Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science - Afterthoughts

Both the lecture and the exercise have been very helpful to gain some deeper understanding of Kant’s position. Before the lecture I was not aware of the different types of a priori knowledge. But one must distinguish between analytical a priori, synthetic a posteriori and synthetic a priori judgements. An analytical a priori judgment would for example be the following statement about a class: ’There are pupils in this class’. The concept of a class already includes that there must be pupils because if this would not be the case, there would be no class at all. Therefore a priori knowledge is something which can be verified without experience. A synthetic posteriori statement would be something which you can only know by investigating the object like the exact amount of people. This is something you could not know by just thinking about it, you have to look into the world to gain that knowledge. The third kind of knowledge is called synthetic a priori and generally equal to metaphysics. It is defined as knowledge about abstract object, a knowledge which can not be verified. And therefore Kant says that it is not worth to talk about metaphysics since there is nothing to be gained. Due to this Kant calls himself an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist instead of an empirical idealist and a transcendental realist. Because the latter one would worship synthetic a priori knowledge. 

Moreover, Kant says that every kind of knowledge - a least this kind of knowledge which is worth achieving - can be put into one of twelve categories which can be under-ordered to the four super categories of quantity (unity, plurality, totality), quality (reality, negation, limitation), relation (substance, causality, community) and modality (possibility, existence, necessity). Metaphysics can be classified as knowledge that lies beyond these categories. According to Kant it cannot be decided by pure reason and therefore has to be considered as empty. 

Now it can be argued that these categories narrow our knowledge to certain aspects, that we might skip important properties of an object if we build our concept of it according to these categories. But Kant views this categories as something similar as a language: these categories give us the opportunity to form, describe and express our knowledge. So it can also be stated that this categories open up our knowledge.

Since it is not possible to explain the world in terms that are independent of our subjective experience it is necessary to organize knowledge in a way the categories do. I guess Kant wants to establish a kind of guideline or method by using the categories to eliminate subjectivity as effectively as possible. But since these categories are vague and they are only approved by Kant himself I guess one should not overestimate its significance. Its nothing more than Kant’s concept of knowledge which is - in my point of view - a concept of a very abstract object and therefore not verifiable. 

We also discussed the general concept of objectivity in our exercise and if it is possible to come even close to such a thing as objectivity. I guess as long as there is no way to distinguish the world as is it from the world we experience there is no way to reach objectivity. And since we can only come to this conclusion by using our subjective mind and our subjective experience it seems to be impossible to completely eliminate subjectivity.