critique of Pure Reas10

critique of Pure Reas10 - critique of Pure Reason Lecture...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: critique of Pure Reason Lecture notes, February 12, 1997: Possibility, Necessity, Existence At the end of the last lecture, I sketched the conclusion of Kant's argument for the applicablity of the concept of causality to objects of experience. Now I will resume the thread of the detailed discussion. The claim was that the time-order of the states of an object cannot be determined through the order of the occurrence of perceptions (the subjective succession does not by itself determine the objective succession). Something more is needed to show that the subjective succession is not arbitrary, not generated by the imagination. This something more is a rule according to which states succeed one another in objects. Such a rule, Kant claimed, must be subject to on exceptions, so that given that an object is in state a at a time, that (and the states of other objects at the same time) is sufficient to bring state b about. In this way, the succession of a perception of a by a perception of b is bound to an objective succession of states...
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

critique of Pure Reas10 - critique of Pure Reason Lecture...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online