The last thing I wrote on Kant, was last month, and was:
(2) Categories are ultimately derived from the laws of logic and that is an element in what proves their veracity.
(2.1.) The task to identify the underlying grammar and vocabulary of language, is a phenomenon comparable to that of identifying the concepts that underly experience (S39). [This analogy makes it easier to swallow the difficulty of discovering the underlying structure of the tool used for its exploration].
Ultimately I am hoping that this will provide me with an improved perspective on the Prolegomena, and from whence I may be able to create some form of summary or write-up of improved interest.
Between S39 and S49 Kant is determined to explain why reason cannot veritably venture past the conditions of experience. This leads, in S51, to a summary of The Antinomies.
(3) Phenomenon and noumenon are two sides of the same coin.
(3.1) This applies to nature (the world) and also will (or freedom).
Nature therefore and freedom can without contradiction be attributed to the very same thing, but in different relations – on one side as phenomenon, on the other as a thing in itself. {Section 53}
(3.2) As this applies to actions (i.e. activity by an ego), those actions can be given binary explanations (i.e. phenomenon or noumenon-based).
(3.2.1) [An interesting meditation on this is that although they are both tautologically true sources of explanation, and despite the fact that the explanation based on noumenon cannot be known, it remains true that the noumenal explanation is not constrained-by or based-in time. And yet it parallels a phenomenal explanation that is in time. Radical!]
(4) Reason cannot be applied to the transcendental (i.e. to that which is beyond or prior-to experience).
(4.1) To do so is incorrect and leads to errors.
(4.1.1) This can be understood by developing terminology by, in turn, considering the difference between bounds and limits. Boundaries can themselves be encapsulated. Limits are as asymptotes and can only ever be approached.
(4.1.2) Knowledge has limits.
(4.1.3) Transcendental ideas try to push us ‘to’ that limit.
For the question now is, What is the attitude of our reason in its connexion of what we know and what we do not, and never shall, know? {Section 57}
(4.1.4) There is a paradoxical effect in our thoughts of the noumena. In thinking of anything we have to use concepts, but in using concepts our attempted thoughts of noumena become appearances.
Comment: It’s interesting that everything prior to this date was included within a single branch (e.g. 1.1, 1.1.1, etc), and suddenly there’s been a sudden spurt. Amongst the possible explanations are that I have evolved in my writing and collating style, or that recent readings have included a wider range of philosophy. Now, if I assume that the latter is at least partly true, then I have cause to use these data to generate a partial summary, i.e. a write-up based on points (2) through to the latest (4.1.4.). Taking this as a task will allow me to practise some of the methodologies I would need if I were to write-up the Prolegomena in general.
