On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:19:03 -0800, Scott H <zinites_page@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>In response to determinism, Kant explains how the antinomy of free
>will arises from a misuse of reason:
>
>"The possibility of an infinite origination, without a first member in
>regard to which everything else is merely subsequent, cannot be made
>comprehensible. But if you want to dismiss this puzzle of nature, then
>you will find yourselves compelled to reject many basic synthetic
>characteristics (basic forces) that you are just as little able to
>comprehend, and even the possibility of a change as such must then
>become objectionable to you."
>
>Up to here, I followed him. But then he says,
>
>"For if you did *not* find through experience that change is actual
>[my emphasis on "not"], then you would never be able to excogitate a
>priori how such an unceasing sequence of being and not-being is
>possible."
>
>If instead of "for" he had written "however," I wouldn't have
>considered it unsound writing. But then I would need a definition of
>"change as such."
>
>I would have expected a proof by contradiction, i.e., "If you *did*
>find through experience that change was actual, then..."
(A450-51/B478-79, NKS edition)
"The possibility of such an infinite derivation, without a first
member to which all the rest is merely a sequel, cannot indeed, in
respect of its possibility, be rendered comprehensible. But if for
this reason you refuse to recognise this enigma in nature, you will
find yourself compelled to reject many fundamental synthetic
properties and forces, which as little admit of comprehension. The
possibility even of alteration itself would have to be denied. For
were you not assured by experience that alteration actually occurs,
you would never be able to excogitate a priori the possibility of such
a ceaseless sequence of being and not-being."
Kant is elucidating the circularity involved in denying causality on
transcendent grounds.
You could substitute "however" for "for," I don't know that it makes
any difference. "Change as such" refers to "alteration" in my quote;
change is considered transcendentally, that is, without reference to
objects that change. "Change as such" is the mere or empty concept of
"change."
Kant is saying that it is circular to deny, by reasoning from the
impossibility of infinite derivation, an "enigma" upon which so many
of your common-sense concepts are grounded, even such basic concepts
as 'change' or 'alteration.'
--
fantasybedtimehour.com
|
