Kant called it postnatal proof, which is not necessarily eternal, but it may be proven to be true, it may also be meditation, and it is full of sensibility, or philosophical terms and possibilities, but not necessarily all of them are correct.
There is another type of proof, corresponding to the innate proof, which is something that does not rely on experience. The proof of mathematical problems does not require us to advance through operations, and the proposition of logic is the same. The reason why logical reasoning can be proven is to see if there are any problems with logical deduction. This is innate proof, which does not rely on experience. However, eternal truth generally means that its results have universal necessity, while postnatal proof has probability.
These are two paths of proof, from before Kant all the way to Kant. Of course, there is no doubt that our judgment is either Fichte or comprehensive. It's not innate Fichte, it's acquired synthesis. Innate Fichte has inevitability, but does not add new knowledge content. There will be new content added in the day after tomorrow, but there is no universal inevitability.
Both of these judgments are flawed, but we can still conclude that analytical judgments are always innate, while comprehensive judgments are always acquired. Although we can get to know each other this way, what problem will we encounter?
Because Kant's concept of knowledge is based on natural science knowledge. In his opinion, knowledge must meet two conditions. Although Hume said that we can have two types of knowledge, one is the knowledge of ideas, and the other is the knowledge of experience and knowledge. The knowledge of experience is the knowledge of ideas, which is acquired without necessity. He divided it into two types, one is logic, and the other is mathematics. These two concepts have nothing to do with experience.
However, the current problem is that with the emergence of empiricism, such issues have arisen. If we still have knowledge of the physical world, it is obviously not knowledge of ideas. Knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, it is definitely not the knowledge of ideas that Hume said, because there are only two types of knowledge of ideas, mathematics and logic, then it is definitely not.
However, no one can deny that these two types of knowledge must be constantly added to our knowledge of the world, and they must be acquired. To some extent, if we didn't have Kant, they must have been acquired. They are constantly increasing our understanding of the physical world.
However, a problem has arisen. Acquired knowledge only has probability and no necessity, but Hume therefore said that humans do not have knowledge. What humans call knowledge is just some psychological associations, not knowledge in the classical sense. It has universal necessity, and universal necessity is not due to our psychological habits or our associative ability, but the essence of things themselves. Leibniz believed this, Aristotle and Plato both believed this.
The analogy of causality between things does not mean that they have no relationship with us, but the things themselves have such a structure, which Hume is wrong to say, there is no such thing. Because all our knowledge can only be gained through one channel, and what is gained from experience does not possess such universal inevitability.
Therefore, we have become such a problem. If it is knowledge formed by postnatal comprehensive judgment, it does increase our understanding of the world, but it does not have universal necessity. Without the consciousness of universal necessity, at least logically and theoretically, it can be like this or not.
That's the question, how can this be and cannot be like this? This is a paradox in itself, and it has great destructive power. The problem is that after Hume, we can only understand the problem in this way, unless we can give us a difficult problem and find a more appropriate way to deal with him. In Kant's words, it is to answer Hume.
So, he proposed a strange concept that is both universally necessary and comprehensive. Even today, some people say that the concept cannot be established, that is, the original two judgments only have innate analytical judgment and acquired comprehensive judgment. So Kant proposed a very famous third path, which is innate synthesis judgment.
According to innate comprehensive judgment, his material comes from experience, but his universal and inevitable character comes from our human subjectivity.
Kant also believed that the effective scope of judgment is only related to phenomena and the thing itself (the thing itself), and he said that I am talking about phenomena. In Kant's view, phenomena are actually subjective constructions of human beings. Subjective constructions should be understood in this way. Phenomena are filled with many of our subjective things inside. In fact, all phenomena must present themselves to us in some order, and this order is not inherent to the things themselves, but subjectively constructed by us humans.
Because we do not know the things themselves, what is presented to us is phenomena rather than the things themselves. He believes that the criticism of traditional philosophy by Xiu Mo is useless here, and it does not mean that the universal inevitability provided by innate comprehensive judgment is the things themselves.
Universal inevitability refers to the fact that our cognitive structure has universal inevitability, and the construction and operation of our cognitive structure have universal inevitability, rather than the fact that things themselves have such universal inevitability. Don't bother me, I have declared countless times that I don't know what things themselves look like. Now we are just assuming that there is such a thing itself, without discussing it, what we can recognize is that it is a phenomenon for us.
So, Kant, since we can make innate synthesis judgments, he said that in traditional metaphysics, there has already been such innate synthesis judgments. The soul is immortal, and this is innate synthesis judgment because the immortal predicate is not included in the subject of the soul.
Unlike three sides that are necessarily included in a triangle, the soul is immortal and is a comprehensive judgment of innate nature. It is said that it is innate because it cannot be proven by experience. We cannot be like a donkey and a horse pulling out for a walk. No one knows whether the soul is immortal, and there is no way to use empirical means to understand, prove or prove it.
Of course, for the old metaphysicians, it was inevitable, and we won't talk about it anymore. Kant may not necessarily agree, but he believes that it is not appropriate to think that innate synthesis judgment is a strange thing.
In fact, it already exists. Therefore, Kant, besides the innate synthesis of the immortal soul in traditional metaphysics, there is no other function. He said that there is also something else. For example, he said that mathematical knowledge and judgments are not Fichte's, but they are necessary and not proven by experience. He gave a very famous example, that is, 7+5 equals 12, which he said is an innate synthesis judgment.
Kant's reasoning thread is like this: to make a judgment, we first need a series of operations. We must operate on some arbitrarily chosen quantity to construct a number 7. Then, we must use the same operation to construct a number 5. Then, we must test what results are obtained by performing these two operations successively. Although 12 is the inevitable result obtained by adding these two consecutive operations together, he said that 7+5 cannot analyze 12. 12 cannot be analyzed from the three sides of the triangle concept, and 7 and 5 cannot analyze 12. However, like a triangle with three sides, it has true eternity and innate nature. The universal inevitability of sex is eternal, and in anyone it is 7+5, which equals 12, and in this regard it is innate.
Secondly, he has increased our knowledge because before the addition of 7 and 5, there was no such thing as 12. However, we now make the judgment that in addition to adding 7+5 to our knowledge, there is an additional number 12, which is innate and means that it must always be true, effective, and universal.
Synthesis refers to the fact that its content is 12, which cannot be analyzed from the two numbers 7 and 5. It is a newly added thing, a newly generated thing, and we can assume that there is an innate synthesis judgment in the world.
And he extended it to the knowledge of the world of phenomena that I want to talk about, which is derived from three judgments: innate comprehensive judgment, innate analytical judgment, and acquired comprehensive judgment. Don't misunderstand, Kant never denied these two judgments. However, he believed that what truly constitutes our knowledge is the concept of knowledge based on the natural sciences at that time, which is innate comprehensive judgment.
So, there are three types of judgments. From Aristotle to Kant, Western humans only know two types of judgments: innate analytical judgment and acquired comprehensive judgment. Now Kant bravely argues that it is wrong, and there is a third type of judgment, which is innate comprehensive judgment.
By the way, his viewpoint is that different people have different opinions, and even today many Western philosophers agree with it. However, there are also many Western philosophers who say that it cannot be established at all. Many people believe that he is proficient in mathematics and that 7+5=12 is an analytical proposition, not a comprehensive proposition.
We don't care about him, we mainly understand Kant's own thinking now. The reason why 7+5 is a priori comprehensive judgment is because 12 is not included in the subject of judgment. In Kant's view, all mathematics cannot be understood as just a formalism, that is, a game with rules.
We can ignore whether people think games are related to the real world or not. If that's the case, mathematics has no objective meaning, but rather games that can be played according to arbitrary rules. Mathematical judgments cannot be solely based on the data involved, such as 12, which is derived from logical conclusions. They cannot be quickly derived from a logical structure like a triangle that has three sides.
Of course, he mentioned geometric propositions, which are also innate comprehensive judgments. How can we prove that they are innate comprehensive judgments?
Because of innate judgment, we can solve problems through pure logical reasoning and mathematical reasoning. The comprehensive judgment of the day after tomorrow is also easy to prove, 'whether it is a mule or a horse coming out for a stroll', but how can the innate comprehensive judgment prove it?
Can the original two proof methods still be used? This is a question. Secondly, can metaphysical questions be proven using the same method? This is the second question.
网友评论