Hi all. I'm hoping that, being philosophical types, some of you may have read Kant's critique of pure reason. I've just got through the introduction, and while I think I have understood most of it, theres one fairly major concept I just don't get. Necessity. Kant seems to make judgements on whether concepts such as cause and effect are a priori (completely independent of experience and true seperately from it) on the basis of whether they are necessary or not. I don't understand what this means! Necessary for what? And why does that make it a priori? Please help! Any explanation much appreciated.

Sean F.

Kant is kind of out of date nowadays. There have been new philosophical movements that have a different approach that is much better. You might find some good ideas with him, but also lots of ballast. It's much better to start with an overview about different philosophers than concentrating on just one of them, especially when it's your teacher's favorite.

If you want to understand the concept of apriori in the light of nowaday's science you have to investigate the program of our genes as shown in the structure of our brain. Pure reason actually doesn't exist, in reality it's linked to the rest of us and gets its meaning from there.

I have actually started (several years ago) with an overview of different philosphers. I'm just currently concentrating on Kant. Which 'much better' approach did you have in mind? And who says you can understand the mind through the brain? I think you'll find plenty who disagree on that. As for reason being linked to other things, see my post in the topic truths.

For example Husserl, who is similar in some respects but also quite different. Another interesting thing is constructive realism as a theory of science.

About understanding the brain, yes, biology alone wouldn't be enough. But it gives you very interesting further information, for example if you investigate the ratiomorph apparatus with animals. (Which is the precursor of reason in humans.)

Yeah - science and philosophy can give each other ideas. I've only vaguely heard of Husserl - I'll look him up sometime.

Kant is distinguishing a priori judgments/propositions from those that are gained from experience. His two criteria for a priori judgments are that they are necessary and that they are "strictly universal," meaning that we cannot think without them (necessary) and that no exceptions to them are allowed (strict universality).

he also has produced a categorical imperative which is complete nonsense.  it says 'act in a way that the guideline of your acting can be made into a foundation of the law.'
would mean that by law from now on nobody is allowed to smoke, alcohol is forbidden, people of both sexes have to walk topless in summer, work is severely restricted, everybody has to sleep 10 hours a day, and so on.
i mean, i'm acting in a way that this could be made into a law for everyone, no?  but i wonder what this fellow Kant had in his head when he thought it's a good idea to connect your natural flow of actions with the law, which is only necessary for the mentally sick, by the way.

Kant never applied his catagorical imperitive to all action only those that exist in the moral sphere.  He created it as a rule like the rule of non contradiction in logic so that reasoning about morals would be possible since to say that if one were reasoning about morals but did not find it neccessary to say that what was moral for one individual would neccessarily be moral for another individual would make reasoning about morals impossible.  In other words the moral universe must be universal.  And as for an individual who connects morality with Law, I'm not sure how that would make him sick.

I think the intent here is acting without compromise.
If one is united universally with all of creation one naturally acts in accord with natural law. The laws that support creation, not the individual laws the ego uses to support ones personal enjoyment.
Not to say they are mutually exclusive but if the conscious mind does not experience a connection with everything else then it sees everything outside of itself and so every action is for the self, the ego.
Doing somthing you think you should do rather than what you really want would be compromise.
Many would be artists, musicians philosophers may do what they think is more realistic in supporting economic standards than to creatively interact with their surroundings that may draw criticism. This creates conflict in the mind and in the surrounding experience.
What one does naturally draws no conflict within, or without.