The motivation, goal, and philosophical significance of a critique of pure reason

Kant’s critique of pure reason set out to achieve many goals and have a considerable influence on philosophy.  The overall main motivation for the critique was to uncover the true capacity of pure human reason, find the limits of our understanding, and determine the cause of our concepts, all without using empirical knowledge.  Kant realized that humans naturally ask about the existence of an absolute being, the fundamental boundaries of reality, and other questions that exceed possible human experience.  Since we cannot possibly know these answers based on experience, we can only answer them based on pure reason.  Therefore, Kant was interested in investigating possible answers to these “big questions” based on pure reason alone.  Personally, I feel a deep connection between my thoughts and Kant’s philosophy.  Many times I ask myself, just as Kant asked himself, can these questions even possibly be answered or can we actually truly know anything about them? These are some of the most important questions that revolve around the critique.  I personally ask, why are people so certain about the existence of a Supreme Being or supreme world if there has only been constant debate, very limited proof, and no agreement as to an answer?  The main question of Kant’s transcendental philosophy that has also caused a considerable amount of debate was, how are a priori synthetic judgments possible?  How can we innately know something based on experience?  In conclusion, Kant supposed that mathematics is actually the core of a priori synthetic judgments thus general metaphysics can have scientific standing.  Also, Kant acknowledged that human cognition is aimed at answering the unconditioned, but that we cannot possibly know the unconditioned based on experience.  Therefore, he realized that we are subject to unavoidable illusions and unable to reach knowledge of the unconditioned.  The human mind can only distinguish conditioned things.  We can never know “things in themselves” but only conditioned appearances.

"Pure" vs. "empirical" use of cognitive faculties in the case of reason

Characterize the difference between the “pure” and “empirical” use of the cognitive faculties, especially but not only in the case of reason.

A lot of Kant’s critique is centered on pure reason versus empirical knowledge and many problems and questions arise for Kant when dealing with both pure and empirical knowledge.  First, we need to distinguish between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.  A priori is knowledge that is independent of experience and the senses.  A posteriori is knowledge that is dependent on experience.  Next we need to distinguish between analytic and synthetic judgments.  Analytic means that the predicate is contained in the subject.  For example, “A bachelor is an unmarried man”.  The predicate (unmarried man) is already contained in the subject (bachelor).  Analytic judgments are necessarily true because the negation leads to a contradiction.  Also, analytic judgments are then connected to the a priori.  On the other hand, synthetic judgments do not have the predicate contained in the subject.  For example, “Bachelors find early graves”.  We cannot know the predicate based solely on the subject.  Synthetic judgments are then connected to the a posteriori.  Now that we know analytic judgments go with a priori and synthetic judgments go with a posteriori, we can finally distinguish between pure and empirical.  Empirical knowledge is a type of knowledge that is both synthetic and a posteriori.  In other words, empirical knowledge is dependent on experience.  Kant then opposes empirical with “pure”.  The notion of pure is independent of experience or anything sensible.  As we know, Kant is critiquing pure reason, or reason independent of experience.  As far as the cognitive faculties go, there seems to be some trouble when coining either the sensibility or understanding as empirical or pure.  This is what Kant struggled with because he tried to prove that synthetic a priori judgments are possible.  Synthetic a priori judgments are independent on experience but also must be a posteriori because they are synthetic.  How is this possible?  Well, that question has been one of the most highly debated topics for philosophers and it has had much influence on philosophy since Kant’s time.  It is also the main problem with pure reason and a priori synthetic judgments must be proven possible to also get insight into pure reason.  Pure reason seems like a contradiction because you are mixing experience with no experience, synthesis with analytics, and pure with empirical.  It looks pretty messy but it is the main point of Kant’s critique.  How can we gain insight without experiencing?  In conclusion, pure and empirical are opposite but, when it comes to reason, Kant investigates the possibility of pure reason, or gaining insight without experience by using synthetic a priori judgments.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - the relation of reason to the notion of the unconditioned

Explain the relation of reason to the notion of the unconditioned, and give examples of some objects that are traditionally conceived as unconditioned.

Kant’s critique is centered on pure theoretical reason.  Pure theoretical reason is the faculty of principles and, more specifically, unconditioned principles.  The notion of the “unconditioned” arises in his critique and can be connected to the pure reason that Kant is investigating.  A condition is simply, as stated in class, a connection between two states of affairs.  There are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions but Kant here is looking into the unconditioned.  The unconditioned is a total state of affairs that constitutes the connections among all subordinate, conditioned states of affairs and depends on no other state of affairs distinct from itself.  Some examples that are traditionally conceived as unconditioned would be a supreme, all-being god, the soul, and the totality of the world.  The unconditioned plays a big role in Kant’s critique because he found that human reason naturally and ultimately attempts to find a condition for every condition.  Humans seek an absolute and ultimate explanation for the cause of these conditions.  Therefore, it is instinctive of human reason to get wrapped up in the search for an unconditioned.  There is a direct link between reason and the notion of the unconditioned because we inherently hunt for an unconditioned through reason in order to find an answer to everything!  Kant quoted that “reason demands we find, for the understanding’s conditioned cognition, the unconditioned whereby the cognition’s unity is completed”.  However, Kant also argues that the “unconditioned” cannot be known due to the limits of human knowledge.  This is where Kant’s “Transcendental Dialectic” or “logic of illusion” comes into play.  The problem with the connection between reason and the unconditioned is that the mind sets out to understand concepts beyond possible experience.  This problem brings forth transcendental illusions.  Since we can never fully know if an unconditioned is true or false, an antinomy (paradox) arises when proving one or the other.  For Kant, this is the illusion and he uses the Transcendental Dialectic to prove that knowledge of objects that cannot be experienced is illusionary.  Further on, Kant goes on to basically put forth that special metaphysics is an illusory science.  He deduced that these illusions are unavoidable and that metaphysics as a science is impossible.  In conclusion, human reason logically investigates the unconditioned.  As a result, reason it-self is the prime producer of transcendental illusion as the mind seeks out knowledge that cannot possibly be experienced.