Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a book about the faculty of reason and its ability to perform the tasks that it does. ‘Pure’ meaning that it is reason absent from experience and wholly a priori. (132) Kant is looking to understand the limitations of reason itself in contrast to reasoning processes found in logical syllogisms.
Kant is attempting to solve the problems facing the empiricists, what he refers to as the skeptics, and the rationalists, who he sees as the dogmatists. He wants to find how both of these forms of cognition, one through the senses, and the other through rationality, can be understood and reconciled with. This inquiry is transcendental, meaning an investigation into the a priori foundations of our reason in general. (133) The implications of his critique are far reaching to metaphysics, the laws of nature, god and morality.
Thesis
Objective Reality exists because of the unity of apperception synthesized with the cognitions of the givenness of intuitions and the concepts in objects.
Overview
To prove this thesis, I will have to discuss the fundamental arguments of intuition, concepts and the role of apperception. I will go through about half of the Critique of Pure Reason to show how Kant builds his argument for Objective Reality. The outline of this argument begins with our objective a priori intuitions of space and time, the thinking and cognition of concepts through judgments, the a priori synthesis of concepts in the understanding, and the two deductions of a priori categories in the pure concepts of the understanding.
A Priori and A Posteriori Cognitions
Kant begins his critique with a distinction between a priori and a posteriori cognitions. A cognition that is a priori is one that occurs independent of all experience. (137) A cognition that is a posteriori is an empirical cognition which occurs through experience. The two forms of human cognition are sensibility and understanding. Sensibility is how objects are given and understanding is how objects are thought. (152)
Analytic and Synthetic Judgments
Judgments of subject and predicate can be of two types based on whether the predicate is contained in the subject or if the predicate contains information not available in the subject. An analytic judgment is affirmative and of clarification, where the subject and predicate have an identity or tautological relationship. Kant uses the example ‘All bodies are extended’ for an analytic judgment. A synthetic judgment is of amplification and the predicate goes beyond information within the subject. Kant gives the example ‘All bodies are heavy’ as a synthetic judgment. (141-2)
The Transcendental Aesthetic
The immediate relation of a cognition to an object, that is the means to the end of all thoughts, is an intuition. (155) This intuitive form of cognition only occurs when the object is given and it is possible only through affecting the mind. The general capacity for representations to be acquired through this mechanism is called sensibility. Sensibility is the means objects are given and it is experienced as an intuition.
Objects that are thought are done so through the understanding which produces concepts. Kant states,
“All thought…must ultimately be related to intuitions…to sensibility, since there is no other way in which objects can be given to us.” (Kant, 155)
When we are affected by an object in the form of a representation, it is called a sensation. This sensation is an empirical intuition which Kant refers to as an appearance. (155) Matter is that which corresponds to the sensation, whereas the form of the appearance is that which allows the manifold to be intuited as an appearance. Kant’s first big claim is that all matter as an appearance is cognized a posteriori, whereas the form of the appearance is cognized in the mind a priori.
The form of an object is separate from the sensation of our perception. If we separate out all aspects the understanding can think about and intuition can sense, extension and form are left as empirical intuition. (156) Once all conceptual thinking through the understanding and all from sensation are removed, only a pure intuition of the form of the appearance is left a priori. These a priori cognitions are space and time. (157)
Space
Through a property of our mind, an outer sense, we represent objects outside of us, in space. (157) Our inner sense, the way we represent ourselves, is done so through relations of time. Kant says,
“Time can no more be intuited externally than space can be intuited as something in us.” (157, 174)
Space is an a priori intuition because:
1) We have not developed our cognition of space empirically through experience with objects outside of ourselves. For us to represent objects in relation to one another, space must already be an intuition before our experience of outer objects.
2) All of our outer intuitions and geometrical principles require space as a representation necessarily a priori. Space is a condition of the possibility of appearances and is not dependent on them for we cannot represent ‘no space’ whereas we can represent ‘no objects with space.’
3) Space is a pure intuition and not a concept. Space is represented as one, single, space which all particular spaces are part of. The non-empirical a priori intuition of space grounds all concepts of space through creating limitations, like the 4 walls in a specific room that is part of the one ‘space.’
4) Space is intuited as an infinite magnitude whereas concepts have finite parts to them. The boundlessness of space is not something captured by a relational concept and can only be cognized as an intuition. (158-9, 174-5)
Space does not represent things in themselves and is the form of all appearances of our outer sense. The form of this receptivity, or sensibility, is how objects are intuited outside of us and is what we mean by the word ‘space.’
The reality or objective validity of space regards how everything represented externally is done so as an object. (160) Space is the only a priori objective way we have a subjective representation of something. Taste and colour are not necessary conditions in the same way that the form of space is for an object. Space is a pure form of intuition not dependent on sensation. Kant says,
“Through space alone is it possible for things to be outer objects for us.” (161)
Finally, we must remember that nothing is intuited as a thing in itself but is only cognized as an appearance.
Time
Time is a pure a priori intuition because:
1) Succession and simultaneity are not known empirically but are a priori intuitions. Their a priori cognition is necessary for us to represent something at the same time or at different times and is not learned through experience.
2) All intuitions require time as a necessary representation for one cannot remove time from any appearance in general. Time is assumed a priori for one can remove an appearance but not time for it is a universal condition that makes it possible.
3) Time has only one successive, not simultaneous, dimension. All times are part of the one successive time that gives us the possibility of experience and not determined through it. The one time is represented as an intuition and not a concept due to the synthetic proposition that ‘different times are not simultaneous.’ There is no way to know this unless it was a priori for it cannot be determined from experience.
4) Time is intuited as an infinite magnitude making its unlimited representation recognized as an intuition and not a concept. Concepts have definitive parts and cannot progressively be divisible ad infinitum. (162-3)
Time is a subjective condition of sensible intuition as we are affected by objects external to us. Its objectivity is due to the appearances being in time and in relations of time in the form of an inner intuition in how we represent ourselves to objects as a temporal sequence progressing towards infinity. (163-5, 181)
The pure intuitions of time and space are the means that synthetic a priori propositions are possible. (183, 192) A priori, due to a cognition before experience, and synthetic because the information contained in the proposition is not known from the concept alone.
Space and time do not exist in themselves as appearances but only in us for if we were removed so would they. We do not know things in themselves but only the way in which we perceive them. The form of space and time are cognized a priori and the sensation of its matter a posteriori. (185)
The Transcendental Logic
“Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.” (Kant 193-4)
A cognition requires two components: intuition and concepts. First, an object given as the receptivity or sensibility of an intuition and second, thought as a representation or spontaneity of concepts. Sensibility is the mind’s ability to be receptive to representations affecting it and the understanding is thinking through the spontaneity of concepts. Sensibility is necessary for objects to be given and understanding is necessary for concepts to be thought. (193) Both, together, are necessary for cognition. The rules of sensibility are aesthetic whereas the rules of understanding are logical. (194)
Analytic of Concepts
Kant now advances to analyze concepts as a priori pure cognitions of the understanding with four conditions:
1) concepts are pure and not empirical
2) concepts are not part of intuition or sensibility but to thinking and the understanding
3) concepts are elementary and not some that are composed of or derived from, and
4) an exhaustive and complete table of concepts represents pure understanding
This task is possible only through the idea of a whole within the connection of a complete system that is independent from sensibility. (201)
Kant begins his analysis by following the principle of unity that is used as a rule to determine the place and completeness of each pure concept of the understanding a priori. (204) He then distinguishes sensible intuitions as affections and receptivity of impressions, whereas concepts, through the spontaneity of thinking, are functions. This functionality is due to there being a unity of action in ordering representations in common. (205) Intuition is the only means of immediate access to objects, whereas concepts are related to the object by intuition or another concept.
Judgment is, the second order, mediating cognition of the representation of the representation of an object. The understanding uses these concepts in judgment by ordering relations of representations through the function of unity by drawing together many potential cognitions into one. (205)
The understanding is essentially the faculty of judging and thinking.
“Thinking is cognition through concepts.” (Kant, 205)
A concept ‘X’ is the predicate of some possible judgment that is related to a representation of an underdetermined object. (205) A concept is because other representations are contained within it to the end of being related to an object. This makes every concept a predicate of a possible judgment ‘X is Y.’
If one is able to determine the functions of unity in judgments, then the functions of the understanding can be found. (206) To do this, Kant develops the table of functions by abstracting from the content of judgments to the form of understanding within it.
1) Quantity of Judgments: Universal, Particular, Singular
2) Quality: Affirmative, Negative, Infinite
3) Relation: Categorical, Hypothetical, Disjunctive
4) Modality: Problematic, Assertoric, Apodictic (206)
These logical functions are the relational form that concepts take in thinking. (212)
The manifold of pure a priori intuition of space and time affects the concepts that the mind is receptive to. The spontaneity of thought goes through an action of the manifold to take it up and combine it so that a cognition can be synthesized. (210) This synthesis is an
“action of putting different representations together with each other and comprehending their manifoldness in one cognition.” (Kant, 210)
An a priori or empirical synthesis, gathers elements for a cognition and unifies them into content. (211)
The action of synthesis to concepts is an effect of the imagination that all cognition is dependent on and a function of the understanding. Pure synthesis produces the pure concept of the understanding based on synthetic unity a priori. Transcendental concepts of the pure synthesis of representations require a priori the manifold of intuition, the manifold synthesized by the imagination, and the representation of necessary synthetic unity so that an object is given. (211) This synthesis is what is necessary for an object to have its conceptual content that unifies all the representations within it as one. It happens a priori for us as this pure synthesis within our understanding and we see it as a thing.
Kant develops a table of categories to explicate the pure concepts of the understanding that apply a priori to objects of intuition:
1) Of Quantity: Unity, Plurality, Totality
2) Of Quality: Reality, Negation, Limitation
3) Of Relation: Inherence and Subsistence, Causality and Dependence, Community
4) Of Modality: Possibility - Impossibility, Existence - Non-existence, Necessity - Contingency (212)
These categories are pure concepts of synthesis the understanding has a priori that are used to make sense of the manifold of intuition by thinking of objects. (213)
The Transcendental Deduction A
Kant is now concerned with how concepts relate to objects a priori. (220) He wants to show how an individual’s subjective condition of thinking has objective validity. This means an individual person’s cognition has a connection to the conditions on possibilities of all cognition of objects in general. (222) He brings up the concept of causality as a kind of synthesis,
“in which given something A something entirely different B is posited according to a rule.” (Kant 222)
If a priori conditions were not met, then the appearances would not be objects for us unless following a synthetic unity. Without this unity, appearances would be a mass of confusion where succession would not correspond to cause and effect. (223) This is not something learned through experience but can only be comprehended a priori, necessarily and following a rule universally. Kant states,
“to the synthesis of cause and effect…the effect does not merely come along with the cause, but is posited through it and follows from it.” (223)
This a priori concept is not something that can be learned from experience but must be posited as a condition of our experience.
Kant continues his exploration by offering a dichotomy to distinguish how the relationship between the representation and the object are possible: is it the object that makes the representation possible or the representation that makes the object possible. If the object makes the representation possible, it would be empirical and hence not a priori. Therefore it must be the representation that makes the object possible. (224)
Kant is quick to address the fact that it is not the representation that makes the existence of the object possible but our ability to cognize it as an object. (224) The two possible ways we cognize an object are intuition where it is given in appearance, and as a concept where our thought corresponds to the intuition. Concepts presupposing experience a priori is necessary for objects to be possible as an object of experience.
In our experience we have intuition of objects but we also have concepts of objects in our experience that are given in that intuition. The a priori conditions of cognizing experiences are general concepts of objects which are objectively valid, meaning applying to all. This a priori concept is the categories necessarily relation to objects of experience. Without the categories, no object of experience could be thought of. (224) These a priori concepts are the conditions of the possibility of experience in general, without them we would not have experiences in the objective way that we do. (225)
Kant then goes deeper to explain the source of our capacity or faculty of the conditions of the possibility of all experience. The three sources are sense, imagination and apperception. (225) Kant identifies these three sources as:
1) a synopsis of our manifold a priori via sense
2) a synthesis of the manifold via the imagination, and
3) a unity of the synthesis in original apperception (self-awareness) (225)
These faculties are necessary for us to have experiences and cognize those experiences in the way that we do.
Kant sees the categories as the general concepts of objects that are intuited through one of the logical functions for judgments. (226) In the relationship of subject to predicate, one is using the function of a categorical judgment. Depending on which category a concept is introduced, this will determine the experiential intuition of whether it is the subject or predicate. The example given here is in the category of substance, ‘body’ is the subject in the judgment, “Something divisible is a body.” (226) Kant is clarifying the relation between subject, predicate, categories and concepts in the use of functions in our judgments.
For a concept to be related to an object it must belong to possible experience in general or elements of it. If not, then no intuition would correspond to the concept, which is how objects are given to us. Objective reality rests on the a priori concepts which make possible the conditions of experience. A priori concepts of the understanding are dependent on the a priori objective and formal conditions of possible experience. These a priori concepts are found in the categories and their objective validity is found that only through them can an object be thought. (227)
In our experience of appearances, every representation we encounter is not foreign, isolated or separated from the others. (227-8) What we experience in our cognition is a whole and connected sense of representations. Here is where Kant places synopsis to sense due to being within a manifold of intuition. Corresponding the synopsis to synthesis and receptivity makes possible cognitions when combined with spontaneity in the understanding. (228) The whole of our representations is a unity that we synthesize as an object that we are aware we are perceiving spontaneously in our understanding.
1. Synthesis: Intuitive Apprehension
All of our representations and cognitions are subjected to the inner sense of time which orders, connects and brings them into a relation. Every intuitive manifold is distinguished by the temporal succession of impressions contained in one moment as a unity. (228-9) The synthesis of apprehension is what makes it possible for a unity of intuition to come from a manifold by being contained as one representation. The synthesis of apprehension is a priori for both space and time are dependent on it for they are both created in the synthesis of our manifold of sensibility.
2. Synthesis: Reproduction in Imagination
When we reproduce a representation, or remember something, without the presence of the object, the mind is following a rule. The appearances are subject to this law of reproduction so that words are connected to the thing consistently. (229) There is an a priori necessary synthetic unity in the reproduction of appearances. Appearances are not things in themselves but are representations that follow our inner sense. The rule maintains that when we count or think of something, the reproduction is consistent and stable so that the thing being reproduced is the same or held in memory.
Kant gives the example of drawing a line in one’s mind, thinking of two different times, or counting. In all of these examples, we must be able to reproduce the representation and hold it in our minds so that the successive moments of that representation fit together. If we were to lose the previous segment of the line, the time before the one were thinking or numbers preceding the current one, all of these forms of thinking would not be possible. Both space and time are both dependent on the reproduction in imagination for this same reason. Kant also identified that the synthesis of apprehension is also combined with the synthesis of reproduction as they are both needed in the process of representing objects to ourselves. (230)
3. Synthesis: Recognition in Concept
For a unity or a whole of a representation to exist, we must be conscious of that unity. For succession, in counting as an example, to be possible, we must be conscious of the previous numbers or representations in the series as part of that succession. The cognition of objects depends on our consciousness of them, that we are possessing the representation as a unity of synthesis. (230-1)
The phrase “object of representation” means that there is an independent object from the cognition. The cognition is different from that which is it cognizing. The cognition is of the object and is not the object. There is a necessary relation between the cognition and the object in the unity of the concept of the object. (231) The unity that necessarily creates the object is the same formal unity of our consciousness that is synthesized in our manifold of representations. (231) We cognize objects only when they are synthesized as a unity in the manifold of intuition. This is only possible if the functional synthesis is in accordance with a rule that makes the reproduction of the manifold necessary a priori and a unified concept. (231)
The manifold of appearances is determined by a unity of rule and is also based in an a priori condition that also makes the unity of apperception. Appearances in the form of a unity, alongside the unity of our self-awareness, is the representation of a concept in the form of object = X. The concept, an object as X, we think through the predicates associated with that concept. Concepts are a general rule needed for all cognition when we think through the unity in the manifold of appearances. (232)
There must be a transcendental ground for any necessary condition like the unity of consciousness in the intuition of the manifold of intuitions and the concepts of objects. The necessity of unity, or synthesis, from the unity of our apperception, creates our experience and ability to think of objects of intuitions. This transcendental condition is the unity of apperception, being conscious of ourselves as an inner sense of our internal perceptions. This condition of apperception is a priori to our experience and makes experience possible including intuitions of space and time. Cognitions and the relation of representations of objects are necessarily dependent on the unity of consciousness, or transcendental apperception. (232)
Concepts are grounded a priori from the oneness of the unity of apperception in the same way the manifoldness of space and time are grounded in our intuition of sensibility. (232-3) Kant states,
“Thus the original and necessary consciousness of the identity of oneself is at the same time a consciousness of an equally necessary unity of the synthesis of all appearances in accordance with concepts.” (233)
The unity of synthesis in the appearance of concepts is based on a connection to a priori rules which determine the conceptual appearance as an object. The appearance of the object of our intuition is a representation and not the thing in itself or transcendental object that the appearance is based on.
Kant is saying that the general capacity to conceptualize an object based on its appearance, a pure concept, is based on a transcendental object = X that is the basis for us to be able to have concepts of any object at all. This is the basis for objective reality as Kant states,
“The pure concept of this transcendental object (which in all of our cognitions is really always one and the same = X) is that which in all of our empirical concepts in general can provide relation to an object, i.e., objective reality.” (Kant 233)
The pure concept cannot be intuited but only known as the unity in our cognition in relation to an object. The relation is the a priori unity of consciousness and the synthesis in our manifold that creates one representation. Our empirical cognitions rest on an objective reality because of the transcendental law that a priori rules of synthetic unity and unity of apperception both fall under the conditions of space and time. (233-4)
4. The Possibility of the Categories as A Priori Cognitions
All perceptions are within a lawlike representation of experience similar to all forms of experience taking place in the one space and time. Any given experience takes place in the singular, universal experience. The form of experience is due to our thoroughgoing and synthetic unity of perception that is also a synthetic unity of appearances according to concepts. Without the synthetic unity of perception according to concepts, appearances would overwhelm us without it reaching a cognition of experience due to lacking connection with universal laws. (Kant 234)
Any possible experience has a priori conditions which are also the conditions for objects of experience. To be able to think in any possible experience, the categories are the conditions under which that occurs, similar to how space and time are the conditions of our intuition. The categories are the fundamental concepts to think of objects in general which gives them their a priori objective validity. (Kant 234) The a priori necessity of the categories relies on the relation of our sensibility to an a priori apperception or the conditions of the unity of self-consciousness as a synthesis in accordance with concepts. (Kant 234-5) Without this universal, a priori unity, we would have no objects or experience and
“would be nothing but a blind play of representations, i.e., less than a dream.” (Kant 235)
Our understanding and awareness of nature is necessarily dependent on the unity of our self-awareness or unity of apperception. To us, nature is a sum of appearances represented in our mind as a unified object of all possible experiences. If synthetic propositions of the universal unity of nature were not based in an a priori transcendental apperception, they would need to be taken empirically from nature which would make the unity contingent and lacking of the necessity we find in nature. (Kant 236) The unity of our self-awareness is projected in our awareness of nature as an a priori fundamental basis for the possibility of experiencing nature as we do because of the self-awareness we have to observe it. Without the kind of unity in self-awareness we have, we would not have the capacity to observe an objective unity in nature.
Kant’s deduction of the categories is based on the pure concepts of the understanding that are related to the object of the senses from our intuition and the synthesis of the imagination. Pure understanding is the combination of the unity of apperception with the synthesis of the imagination. The understanding has a priori cognitions of the necessary unity of the pure synthesis of the imagination relative to all possible appearances. The appearances have a necessary relation to the understanding because of the a priori relationship of the categories to pure understanding. (Kant 238)
The categories are how we think about all possible appearances and experiences because we could not think about them in any other way. The understanding is the unity of our self-awareness, apperception, combined with the synthesis of our imagination. The a priori rules that the synthesis of imagination is based on, gives rise to the affinity of appearances, which is the objective unity of all consciousness as one consciousness in our perception of appearances. (Kant 240) The objective validity or truth of our empirical cognition is based on the general form of experience which is outlined by the categories. (Kant 241)
Nature, as an ordered and regular appearance, exists because of the capacity of our mind to manifest it. This is possible because the a priori sources of cognition in our mind creates the objectively valid possibility of cognizing objects at all. (Kant 241) Kant states his position in full awareness of how it sounds,
“Thus as exaggerated and contradictory as it may sound to say that the understanding is itself the source of the laws of nature, and thus of the formal unity of nature, such an assertion is nevertheless correct and appropriate to the object, namely experience.” (242)
Fundamentally, our understanding, by use of its a priori categories, organizes the sense information of our intuitions, into objective appearances that produces nature as we know it.
Summary
It must be this way, as Kant explains, that if we know these a priori concepts exist, they could not come from the object. If they came from the object, the concepts would not be a priori for they would be based empirically. If they came from us, we would not be able to determine what the object is distinct from our representations. Why are our representations of something and not simply illusions? The unity of my consciousness in the possibility of appearances is what creates the object in us, which means that the a priori concepts precede our cognition of any object. An identical self establishes a necessary unity throughout the representation of appearances and objects. (Kant 243) The form of the cognition of possible experiences and objects is determined by how they are thought, which is the categories. (Kant 244)
The Transcendental Deduction B
Our understanding is composed of the faculty of cognitions, which consists of the relation between representations to objects. An object is the united presentation of a concept that is given in the manifold of an intuition. As stated above, all unifications of representations are dependent on the unity of consciousness synthesized with them. The unity of consciousness is the foundation for relating representations to objects, objective validity, cognitions, and the understanding. For any intuition to be an object, the synthetic unity of consciousness is the objective condition of cognition, in general, that unites a manifold into one consciousness. (Kant 249) The consistency of consciousness as one unit creates the consistency of objects I am able to cognize.
Objective Unity of Self-Consciousness
The reason that objectivity exists in the concepts of objects is due to the transcendental unity of apperception. This is because it bases the concept of an object in the unity of a manifold in intuition. This account of objectivity is distinguished from the subjective unity of consciousness’ inner sense. (Kant 250) We could say that there is an objective exterior world that all people have access to through their intuitions and an internal subjective world of inner sense for each person.
The Form of Judgments in the Objective Unity of Apperception of Concepts
A judgment is when a cognition is brought to the objective unity of apperception, through the copula ‘is,’ by distinguishing the objective unity of a representation from the subjective. (Kant 251) Any representations combined in a judgment via ‘is,’ is dependent on its necessary unity to our apperception and based on the synthesis of intuitions with principles that determine the objectivity of representations as cognitions. (Kant 251-2) A judgment then is objectively valid and is distinguished from a subjectivity for its representations are not dependent on mere association. (Kant 252) A judgment’s objective validity is founded in its relation to the unity of apperception synthesized with the concept in the object given by the unity of the manifold of intuition.
Sensible Intuitions, the Categories and One Consciousness
The function of judgments is an act of the understanding to bring a manifold of representation, either a concept or intuition, before apperception. (Kant 252) Judgment is when our understanding brings a concept or intuition before the unity of our self-awareness. The categories are the functions for judging because the manifold of intuition, for which judgment is based, is contingent on them. (Kant 252)
Categories Cognitive Use Applying to Objects of Experience
Thinking and cognizing an object are two different things. To cognize an object it must be given in intuition and thought through a concept via the category. Thinking of an object without a given intuition would only be done through its form. Thinking becomes cognition only when an object is given in intuition through sensibility. (Kant 254) Experience is distinct from a priori intuitions of mathematics and is founded on empirical intuition that gives the possibility of empirical cognition. (Kant 254-5) Thinking mathematically is different from the experience of writing mathematical equations.
Applying the Categories to Objects of Senses
The categories, as forms of thought, acquire objective validity and application to objects in intuition due to the understanding’s ability to think a priori of the synthetic unity of the apperception of the manifold of sensible intuition. (Kant 256) Kant offers another deductive argument for the categories based on the relationship between the understanding’s a priori foundation for apperception and the manifold of empirical intuition.
Transcendental Deduction of Universal Concepts of Understanding Experience
Kant now prepares for his final deduction of the categories as a priori laws of combination for objects coming before the senses. (261) The unity of the synthesis of the manifold is an a priori combination that everything is represented in space and time conditional on the synthesis of apprehension. The synthetic unity or combination of manifold of intuition is applied to our sensible intuition along with the categories. All synthesis and perception is possible because of the categories. For, experience occurs from cognition of connected perceptions. The categories determine the possibility of experience and hence the categories are valid a priori for all objects of our experience. (Kant 262)
Perception is dependent on the empirical synthesis of apprehension, which is dependent on the transcendental categories. All perceptions, everything that can be experienced consciously, and every appearance and law of nature, falls under the categories. (Kant 263) The categories create the possibility of experience and our experience is the only way we know and understand nature. Nature is only based on the appearances we perceive therefore nature too is dependent on the categories.
Results of the Deduction
All thinking is done through the categories. All cognizing of objects is thought through intuitions that correspond to concepts. All intuitions are sensible and empirical. Experience is empirical cognition. Any a priori cognition will only be of objects of possible experience. The necessary agreement in experience of the concepts in objects of thought are based either by the experience making them possible or the concepts making them possible. The first case cannot be true for the categories because they would be empirical and not a priori and independent of experience. (Kant 264) Therefore, the categories are the foundation for the possibility of experience based on the understanding a priori. (Kant 264-5) The categories are the foundation for experience and cannot be found in experience. They are necessary for experience to be experienced. This is the final deduction of the categories.
The Analytic of Principles: The Transcendental Doctrine of the Power of Judgment
Second Chapter: System of All Principles of Pure Understanding
Principles of Pure Understanding: Supreme Principle of Synthetic Judgments
Objective reality exists through our cognitions. Kant states that our cognitions are
“to be related to an object, and is to have significance and sense in that object, the object must be able to be given in some way.” (282)
The concepts in a cognition are empty if they are not related to a given intuition of our sense. We may be thinking of a concept with no given intuition but it would only be a play of representations and not have objective reality. An object is given immediately in our intuition through a representation in our experience. (Kant 282)
Truth can be found in our a priori cognitions in the form of agreement with an object when that cognition is limited to what is necessary for the synthetic unity of experience. Experience is an empirical synthesis due to the possibility that cognition gives the synthesis reality. (Kant 283)
Conclusion
Objective reality can be found in the truth that our cognitions are tied to the synthesis our experience produces. We can ground our objectivity in the understanding’s spontaneous fusion of the givenness of intuition with the concept in an object. To look out and know is based on the unity of our consciousness and the fundamental a priori categories our understanding uses to cognize the sense of experience and nature we have become familiar with.
References
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Commenti