might be b is n kn[n1 arises :at ,kant calls an ideal ( reason1 a dem& t1 9 all inve/igation into ! condition$1 we %\ld g on till we come to ! totality ( conditions4 ,?is ideal he holds to be s]viceable & necess>y4 ,x has1 h[ev]1 a natural t5d5cy to pass f an ideal to an idea1 & 9 s do+ x gives rise to ! contradictions ) :i* ! ,dialectic is conc]n$4 ,if all our inve/igation is gov]n$ by ! ?\ght t x mu/ g on until x rea*es completion1 we naturally speculate on ! fulfilm5t ( t ideal1 & try to =m an idea ( t totality ( conditions1 ( h[ we %\ld ?9k ! _w if we knew x 9 its complet5ess4 ,h]e9 we hypo/atize ! ideal or make x an idea1 & we fall into contradiction2 = we _c really "k ! :ole )\t kn[+ all its p>ts4 ,if we give up ! sl[ & nev]-complet$ process ( kn[+ "o "p aft] ano!r1 & try to jump to ! idea ( ! :ole1 we rea* q contr>y results1 z we apply to ! conception ( ! :ole "o or o!r ( two assumptions impli$ 9 our inve/igation ( ! p>ts4 ,kant %>ply di/+ui%es betwe5 ! pr9ciples ( ! pure und]/&+ & ! ideas ( reason4 ,! =m] are impli$ 9 all our k1 & ! fact t exp]i5ce is n *aotic confirms !m at e mom5t4 ,! second are ideals :i* guide k1 b are nev] realis$4 ,he calls !m ideas ( reason1 because x is ! special task ( reason to lay d[n rules = ! prop] & complete work+ ( ! und]/&+4 ,?is task1 he ?9ks1 is exemplifi$ 9 ! logical nature ( ! syllogism :i* br+s into unity ! judgm5ts ( ! und]/&+4 ,z he us$ ! =ms ( judgm5t z a guid+ ?read to discov] a complete li/ ( categories ( ! und]/&+1 s he uses ! =ms ( syllogism to discov] a complete li/ ( ! ideas ( reason4 ,9 bo? cases ,kant's ref]5ce to logical =ms is f>-fet*$4 ,actually ! li/ 9 ! ,dialectic seems to be influ5c$ by a numb] ( consid]ations n always consi/5t4 ,!re are ?ree ma9 divisions ( ! ,dialectic4 7,! fir/ ,kant calls ! p>alogisms ( rational psy*ology47 ,all kn[+ & exp]i5ce imply ! unity ( ! self :i* kn[s4 ,9 actual exp]i5ce t unity is qualifi$ by ! nature ( :at x unites1 b we may try to ?9k ( x ap>t f & indep5d5t ( ?is4 ,?is leads to an attempt to "k ! self by ask+ :at mu/ be its nature if x has ! unity impli$ 9 kn[+1 & to argue t ! s\l is a sub/ance & simple1 n affect$ by ! *anges 9 ! matt] :i* x kn[s & !re=e immortal4 ,! second division arises f ! fact t 9 k we are conc]n$ ) s]ies--a s]ies ( add+s toge!r & a s]ies ( divisions1 z ( p>ts ( space & "t2 a s]ies ( ?+s aris+ "o f ! o!r1 z 9 causation2 & a s]ies ( ?+s 9 dep5d5ce "o ^u ! o!r4 ,! ideas ( reason come f ! ?\ght ( ^! s]ies complet$1 & produce :at ,kant calls ant9omies4 ,= if we />t ) ! ?\ght t :at we are try+ to appreh5d mu/ be a :ole1 we get "o s]ies ( results2 if ) ! ?\ght t we c only appreh5d ! :ole by go+ f condition to condition indef9itely1 we get ano!r4 ,kant di/+ui%es f\r ant9omies1 ea* ) !sis & anti!sis4 ,! !sis ( ! fir/ is1 ,! _w has a beg9n+ 9 "t1 & is limit$ also 9 reg>d to space2 ! anti!sis1 ,! _w has no beg9n+ & no limits 9 space1 b is inf9ite1 9 respect bo? to "t & space4 ,! !sis ( ! second is1 ,e comp\nd sub/ance 9 ! _w consi/s ( simple p>ts1 & no?+ exi/s any:]e b ! simple or :at is compos$ ( x2 ! anti!sis is ! contr>y ( ?is4 ,! !sis ( ! ?ird is1 ,causality1 accord+ to ! laws ( nature1 is n ! only causality f :i* all ! ph5om5a ( ! _w c be d$uc$4 ,9 ord] to acc\nt = ^! ph5om5a x is necess>y also to admit ano!r causality1 t ( fre$om2 ! anti!sis1 ,!re is no fre$om1 b ev]y?+ 9 ! _w takes place entirely accord+ to ! laws ( nature4 ,! !sis ( ! f\r? is1 ,!re exi/s an absolutely necess>y ,be+ belong+ to ! _w1 ei!r z a "p or z a cause ( x2 ! anti!sis is a d5ial ( ?is4 ,! problems ( ! ?ird division ( ! ,dialectic arises f an attempt to ?9k ( a :ole :i* %all include bo? ! kn[n _w & ! m9d t kn[s4 ,?is attempt1 :i* ,kant calls ! ideal ( pure reason1 leads to pro(s ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,z ! ,dialectic proce$s1 x becomes cle> t ,kant has ano!r li/ to h&4 ,he enum]ates1 z ! ?ree great objects ( metaphysical inquiry1 ,god1 ,fre$om1 & immortality1 & 9 8 discussion ( ! ideas ( reason he treats !m pr9cipally z attempts to give def9ite & dogmatic answ]s to ! problems sugge/$ by ^! ?ree topics4 ,immortality is ! subject ( :at ,kant calls ! p>alogisms ( rational psy*ology4 ,he argues t all attempts to prove ! immortality ( ! s\l by a priori argum5ts involve an argum5t ( ?is k9d3 !y beg9 by not+ t dea? is always dissolution ( "s k9d1 t1 !re=e1 :at is n made up ( p>ts & _c be dissolv$1 _c die4 ,!n !y urge t ! s\l is n made up ( p>ts1 & !re=e _c die4 ,! fallacy 9 ?is argum5t is t x treats ! unity ( ! self z ?\gh x 7 an object ( k4 ,we c %[ t k is only possible if ! self has a unity o!r ?an t ( a spatial :ole1 b we _c !re=e argue t x mu/ be exactly l a spatial :ole1 9 ! s5se t dea? 9 x c only be br\ght ab\t by dissolution1 b unlike a spatial :ole 9 t 9 x !re is no?+ to be dissolv$4 ,! real nature ( ! unity ( ! self1 ,kant argues1 _c be kn[n4 ,all we c d is to reject a priori argum5ts ei!r = or aga9/ its immortality4 ,fre$om is treat$ 9 ! ?ird ant9omy ( pure reason1 & to t ,kant devotes mo/ att5tion1 b o!rs ( ! ant9omies are conc]n$ ) ! difficulties aris+ f ! application ( spatial & temporal det]m9ations to reality z a :ole1 & to ! category ( necessity4 ,kant makes a di/9ction betwe5 ! fir/ two & ! second two ant9omies4 ,x is ! fir/ two t express ! inadequacy ( temporal or spatial det]m9ation to reality z a :ole4 ,all su* det]m9ation implies measurem5t1 & measurem5t is always a relation ( "p to "p4 ,! anti!ses ( bo? ant9omies express ! inadequacy ( any numb] to ! expression ( ! nature ( ! :ole1 ! !sis ! inadequacy ( reg>d+ reality z an aggregate or addition ( any k9d4 ,ea* is /rong 9 :at x d5ies1 & ,kant's solution is t bo? !sis & anti!sis are false1 because y _c apply spatial or temporal det]m9ation to ! _w z a :ole4 ,9 contra/ ! solution ( ! o!r ant9omies is t bo? !sis & anti!sis are true1 & t is possible because !y are conc]n$ ) diff]5t ?+s4 ,! ?ird ant9omy arises f ! difficulty ( apply+ ! category ( causation to ! _w z a :ole4 ,! assumption und]ly+ ! !sis is n1 z is sometimes ass]t$1 m]ely t ! notion ( inf9ity 9 itself implies a contradiction1 b t a det]m9ate result mu/ h a det]m9ate cause4 ,if we ?9k ( :at actually exi/s n[ z hav+ be5 caus$ by :at has prec$$ x1 we mu/ ?9k ( t :i* has _h a det]m9ate result be+ itself det]m9ate4 ,x is ! famili> argum5t = a fir/ cause4 ,9 causation we seem to be relat+ "o ev5t to ano!r ev5t1 & are really only putt+ ! "q ( orig9ation fur!r back4 ,yet1 if we say t !re=e we mu/ suppose an absolute orig9ation ( *ange1 a beg9n+ ( ! s]ies1 we h to answ] ! "q1 ,h[ is x possible to ?9k ( ! orig9at+ numb] ( ! s]ies8 ,= to ?9k t some?+ c arise f no?+ is to contradict ! pr9ciple ( causation4 ,kant's solution to ?is difficulty is important1 = x _h great influ5ce ^u 8 e?ical !ory4 ,! category ( causation applies only to ph5om5a4 ,if we ?9k ( ?+s z ph5om5a we mu/ recognise t !y are subject to ! pr9ciple ( causation2 if we ?9k ( !m z ?+s 9 !mselves1 ! category ( causation does n apply to !m1 & _! action may be free4 ,! same action may !re=e on its ph5om5al side be det]m9$1 & on its nom9al side1 z ! action ( a ?+ 9 itself1 be free4 ,?is may seem to be solv+ "o contradiction by prop\nd+ ano!r1 till we rememb] t 9 causation we d n expla9 ! relation ( cause to effect4 ,! relation we discov] is betwe5 "o in/ance ( cause & effect & ano!r4 ,l causes h l effects4 ,! pr9ciple applies1 !n1 9 s f> z ?+s are l "o ano!r4 ,x applies to *anges :i* are aggregates or complexes ( simpl] *anges :i* are l o!r *anges4 ,if & 9 s f> z !re are ?+s :i* are m ?an aggregates ( _! elem5ts1 & are !re=e unique1 !re are ?+s to ^: *anges no laws ( cause & effect are adequate4 ,! po9t may be illu/rat$ by ! way we ?9k ab\t "*4 ,if we ?9k ( a man's "* z 8 *>act]i/ics1 8 be+ ?is or t k9d ( p]son1 we mu/ ?9k ( 8 action z s f> det]m9$1 b t does n prev5t u f ?9k+ ( 8 individuality z some?+ m ?an any sum or comb9ation ( *>act]i/ics1 z some?+ ess5tially alive1 :i* escapes all attempts to b9d x by rules4 ,x is ! diff]5ce 9 ,kant's words betwe5 man reg>d$ f ! po9t ( view ( an?ropology1 & man reg>d$ z a responsible moral be+4 ,we %all see 9 ! next *apt] t ?is di/9ction is ! basis ( ,kant's moral !ory4 ,"h x mu/ be not$ t he does n claim t 8 solution ( ! ?ird ant9omy proves ! fact ( fre$om4 ,t1 he held1 no m]ely intellectual argum5t c\ld prove4 ,x only def5ds ! possibility ( fre$om4 ,! ?ird division ( ! ,dialectic is an exam9ation ( ! pro(s ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god4 ,:5 we /udy ,kant's acc\nt ( !m1 we f9d we are conc]n$ n1 z else:]e 9 ! ,dialectic1 ) a conflict spr++ f ! nature ( reason itself1 b ) ! relation ( ?\ght & conduct4 ,kant di/+ui%es ?ree pro(s ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god--! ontological1 ! cosmological1 & ! physico-!ological--b he ma9ta9s t ! la/ two really re/ ^u & imply ! fir/4 ,! fir/1 ! ontological pro(1 is ! argum5t t ! v conception ( a p]fect be+ implies exi/5ce4 ,x is ! only pro( ( moral importance1 inasmu* z x attempts to argue a priori t a be+ ( p]fect morality mu/ exi/4 ,kant's answ] to x is t1 to argue t we c\ld n conceive a p]fect be+ unless we conceiv$ t be+'s exi/5ce1 is to suppose t to conceive ( a ?+1 & to conceive ( ! same ?+ exi/+1 is to conceive ( diff]5t ?+s4 ,exi/5ce1 he says1 adds no?+ to ! concept ( an object4 ,kant's objection to ! ontological pro( has be5 criticis$4 ,b ! pro( ei!r assumes t ,god is a be+ indep5d5t ( & sep>ate f ! re/ ( reality1 & !n1 z ,kant says1 we may conceive ,god z exi/+1 b our conception n be+ necessitat$1 c>ries no necessity ) x4 7,if ,i conceive a hundr$ doll>s to be 9 my pocket1 he says1 ,i conceive !m to be !re2 b t does n mean ! doll>s are !re47 ,or if we say t reality mu/ be ?\ght ( z exi/+1 ! answ] is1 ,yes1 b mu/ reality necess>ily be ?\ght ( z morally p]fect8 ,x is ?is la/ assumption :i* alone makes ! ontological pro( wor? prov+2 = argum5ts ab\t ! exi/5ce or non-exi/5ce ( ,god are m]e qu>rels ab\t words1 except 9 s f> z !y are conc]n$ ) moral issues4 ,b moral issues _c be solv$ by a consid]ation ( purely intellectual assumptions4 ,! nature ( ! o!r two pro(s ( ,god's exi/5ce makes ?is cle>4 ,! second1 ! cosmological1 is ! argum5t t if any?+ exi/s1 some?+ mu/ necess>ily exi/4 ,kant's answ] is t ?is is s\nd s f> z x goes1 b x does n prove t :at necess>ily exi/s is a morally p]fect be+4 ,! ?ird1 ! physico-!ological argum5t1 is ! famili> argum5t f design4 ,kant treats ?is argum5t ) mu* great] respect ?an ! o!r two1 b insi/s t we mu/ see h[ f> x w c>ry u4 ,if we are go+ to inf] ! nature ( ,god f ! nature ( ! _w z we see x1 we mu/ d s hone/ly4 ,b ?\gh we see design 9 ! _w1 we d n see p]fection1 & on ! basis ( ?is argum5t we _c ignore ! imp]fection & want ( h>mony :i* is z pat5t z ! h>mony & design4 ,kant's analysis ( ^! pro(s seems negative4 ,its real purport is to insi/ t religion _c be dissociat$ f moral exp]i5ce1 t ! k ( ,god1 :i* is ! conc]n ( religion1 is n got by intellectual speculation1 b 9 ! moral life4 ,:5 he said t he _h limit$ reason to make room = fai?1 he did n mean t m5 c\ld n prove ! exi/5ce ( ,god1 b might believe 9 x if !y pleas$4 ,he meant t ,god is impli$ & kn[n above all 9 moral action4 ,8 criticism ( ^! classical pro(s is ?us ! beg9n+ ( t revivifi$ philosophy ( religion ^: *ief repres5tatives h be5 ,s*lei]ma*] & ,rits*l4 99,,*apt] ,,vi99 99,,kant',s ,,moral ,,!ory99 ,kant's moral !ory is an integral "p ( 8 philosophical sy/em4 ,if ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason argues ! impot5ce ( reason 9 ! sph]e ( speculation1 ! ,critique ( ,practical ,reason affirms its sov]eignty 9 ! sph]e ( practice4 ,! second ,critique is ?us ! complem5t ( ! fir/4 ,kant's treatm5t ( moral problems be+ l>gely ! consequ5ce ( ! conclusions ( ! fir/ ,critique1 8 moral !ory is ?us ma9ly metaphysical4 ,! title ( "o ( 8 works on moral !ory1 ,fundam5tal ,pr9ciples ( ! ,metaphysic ( ,morals1 be>s ?is out4 ,!re 71 no d\bt1 o!r influ5ces :i* _h _! effect on 8 conception ( morality4 ,he tells u himself t he 0 inspir$ by ! tea*+ ( ,r\sseau on ! dignity & wor? ( man4 ,he 0 und\bt$ly repell$ into a reaction aga9/ ! s5tim5tal s*ool ( ,%aftesbury1 :i* 9 its ,g]man adh]5ts insi/$ on ! agreeable & g5tlemanly nature ( virtue ) an almo/ sickly s5tim5t4 ,?is reaction acc\nts = ! extreme emphasis laid by ,kant on ! divorce betwe5 duty & any k9d ( incl9ation4 ,b 8 doctr9e z a :ole c only be und]/ood 9 ! light ( ! conclusions ( ! fir/ ,critique4 ,kant's conception ( fre$om or autonomy ( ! w is ! key to 8 moral !ory4 ,on ! hypo!sis ( fre$om ( ! w1 he says1 morality toge!r ) its pr9ciple foll[s f x by m]e analysis ( ! conception4 ,we saw 9 ! la/ *apt] t ,kant reg>d$ human action1 :5 look$ at f an an?ropological po9t ( view1 z ph5om5al1 & !re=e subject to ! law ( cause & effect4 ,if we ?9k ( man z a creature ( incl9ation1 ) likes & dislikes1 we seem1 9 consid]+ m5's diff]5ces f "o ano!r 9 ?is respect1 to be deal+ ) matt]s ( fact ov] :i* m5 h no control4 ,we are born & gr[ up ) diff]5t natures1 ) ! result t "o man likes "o ?+1 ano!r ano!r2 "o man's temptations d n tempt ano!r1 :at "o man f9ds easy ano!r f9ds difficult4 ,we seem "h to be 9 a _w :]e causation rules4 ,if m5 act diff]5tly1 x is because _! ext]nal environm5t1 act+ ^u _! diff]5t natures1 calls out diff]5t responses4 ,s f>1 !n1 says ,kant1 z m5 act accord+ to incl9ation1 d ?+s because !y l do+ !m1 or avoid !m because !y dislike !m1 _! actions are :at he calls het]onom\s1 gov]n$ by laws ov] :i* !y h no control4 ,we assume1 :5ev] we are try+ to expla9 human actions1 t !y are ! result ( ! int]action ( "* & environm5t1 & are n to be prais$ or blam$ b und]/ood4 ,t\t compr5dre e/ t\t p>donn]4 ,b :5 we consid] our moral judgm5ts we seem to be 9 a diff]5t _w1 = !re are "s actions :i* we ?9k we or o!rs ought to h done or ought n to h done1 & ?is obligation has no?+ to d ) our likes & dislikes4 ,if we look back ^u a pa/ action ( our own1 we may see :y we did x1 und]/& h[ ! temptation to x appeal$ ) peculi> /r5g? to some?+ 9 our nature1 yet nev]!less we may say t we ought n to h done x1 & ) t judgm5t goes ! conviction t we ne$ n h done x4 ,! conception ( :at ought to be is on a diff]5t plane f ! conception ( :at is1 & assumes a diff]5t k9d ( causality4 ,x assumes t1 :5 we are done ) our analysis ( "*1 ( a man's likes & dislikes & ! effect ( circum/ances ^u !m1 we c /ill assume t x is 9 8 p[] to d :at he ought & to ab/a9 f do+ :at he ought n4 ,we praise ! fir/ & blame ! second1 :e!r 9 ourselves or o!rs1 j because we assume1 ov] & above incl9ation & dis9cl9ation1 a possibility ( act+ or n act+ z duty dem&s4 ,?us ,kant analyses ! assumption ( moral judgm5t4 ,b x is /ill no m ?an an assumption1 & he has to ask h[ x c be reconcil$ ) ! seem+ly contradictory pr9ciple ( causation4 ,! analysis ( ! ?ird ant9omy 9 ! fir/ ,critique1 z we saw1 prep>$ ! way by ma9ta9+ t ! same action might be ph5om5ally det]m9$1 & free z ! action ( a ?+ 9 itself1 7 !re ano!r =m ( causality--free causality or self-det]m9ation4 ,= ! exi/5ce ( su* ano!r =m ( causality ! fir/ ,critique (f]$ no evid5ce4 ,kant's conc]n is to %[ t morality assumes x2 = ! claim ( duty is t a man %\ld n act z a creature ( incl9ation1 ( likes & dislikes4 ,duty claims to cut across all su* empirical consid]ations4 ,! motive to d :at duty dem&s mu/ come f else:]e4 ,x may !n be f\nd to be a claim t man %\ld act n z a "p ( ! physical _w1 b z a moral be+4 ,= man1 z well z an obs]v] & und]/&] ( o!r m51 is also a moral ag5t4 ,z su* he /&s 9 q diff]5t relations to o!r m54 ,he treats !m & himself z moral ag5ts1 responsible = _! actions4 ,z a memb] ( ! _w ( moral relations he ackn[l$ges a sy/em ( rights & duties1 he holds himself responsible to o!r m5 z !y are responsible to him1 & all ?is has no?+ to d ) :at a man wants or does n want to d1 ) h[ easy or h[ difficult he may f9d x to p]=m :at duty dem&s4 ,9 ?is he is assum+ 9 himself & o!r m5 a p[] ( det]m9+ ! w 9 accordance ) ! moral law4 ,t1 j because x takes no acc\nt ( likes & dislikes1 _c be d]iv$ f ^! or f consid]ations ( circum/ances or environm5t4 ,x mu/ be d$ucible f ! nature ( man z a moral be+4 ,9 obey+ ! moral law1 !n1 man w be obey+ a law t comes f himself4 ,8 w w be self-legislative4 ,?is p[] ( act+ 9 accordance ) a law t comes f ! nature ( man z a rational1 responsible be+1 & n z a memb] ( ! _w ( causes & effects1 is moral fre$om2 x is ! assumption ( all moral judgm5t & action4 ,x _c1 ,kant holds1 be expla9$4 ,= all explanation is ! "w ( ! und]/&+1 & t c expla9 only ph5om5a4 ,x is en\gh t ! fir/ ,critique has %[n t ph5om5al causality is n inconsi/5t ) ! possibility ( ano!r causality4 ,9 ! moral sph]e we act & judge z if we 7 free4 ,! moral law & duty make claims ^u u on ! same assumption4 ,moral fre$om1 !n1 is ! gr\nd ( ! possibility ( moral exp]i5ce4 ,kant's acc\nt ( duty is det]m9$ by ! %>p sep>ation :i* he makes ( man z moral ag5t & man reg>d$ f ! po9t ( view ( an?ropology4 ,! comm&s ( duty mu/ be d]iv$ solely f ! nature ( man z a moral ag5t4 ,if !y 7 ! consequ5ce ( man's empirical nature or 8 surr\nd+s1 !y w\ld h no claim to ov]ride 8 prompt+s ( incl9ation or pleasure4 ,he describes ^! comm&s z categorical1 & ! pr9ciple ( morality z a categorical imp]ative4 ,! mean+ ( ?is phrase lies 9 its opposition to hypo!tical4 ,_m comm&s & pr9ciples are1 ,kant says1 hypo!tical4 ,!y assume t m5 desire c]ta9 ends1 happ9ess or heal? or success1 & ! actions !y advise are advis$ z means to su* ends4 ,! law ( morality is q diff]5t f su* prud5tial maxims4 ,x does n say1 ,if y want to be happy or to save y\r s\l1 !n act ?us & ?us4 ,its comm&s are absolute1 = !y appeal to man simply z a rational be+4 ,!y mu/ !re=e be d]iv$ solely f a consid]ation ( man's rationality4 ,x is difficult at fir/ sight to see h[ any comm&s c be d$uc$ f a consid]ation s ab/ract4 ,h[1 we might say1 c man's rationality be kn[n & recognis$ except 9 ! cont5t ( :at he does & ?9ks8 ,kant seeks to d]ive 8 imp]ative f ! contra/ betwe5 act+ z a moral ag5t & foll[+ incl9ation4 ,man reg>ds himself z a moral ag5t1 morally responsible = 8 conduct1 & he reg>ds o!rs z morally responsible1 :atev] 8 or _! p>ticul> nature or "* may be4 ,t means t he mu/ act z he ?9ks any "o else w\ld be b\nd to act1 & f ?is ,kant d$uces 8 =mulation ( ! categorical imp]ative3 ,act only accord+ to t maxim :i* y c at ! same "t w to be a univ]sal law4 ,ano!r =mula indicates m cle>ly ! relation ( duty to a society ( moral ag5ts responsible to "o ano!r3 ,act s t y treat humanity1 9 y\r p]son & 9 ! p]son ( e "o else1 always z an end z well z a means1 nev] m]ely z a means4 ,x is only by foll[+ su* imp]atives t we c rise above ! prompt+s ( circum/ance1 = only ?us is ! w self-legislative4 ,9 obey+ su* an imp]ative our w is self-det]m9$1 = x is foll[+ a pr9ciple t is d]iv$ f man's nature z indep5d5t & transc5d5t ( ! _w ( ph5om5a4 ,h5ce 9 moral action we are 9 contact ) ! reality ( ?+s m truly ?an 9 any und]/&+ ( ph5om5a4 ,! moral law has a dignity :i* no natural incl9ations or lik+s c h1 & ! good-w1 ! w :i* foll[s su* a law1 has a simil> wor? & dignity4 ,!re is no?+ 9 ! _w--nay1 ev5 beyond ! _w--no?+ conceivable1 :i* c be reg>d$ z good )\t qualification1 sav+ alone a good w4 ,su* 9 outl9e is ,kant's acc\nt ( morality4 ,a discussion ( "s ( ! difficulties :i* a consid]ation ( x sugge/s may help to make its purport m cle>4 ,kant holds t ! pr9ciples ( "r action c be d$uc$ directly f ! imp]ative he has =mulat$1 & ne$ take !re=e no acc\nt ( hi/orical circum/ance4 ,n[1 x is easy to %[ t1 :5 we d an action :i* we "k to be wrong1 we are mak+ an exception 9 our own fav\r4 ,we _c univ]salise ! maxim ( our own conduct4 ,:5 we d :at we "k to be wrong1 we recognise :at is "r4 ,we say1 ,?is is h[ any "o ought to act 9 ^! circum/ances1 b ,i am n go+ to d x4 ,we mu/ le>n to look ^u ourselves z we %\ld look ^u & judge any o!r moral ag5t4 ,if1 :5 tax$ ) wrongdo+1 we reply1 ,i want$ to d x1 or ,t is ! k9d ( p]son ,i am1 or ,t is ! way ,i am made1 we are ab&on+ ! moral position1 & ! answ] is1 ,:e!r y want$ x or n1 y ought n to h done x1 or1 ,well1 y ought to become diff]5t4 ,b ?is does n help u :51 look+ at actions f a moral /&po9t1 x is difficult to say :at ought to be done4 ,kant tries to %[ t wrong action1 if univ]salis$1 is always contradictory4 ,he takes ! in/ance ( tell+ a lie4 ,if t 7 univ]sal no "o w\ld believe any "o else1 & !re w\ld be no po9t 9 tell+ a lie4 ,ly+ is ess5tially p>asitical4 ,b ?is does n help u 9 ! famili> problem 9 casui/ry1 :e!r x is all[able to tell a lie to save life4 ,= "h we h a conflict betwe5 two maxims1 bo? ( :i* c be univ]salis$4 ,we _c reg>d su* a situation z simply involv+ a "q ( tell+ ! tru? or ( sav+ life4 ,we mu/ consid] ! circum/ances ( ! case4 ,?is is ev5 m evid5t if we apply ,kant's rule to ! "q ( :e!r celibacy is ev] ju/ifi$4 ,if celibacy 7 univ]sal1 !re w\ld soon be nobody to be celibate1 b x does n !re=e foll[ t "s p "u c]ta9 circum/ances ought n to be celibate4 ,! "q _c be answ]$ )\t ref]5ce to circum/ances4 ,! moral ( ?is is t ! categorical imp]ative does n enable u to act )\t individual moral judgm5t 9 individual cases4 ,fur!r1 9 "o ( ! in/ances :i* ,kant gives he admits t !re are c]ta9 ways ( action :i* might be univ]salis$1 b :i* he nev]!less holds to be wrong4 ,he in/ances ! duty ( be+ indu/ri\s4 ,a society c\ld q well be imag9$ 9 :i* e "o 0 lazy1 b he says1 ,x _c be will$4 ,! ultimate appeal "h is to :at ! moral reason wills4 ,t means t we mu/ admit t ! moral reason or moral judgm5t has a cont5t n d]ivable simply f ! conception ( ! moral law2 t !re are c]ta9 k9ds ( life1 c]ta9 k9ds ( action1 :i* we judge to be good1 & o!rs :i* we judge to be bad4 ,b1 if ?is is s1 we mu/ give up ! %>p sep>ation ,kant makes betwe5 ! moral law & nature1 & all[ t ?+s 9 nature c h a moral value4 ,x may /ill be true t !y only h moral value ?r\gh _! relation to a good w1 & h no moral significance ap>t f su* a relation4 ,! difficulties creat$ by ,kant's %>p sep>ation ( ! moral & ! ph5om5al worlds are equally app>5t 9 8 discussion ( motives4 ,he conceives ! individual z ph5om5al1 to be det]m9$ solely by pleasure & pa94 ,! p[] ( ! moral law is manife/1 !re=e1 :5 its comm&s run c\nt] to incl9ation1 & ! motive ( respect = ! moral law conqu]s incl9ation4 ,x is true to say t a man's likes & dislikes 9 !mselves are n to ! po9t :5 we are ask+ :at he ought to d1 b ,kant sometimes speaks z ?\gh !re c\ld be no moral value 9 an action :i* did n g aga9/ incl9ation4 ,?is is p]il\sly ne> t morbid !ory ( consci5ce :i* assumes t ! fact t an action w\ld be v disagreeable to ! ag5t is itself pro( t ! proposal to p]=m x is ! voice ( consci5ce4 ,"h aga9 we h to say t ! fact t incl9ations view$ m]ely z incl9ations h no moral value1 does n %[ t1 relatively to ! good w1 "o may n be bett] ?an ano!r4 ,!re is no?+ to be pr\d ( 9 ! fact t we dislike do+ our duty4 ,?is %>p sep>ation betwe5 ! _w ( morality & sci5ce 0 some:at temp]$ 9 ,kant's ?ird ,critique1 :i* we %all exam9e 9 ! next *apt]4 99,,*apt] ,,vii99 99,,! ,,critique ,,( ,,judgm5t--,,ae/hetics ,,& ,,teleology99 ,! ,critique ( ,judgm5t is at once ! mo/ int]e/+ & ! mo/ difficult ( ,kant's ?ree ,critiques4 ,x seems to cov] a mu* wid] gr\nd ?an ei!r ( ! two e>li] ,critiques4 ,x conc]ns itself ) ! relation ( empirical inve/igation to ! a priori pr9ciples ( und]/&+ discuss$ 9 ! fir/ ,critique1 ) an attempt to bridge ! gulf betwe5 ! _w ( fre$om & ! _w ( nature z describ$ 9 ! second ,critique1 ) a discussion ( ! pr9ciples ( ae/hetics & ( ! conflict betwe5 ! rival claims ( ! pr9ciples ( me*anism & teleology1 a conflict :i*1 s9ce ! discov]ies ( ,d>w9 & ! increas+ int]e/ tak5 9 biology1 is becom+ e day m important4 ,on all ^! po9ts ,kant has mu* ( importance to say4 ,mod]n !ories ( ae/hetic are ma9ly bas$ on an acceptance ( ! di/9ctions :i* he fir/ laid d[n cle>ly4 ,mu* mod]n philosophy ( a type :i* is little 9 sympa?y ) ! doctr9es ( ! fir/ ,critique--,pragmatism1 = example--is an elaboration ( 8 acc\nt ( ! regulative pr9ciples :i* guide empirical inve/igation1 :ile speculation on ! rival me?ods ( biology has h>dly advanc$ beyond ! solution sugge/$ by ,kant4 ,yet ! v sugge/iv5ess ( ?is book makes x h>d to und]/&4 ,x is difficult to see ! connection :i* ,kant suppos$ to exi/ betwe5 ^! v v>i\s problems4 ,! =m ( ! book1 l ! =m ( ! fir/ ,critique1 is m>k$ by subdivisions sugge/$ by =mal logic1 :i* seem to h little or no connection ) ! subjects discuss$ "u !m1 s t ! :ole is a curi\s comb9ation ( =mal sy/em & discursive cont5t4 ,kant himself reg>d$ ?is ,critique z ! triumphant v9dication ( 8 :ole sy/em1 9 t x br\ght toge!r & reconcil$ subjects :i* he _h previ\sly di/+ui%$ too %>ply4 ,_m lat] writ]s h ?\ght r t 9 x ! inconsi/5cies :i* !y believe to exi/ 9 ,kant's ?\ght come to a head4 ,we h n space "h to v9dicate ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t z ! cr[n+ phase ( ! critical philosophy1 z a rec5t writ] has call$ x1 or to exam9e s+ly ,kant's treatm5t ( ! v>i\s subjects ( int]e/ ) :i* x is conc]n$4 ,x is important1 h[ev]1 to foll[ ! connection :i* ,kant suppos$ to exi/ betwe5 ^! diff]5t subjects4 ,if we c und]/& t1 we %all ga9 consid]able insight into ,kant's sy/em z a :ole4 ,kant names ! book ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 or1 m exactly1 ! ,critique ( ! ,faculty ( ,judgm5t4 ,judgm5t is di/+ui%$ f und]/&+1 ^: pr9ciples are m peculi>ly ! subject ( ! fir/ ,critique4 ,! und]/&+1 accord+ to ,kant1 is ! faculty ( rules4 ,judgm5t is %[n 9 ! application ( rules to individual in/ances4 ,x is ! elem5t ( individuality & spontaneity 9 all ?9k+1 = :i* no rules c be discov]$4 ,judgm5t _c be taught1 diff]5t m5 possess x 9 diff]5t degrees2 x is ak9 to g5ius4 ,:51 !n1 ,kant turns to exam9e ! faculty ( judgm5t1 he is ask+ :e!r ! m9d1 9 deal+ ) individuals 9 all _! v>iety & diff]5ce1 & 9 attempt+ to und]/& !m1 is guid$ by any g5]al rules or pr9ciples4 ,! import ( ?is "q becomes cle> 9 8 relation ( x to ! famili> "q ( causation4 ,! pr9ciple ( causation1 z we h se51 is1 accord+ to ,kant1 an a priori pr9ciple ( ! und]/&+1 & is assum$ 9 all exp]i5ce2 b x does n ( itself enable u to det]m9e 9 any p>ticul> case :at causes :at4 ,t is ! task ( empirical inve/igation1 & ne$s1 z we "k1 ! imag9ation & insight ( ! individual inve/igator2 9 ,kantian language1 x is ! "w ( ! faculty ( judgm5t4 ,besides ! a priori pr9ciple ( causation1 !re=e1 we h an indef9ite numb] ( empirical causal laws4 ,kant asks :e!r ! sci5ti/ 9 inve/igat+ su* laws1 & m p>ticul>ly 9 consid]+ _! relation to "o ano!r1 is guid$ by any pr9ciples4 ,he f9ds t ! sci5ti/ assumes t ?is indef9ite v>iety is capable ( be+ r$uc$ to "s k9d ( unity1 assumes t !re is cont9uity 9 nature1 t k w n rema9 an aggregate ( disconnect$ rules4 ,*emi/ry1 = example1 has discov]$ t ! ov]:elm+ v>iety ( natural *anges c be r$uc$ to ! action & int]action ( a small numb] ( elem5ts4 ,! *emi/ proposes to g on & see :e!r ! diff]5t elem5ts may n !mselves be se5 to be =ms ( "o sub/ance4 ,^! assumptions are1 accord+ to ,kant1 q diff]5t f ! pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+4 ,= ! latt] are gr\nds ( ! possibility ( exp]i5ce4 ,we _c d5y !m )\t mak+ exp]i5ce unmean+4 ,?is _c be said ( ! =m]4 ,x obvi\sly _c be ess5tial to exp]i5ce t ! multiplicity ( ! laws ( nature %\ld be r$ucible to unity1 = su* unity has nev] be5 discov]$4 ,exp]i5ce has be5 q possible )\t x4 ,?is di/9ction betwe5 two k9ds ( pr9ciples ,kant expresses by call+ ^? ) :i* we are n[ conc]n$ regulative4 ,! purpose !y s]ve is ! regulation & improvem5t ( k4 ,!y d n1 l ! pr9ciples ( ! und]/&+1 prescribe to nature4 ,we assume 9 !m t nature is1 9 ,kant's words1 purposive to ! und]/&+--t is1 we fir/ ?9k out :at ord] ( nature w\ld be intelligible1 & !n look to see :e!r we _c discov] 9 nature su* an ord]4 ,?is assumption does n prove t !re is any su* ord]1 b 9 sci5ce we act z if x 7 !re to be f\nd out4 ,?is sugge/ion ( ,kant's has be5 elaborat$ 9 _m mod]n writ]s on philosophy1 :o h po9t$ out h[ mu* sci5tific me?od is gov]n$ by ! notion ( ! mo/ easily intelligible !ory1 & !y h argu$ t sci5ce assumes1 = ! conv5i5ce ( me?od1 pr9ciples :i* x nev] completely proves4 ,^! pr9ciples are call$ sometimes me?odological assumptions1 sometimes po/ulates4 ,! diff]5ce betwe5 su* mod]n writ]s & ,kant is t ! =m] ?9k t all a priori pr9ciples are ( ?is nature1 & t ! pr9ciple ( causation1 = example1 is itself only a po/ulate4 ,! faculty ( judgm5t1 !n1 accord+ to ,kant1 assumes = regulative purposes t nature is purposive to our und]/&+4 ,:at does ?is la/ phrase mean8 ,we are (t5 conc]n$ to "k ! relation ( ?+s to our purposes4 ,x has be5 po9t$ out t v _m ( our empirical concepts repres5t r our practical int]e/ 9 ?+s ?an our desire to und]/& !m z !y are4 ,kant's phrase implies t1 ap>t f any su* relation to p>ticul> purposes1 !re is a m g5]al purpose ( m]e intelligibility1 :i* "s objects obvi\sly s]ve m ?an o!rs4 ,"h we pass to ! consid]ation ( art1 = 9 our judgm5ts ( beauty ,kant holds t we simil>ly disreg>d ! relation ( ! beautiful object to any p>ticul> purpose1 & seem to be conc]n$ ) g5]al purposiv5ess4 ,! judgm5t ( beauty is1 = ,kant1 ! supreme act ( ! faculty ( judgm5t4 ,x is reflection on an individual = its own sake1 )\t attempt+ to fit x to our desires or see x z an in/ance ( our concepts or rules4 ,kant !re=e proce$s to exam9e our judgm5ts ( beauty1 :i* %[ h[ reflection on individual objects may display g5]al rules1 & !n proce$s1 9 ! la/ "p ( ! ,critique1 to discuss ! "p play$ by ! concept ( purposiv5ess 9 our und]/&+ ( nature4 ,x w\ld seem at fir/ sight t ,kant is n int]e/$ 9 art = its own sake1 b = ! light :i* x ?r[s ^u ! nature ( our intellectual faculties4 ,nev]!less he is c>eful to insi/ on ! di/9ction betwe5 arti/ic & sci5tific judgm5ts4 ,! judgm5t ( beauty1 he insi/s1 is free1 is n det]m9$ by a concept4 ,we are n conc]n$1 9 su* judgm5ts1 ) ask+ :at an object is4 ,9 s f> z1 9 our appreciation ( beauty1 we br+ 9 su* consid]ations we are wrong4 ,he !re=e rules out any !ory t beauty is conc]n$ ) fai?ful repres5tation4 ,beauty consi/s 9 ! =m ( an object1 & 9 no?+ else4 ,! judgm5t ( beauty1 besides be+ free1 is also dis9t]e/$4 ,! relation ( ! beautiful object to our purposes is irrelevant to its beauty4 ,! judgm5t ( beauty _c1 !re=e1 be det]m9$ by rules ( any k9d4 ,x is always individual & imm$iate1 & ! imm$iate feel+ ( beauty c\nts = m ?an any rules or canons ( ta/e4 ,kant !re=e v9dicates art z indep5d5t ( ei!r sci5ce or morality4 ,yet1 once we realise its indep5d5ce1 ! nature ( art ?r[s light ^u bo? sci5ce & morality2 = ! judgm5t ( beauty1 al?\gh free & n det]m9$ by concepts1 claims univ]sal validity4 ,we might put ,kant's po9t 9 ano!r way by say+ t art is significant1 & yet is n significant ( any?+ 9 p>ticul>4 ,its mean+ _c be r$uc$ to sci5tific /atem5t nor ab/ract$ f its =m1 & yet art has mean+4 ,kant f9ds ! explanation ( ! fact t ! judgm5t ( beauty is free1 & yet claims univ]sal validity1 9 ! sugge/ion t a beautiful object is "o ! contemplation ( :i* ar\ses & enliv5s ! two faculties ( ! intellig5ce1 ! imag9ation & ! und]/&+1 9 _! prop] proportion or h>mony4 ,all k ne$s imag9ation1 ! p[] ( see+ resemblances & diff]5ces 9 objects1 & und]/&+ :i* by concepts gives unity & rules to ! imag9ation4 ,9 sci5ce ! imag9ation is subord9ate to ! und]/&+1 = ! aim ( sci5ce is def9it5ess & precision4 ,9 art ! imag9ation is free1 & yet art is n ! m]e see+ ( resemblances & diff]5ces2 x also has its unity4 ,x aims at ! be/ proportion ( v>iety & unity4 ,?is is indep5d5t ( ! v>y+ natures ( individual p]sons1 & !re=e ! judgm5t ( beauty c claim to be univ]sally valid4 ,beautiful objects1 !n1 are purposive to ! und]/&+1 inasmu* z _! =m /imulates 9 ! mo/ h>moni\s degree ! two faculties ( intellig5ce1 & 9 art we f9d pro( t !re is a pr9ciple ( g5]al intelligibility1 :i* may guide ! "w ( ! sci5ti/4 ,! purpose ( ! sci5ti/ is q diff]5t f t ( ! arti/1 b if he is to r$uce 8 facts to ord] & intelligibility he mu/ be guid$ by a pr9ciple :i* is se5 9 its pure =m 9 ! arti/4 ,9 ! second place1 an und]/&+ ( ! nature ( art has significance = moral !ory1 because ! judgm5t ( beauty is dis9t]e/$1 & %[s t pleasure may be indep5d5t ( desire4 ,9 ae/hetic pleasure we are n m]ely det]m9$ by our incl9ations1 = art is ( all human activities free & creative4 ,we enjoy art n because x s]ves any ( our individual desires & purposes1 x is enjoy$ by some?+ 9 u t is univ]sal4 ,art1 !n1 contradicts ! position :i* ,kant assumes 9 ! second ,critique1 t we _c foll[ pleasure )\t be+ slaves ( our ph5om5al nature4 ,x is a dis9t]e/$ enjoym5t1 & is witness to ! possibility ( dis9t]e/$ pleasure 9 ! good4 ,fur!r1 ,kant held t 9 "o k9d ( ae/hetic enjoym5t1 appreciation ( ! sublime1 ! contra/ betwe5 our weakness & ! va/ ext5t & ov]:elm+ p[]s ( nature1 calls =? 9 u a conviction accompani$ by pleasure ( ! yet great] might ( ! moral law )9 u4 ,art !re=e may become ! symbol ( morality1 & ! ?ird ,critique does mu* to s(t5 ! rig\r ( ! tea*+ ( ! second4 ,9 ! la/ "p ( ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t ,kant applies 8 doctr9e ( regulative pr9ciples to ! und]/&+ ( nature4 ,! faculty ( judgm5t1 z we saw1 is conc]n$ ) ! attempt to give unity to ! detail ( ! natural _w4 ,9 ?is "w x has two regulative pr9ciples1 me*anism & teleology4 ,reality _c be =m$ accord+ to bo? ^! pr9ciples2 = me*anism assumes t reality c be reg>d$ z a patt]n or complex ( recurr+ or int]*angeable p>ts ^: *anges are necessitat$1 teleology t ! _w _c be expla9$ )\t suppos+ purpose to be an op]at+ ag5cy 9 *ange4 ,me*anism seeks to expla9 ?+s z ! necess>y result ( _! orig9al condition1 teleology 9 ! light ( _! highe/ developm5t4 ,! two pr9ciples h !re=e be5 held to be inconsi/5t4 ,! sci5ti/1 jeal\s = ! validity ( 8 discov]y ( me*anism1 combats ! v notion ( purposive ag5cy4 ,! !ologian ?9ks t to admit me*anism any:]e is to give up 8 :ole position4 ,kant's solution ( ?is ant9omy is t bo? me*anism & teleology are only regulative pr9ciples4 ,!y tell u no?+ ( ! ultimate nature ( reality1 except t we c expla9 mu* ( x by reg>d+ x z if x 7 a ma*9e1 & mu* by reg>d+ x z if x 7 ! field ( purposive ag5cy4 ,reality mu/ be consi/5t ) bo? ^! facts1 b m we _c say4 ,! moral is t we %\ld cont9ue to treat !m z regulative pr9ciples1 & pu% ea* pr9ciple ( explanation z f> z x w g4 ,kant is "h1 z usual1 ! enemy alike ( sci5tific & ( !ological dogmatism4 ,he w n all[ any limit to be set to ! "w ( sci5tific inve/igation1 & yet w n all[ a pr9ciple ( sci5tific me?od to be conv]t$ f an explanation ( p]ceiv$ facts into a !ory ( ! univ]se4 ,besides m$iat+ betwe5 ! conflict+ claims ( me*anism & teleology1 ,kant also modifies ! notion ( teleology4 ,:5 we ?9k ( reality z purposive1 we d n necess>ily ?9k ( x z hav+ a def9ite purpose1 z be+ subord9ate1 = example1 to ! well-be+ ( man4 ,! pr9ciple ( purposiv5ess arises prop]ly1 he holds1 f ! contemplation ( liv+ ?+s1 f ! p]ception ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 an organism & a ma*9e4 ,an organism is purposive 9 ! s5se 9 :i* a "w ( art is4 ,9 apply+ ! pr9ciple we are try+ to und]/& reality z ?\gh ! relation ( all ! diff]5t ?+s 9 x 7 l ! relation ( ! p>ts ( an organism or a picture4 ,b ?is pr9ciple1 l ! pr9ciple ( me*anism1 does n c>ry u fur!r ?an ! facts we h exam9$1 = an organism or a "w ( art c only be und]/ood by /udy ( ! individual relations ( all its p>ts4 ,we c nev] "k ! univ]se z an organism1 = we c nev] "k all its p>ts4 ,we c und]/& & put toge!r m & m ( !m1 b we nev] come to ! end4 ,! ?ird ,critique1 !n1 en=ces ! lesson ( ! fir/1 t k is ! "w ( individual f9ite m9ds1 try+ to und]/& elem5ts 9 a :ole t transc5ds ! limits ( _! exp]i5ce1 pu%+ back ! spatial & temporal limits :i* conf9e ea* individual1 b nev] remov+ !m altoge!r4 ,! critical philosophy tea*es ! impossibility ( absolute k1 b x does s n by sugge/+ g5]al scepticism ( all k1 b by en=c+ ! validity ( sci5tific k )9 its own limits4 99,,bibliography99 99,,translations99 ,!re are two accessible translations ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason--,meiklejohn 7,bell ,co47 & ,max ,muell] 7,macmillan74 ,kant's e?ical writ+s h be5 translat$ by ,abbott 7,longmans74 ,!re is a translation ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason by ,b]n>d 7,macmillan71 & ( ! fir/ "p ( x1 ! ,critique ( ,a,esthetic ,judgm5t1 by ,m]$i? 7,cl>5don ,press74 ,?is la/ book has introductory essays & notes4 ,! /ud5t beg9n+ ! /udy ( ,kant w f9d ,watson's ,selections f ,kant 7,mac,lehose ,sons7 useful if he _c read ! ,critiques 9 full4 99,,comm5t>ies99 ,! mo/ useful small books on ,kant are ,adamson1 ,! ,philosophy ( ,kant 7,blackwood71 & ,watson1 ,! ,philosophy ( ,kant ,expla9$ 7,mac,lehose74 ,! be/ & mo/ ?or\gh "w on ,kant 9 ,engli% is ,caird1 ,! ,critical ,philosophy ( ,kant1 #b vols4 7,mac,lehose74 ,,pr9t$ ,,9 ,,great ,,brita9