my tutor give me a hard rock :
why does difference exist?
and how could man imagine infinite?
I think those two is just the same thing.
among the relations  between A and A,at least one thing is true ,that is a is same with a itself ,not any other thing.
the relation,  different_from  is not a quasi order,it is too  universal to be abstracted.
but the relation  as_same_as is a partial order and a congruence relation , it has been  abstracted by man's wisdom.        

Hm...I'm not sure I understand you're question and my knowledge of Kant isn't all that comprehensive.

Why does difference exist?
How can man imagine the infinite?

According to Kant all knowledge is the result of a synthesis between the raw data of perception and mental categories--between percepts and concepts.  Pure perception is no knowledge at all and pure conception is meaningless.  Kant used the expression: without concepts, perception is empty, without perception concepts are blind.  Essentially, to know anything at all, our minds must 'transcendentally' synthesize perception into knowable objects.

Kant believed that Arististotelian logic described all of the types of transcendental judgements any human could make.  These judgements are as follows:

Quantity
1.  Universal
2.  Particular
3.  Singular

Quality
4.  Affirmation
5.  Negation
6.  Infinite

Relation
7.  Categorical
8.  Hypothetical
9.  Disjunctive

Modality
10.  Problematic
11.  Assertoric
12.  Apodeictic

These are not Kant's categories themselves, but they are judgements humans make using the categories on perception.

So according to this, difference is the result of a synthetic judgement upon experience.  We experience pure perception and the mind arranges that experience into various categories which we are able to recognize.  Difference is the multiplicity of categories and categorical relationships.

The infinite, on the other hand, is a specific type of synthetic judgement appertaining to mathematic and geometric (spacial) concepts.

QUOTE

Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from outer experiences.  For in order that certain sensations be referred to something outside me (that is, to something in another region of space from that in which I find myself), and similarly in order that I may be able to represent them as outside and alongside one, and accordingly as not onl different but as in different places, the representation of space must be presupposed.  The prepresentation of space cannot, therefore, be empirically obtained from the relations of outer appearance.  On the contrary, this outer experience is itself possible at all only through that representation.

at first,  I must thank you for your reply.
but how didi you put your limited mental category on the infinite universe?
every subject of recognition must admit that his knowledge is limited ,even the probability of his knowledge is limited by the number of his nerve cells.
so infinite is the word man used to express the sadness to himself ,to the weakness of human beings, to the magic universe far beyond any capability and  attempt of any guy.
poor man.

I kinda agree with you in that infinity is man's 'concept' of his own negation.  The fact that we we value what is infinite, immutable, omnipresent, and incontingent is evidence of an innate self-loathing in that that sense, humankind is pitiable.

According to Kant, however, whom I do not necessarily agree with, humans 'intuit' the infinite in perception and the mind represents this infinity as finite concepts by means of the categories we talked about before.  These categories are a priori, or without antecedent objects, and are therefore absolutely necessary.  In this way, Kant was able to derive universal knowledge from the limited and particular perception of sense-experience.

I hope that helps.  I'm not trying to disagree or agree with you, but just state what I understand Kants answer to be.

it does help,thanks.
but do you think man has the capability of category from finite to infinite , or in other word , infinite is the base of finite when we accept knowledge from this muddy world?
I think my poor English put both us into this muddy situation.I am sorry about that.

No, I don't think Kant's categories are proven, and I don't really subscribe to the idea of the infinite.  It's impossible to concieve of anything infinite.  The best we can do is imagine something bigger than the biggest thing we can imagine, which is just a unending sequence of finite concepts.  We can concieve of finite objects, objects that hae limits, but we can't concieve of anything infinite.  So to get around this we take the idea of limits and negate it.  The negated concept is a concept, but its not anything concrete or based upon experience, nor is it possible for it to be based on experience.

Some here might disagree.

In my mind , infinite is a real word. What you can not list them all,  you must admit that it is infinite.  But I also admit that the elements in this infinite set could be just the same,the only difference is the name we call them.This is the first question of difference. kant said the universe is both finite and infinite.,so that is what we could help him. I insist that difference and infinite is common ,and too common to be abstracted , sameness and finite is the result of our category ,and only at some level limited by man's capability. Man can nerve get the truth indeed ,only some level ,some part.

QUOTE

and how could man imagine infinite?

To me; infinite is a term miss-used in this context, as is finite.

If you ask the question how big (or small) is infinite, then of course you can't imagine the image.

But if you are not asking that question, and instead asking, can you imagine the concept of infinite, then it's easy, its all around you.

Imagine standing on a pebble beach, you look down at your feet and you can see individual stones, look along the beach in either direction and the stones become blurred and then dissapear into an inconcievable mass. This is a vision of infinite.

Imagine your body, and the structures that make it up and, them in turn, down to atoms and beyond. Then think the other way, that you are part of the world, and the world is part of the galaxy, and that is part of the universe, and so on. This is another view of infinity.

Infinity can be imagined by looking at a part of it, and then imagining it going off until it is inconcievable in both directions.

Finite is also misleading, if you want to ask how big is finite, it is again an inconcieveable thing to imagine.

You can only use the same framing technique to say at this moment this number is true. Time will stop the finite from being true forever.

I guess i'm agreeing Robby here, the universe just is, and difference is just a human view through a small frame of time.

"I guess i'm agreeing Robby here, the universe just is, and difference is just a human view through a small frame of time."
I can not agree with you any more.
but there is difference between us.
The number  of the pebble on one beach , or even on this Earth is a big but finite nature number. The number of al kinds of atom which made us up is also that.
But the number of stars or galaxies in the universe may be infinite because of the infinite space.
Denumerable infinite is quite away from listable but big finite.
By the way, I am so glad to talk with you here and by this way. You know , I am a newbie here , of course I need more help than Kant.

Robby, nice to talk with you also.

I think you miss the point of my examples, they are not measures of infinity, they are visions of infinity that we as humans Can comprehend! and besides how can you say the number of pebbles or atoms is finite, they are part of a process, a motion that with time will change dramatically.

Its only a finite number if it is a snapshot of time

Laz,like a Indian name ,right?
Finite could be dramatic too .
And dramatic means nothing to infinite.
What we see is always a shot at this world.

QUOTE

Laz,like a Indian name ,right?

Eh? sorry, you've lost me, are you asking if Laz is an indian name? If so, i have no idea, it's my given nickname, but i'm not indian. Ansestors are possibly Swedish, but i'm basically a whitey Brit  :)

QUOTE

Finite could be dramatic too . And dramatic means nothing to infinite.

Yep, completely agree.

QUOTE

What we see is always a shot at this world.

Sure, our limited lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in cosmic terms, hell, the lifetime of earth is still just a blink!

In all conscience,I must say something about myself.
I am a born Chinese, and proud with my traditional culture.Chinese philosophy is quite away from European.

QUOTE

Chinese philosophy is quite away from European

Totally, I think the eastern philosophies are closer to my way of thinking than any western philosophy. Having said that, I don't subscribe to any one philosophy and plan to write one of my own one day, maybe  :)

a couple of posts ago, you said that we were not thinking the same way. I feel that we are, have you changed your mind now?

Not yet.
I have not been convinced.
But I am not clear with myself.
Now ,let us have a look at your way of thinking.
These days, the scholars in China pay too much attention to the western philosophy.  

If you want a view into how i think, have a look at my website www.closertogod.net.

I look forward to your comments

Mmm
I am not a guy with the god.
Your site frightened me.
Wuwuwuwuwuwuwu

Sorry Robby, i didn't understand your last comment ???

I do, he had the same reaction to your website that you had to mine.

Woo woo.

Fair point  ;)