>That only can be called science (wissenschaft) proper whose certainty is apodictic: cognition that can merely contain empirical certainty is only improperly called science. A whole of cognition which is systematic is for this reason called science, and, when the connection of cognition in this system is a system of causes and effects, rational science. But when the grounds or principles it contains are in the last resort merely empirical, as, for instance, in chemistry, and the laws from which the reason explains the given facts are merely empirical laws, they then carry no consciousness of their necessity with them (they are not apodictically certain), and thus the whole does not in strictness deserve the name of science; chemistry indeed should be rather termed systematic art than science.-Kant, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Preface
Who's reading Kant on Christmas?
>>24970908>Yes,Immanuel Kant is widely believed to have died a virgin at age 79, as he never married and lived a life of strict discipline consistent with his philosophy, which viewed sex outside marriage as morally problematic and often degradingBased and truwizpilled
>>24971185my man
>>24971185i think that if many incels just gave up on women and went full kant mode and just focused on completing the system, that then the world would be a better place.
Dwell on it and it will become real.
>>24970908I share the sentiment in his argument but what did they know of chemistry during Kants time?With todays advances in knowledge about chemistry, it's pretty much an apodictic certainty.Would Kant be a climate change denier if he lived today?
>>24971317>it's pretty much an apodictic certainty.but it's not and never will be per the problem of induction. kant is emphasizing no real science can be grounded on empirical principles. hence, chemistry disqualifying.
>>24971369>the problem of inductionIf induction is a problem then why do science at all? The next atom of the same element might act different than the atom before it. This is a problem with inductive reasoning not with empirical science.Empirical principles are the foundation on which all science is built on and relies on.You could argue that even apodictic certainties rely on empirical data if they are not immediately followed by an experiment.Which again loops back on itself because the experiment would only qualify as empirical and inductive argument.
>>24971403>Empirical principles are the foundation on which all science is built on and relies on.What part of OP did you not understand?
>>24971403I am proposing that the laws of empirical science are, as a matter of fact, learned a posteriori, as grounded on sense experience, but that this is not necessary, and that the notion of synthesis a priori must still be grounded in something, albeit obviously not sense experience. This ground is the transcendental unity of apperception, it is this fact that gives all the concepts and principles of pure understanding, which make that unity possible, and therefore experience possible, legitimate validity in experience since they themselves constitute that experience. From here, from the principles of the pure understanding, the entire system of physics should be, implicitly contained, and only requires the explicit derivation of that content by reason. Thus if the supposed laws of physics which have been arrived at by experimental means are true, they will also be able to be arrived at a priori, or rather could have always been arrived at a priori had we known this earlier, making the experimental scientific method redundant, since that method can never provide the universality and necessity that science demands and that only an a priori derivation from apodeictically certain first principles can provide.To further clarify, what is a posteriori, and therefore empirical, can never be knowledge, since real knowledge is infallible, i.e., apodeictically certain, thus disqualifying the merely probable truth of empirically derived judgments and inferences. Only the a priori, analytic or synthetic, can yield knowledge, and only the a priori synthesis and rational derivation therefrom can yield ampliative knowledge, or knowledge that can add to our concepts, albeit only from the standpoint of the finite empirical consciousness, since that content is already contained implicitly in the pure principles of the mind a priori, and only because of our finiteness of understanding must that content be rediscovered in time by the actual rational derivation.
>>24971443Kant's rescuing of the legitimacy of the concept of causality in experience only proved that every object of experience must have a cause, but what the actual cause of any given actual object is remains undetermined a priori, and thus leaves the enquirer with the uncertainty of returning to empiricism to find the particular causes. This is unsatisfactory if the goal is actual science and apodeictic certainty; the particular causes must also be determined a priori, but how? Can the mind be developed to such a degree that something akin to, to borrow a concept from occultism, psychometry, as a non-sensory, and therefore non-empirical capacity to know is realized? It would, also be a type of a priori knowledge, since it is not grounded on sensory perception, therefore not a posteriori. Further, it would be synthetic, since it would go beyond the concept of the given object. Thus, psychometry is a form of synthetic a priori knowledge like the pure principles of the understanding, but, the question arises now, is what would ground this psychometry identical to what grounds the pure principles of the understanding, i.e., the transcendental unity of apperception, or is it something else?
>>24971437Kant says:>science proper, relies on apodictic certainty (a priori)>science improper, relies on empirical certainty (posteriori)I say:No apodictic certainty without empirical certainty.There is a lot to digest here (>>24971443, >>24971447) but at a glance I see that Kant(?) sees the issue and relies on some sort of transcendental training of the mind to achieve apodictic certainty.Carefully, I would disagree but instead knock (t)his idea of knowledge down a bit and argue that knowledge without empiricism is not possible.
>>24971447THERE IS NOTHING ELSE
>>24971485>argue that knowledge without empiricism is not possible.hehe you are fighting a battle blindfolded. i raise you my :>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows, that all arises out of experience.
>>24971486
>>24971485a priorily refuted by >>24971562
>>24970908Kant was wrong about causality.
>>24971695nice ungrounded assertion bub
i'm way happier here than i was on x.com. there's too many stupid annoying hot women there. it was so depressing. i'd rather be here with retards like me.
>>24971562ideas are not knowledge
>>does science improperly
>>24971443>>free-wheels inductively from presuppositions to desired ends>>calls it knowledge anywayANY technology immediately refutes Kant, it is enough to make you wonder how someone who knows how to write, could actually twist themselves to write so ignorantly in praise of ignorance of how writing is possible
>>24970908but but Kant said the critique of pure reason is to old metaphysics like chemistry is to alchemy...what now did he mean by that ?if chemistry is systematic art ?wouldnt he call the critique a science ?
>>24972475(°□°)︵ ━ AHHHHHHHHHHHH
