Exploring Kant's Question to Uncover Synthetic A Priori Judgments in Metaphysics - Essay Sample

Kant's question frames the boundaries of public controversies in areas such as where the line between public and private is drawn. The question should be answered because there is a cultural world that is divided into progressive and conservative forces. According to Kant, a priori knowledge is presupposed by no possibility of experience (De Pierris, 1992). Therefore, the proposition is validated and grounded in experience. The question also needs to be analyzed since the synthetic judgment has its predicate concepts not contained in the subject but only associated. The question brings in a logical contingent issue that ought to be assessed on philosophical grounds.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The possibility of synthetic a priori judgments can be determined since they are the crucial case. Answering the question, therefore, could provide new information that is coherently valid. The question should, additionally, be answered as they give the basis of portions of human knowledge. Since a priori knowledge could in no time come from experience, Kant could have never critiqued various judgments as they could be a total fail. A priori knowledge also cannot rise above a level of contingency since experience could offer evidence to counter it (Birkinshaw, Nobel, & Ridderstrale, 2002). His intention in seeking to answer the question was to find justification for metaphysics principles in a way that they could be understood with some certainty. For instance, the question could explain why humans do not think the sun, moon, and stars revolve around the earth. The question explains that humans no longer think of such heavenly bodies as moving on ether.

Metaphysics should rest upon a priori judgments as everything else can be unjustifiable or informative in a sense. This is so since all basic statements of traditional metaphysics are the synthetic a priori judgments. The ideas attributed by metaphysics are not to be sought in individual senses but in the nature of human understanding. The concepts should also not be sought as innate concepts, but those that are abstracted from the laws of the mind. Metaphysics should be based on acquired concepts, and the only way to do so is to answer Kant's question. A metaphysical truth consists of judgments that apply to an object without having any experience of that object (Sadala & Adorno, 2002). Kant considered the claims regarding the nature of God when he gave out the questions. Therefore it is through metaphysics that one can arrive at a priori knowledge of God, immorality, and freedom. For issues concerning the Critique of Pure Reason, metaphysics comes in to see if the knowledge of God is possible. Additionally, the general problem of metaphysics comes from that of a priori synthetic judgments. Similarly, the judgments of metaphysics provide a synthetic a priori knowledge.

Synthetic propositions a priori are special as they can provide new information that could be realized as being true. The propositions give a basis for portions of human knowledge, a reason why metaphysics rests upon the judgment. Synthetic judgments also comprise the truths of mathematics as they contribute to human knowledge about the world. The truths, such as two plus three equals five, are known a priori as they can apply with global necessity. For such mathematical realities, they cannot be justified by experience but apply globally. Synthetic propositions a priori are also informative and necessary to the users. They are also derived from a structure of understanding.

For Kant, the previous philosophers such as Leibniz and Hume failed to differentiate between analytic and synthetic judgments; hence, their inefficiency in capturing synthetic a priori knowledge. Kant felt that the distinctions are not coextensive, and the two differences of a posteriori and a priori ought to be considering all combinations. Besides, Hume never considered the specials in synthetic a priori judgments. For Hume and some other philosophers, matters of fact rested on an unjustifiable belief that there is a connection between cause and effects. Even though this could be perceived correct, Kant's constructive approach was to give a transcendental argument because human beings have knowledge of the natural world. Intelligible thoughts, according to Kant, can be expressed in the judgments distinguished by logicians.

Kant's question is a controversy in various areas, especially in the logical contingent issue. Answering the question could clear the gap existing regarding information founded on progressive and conservative forces. A priori knowledge is not founded on experience, and answering the question could lead to new unknown information that is coherently valid. Besides, there is no possibility to critique other judgments. Answering the question could justify metaphysics in ways that it could be understood in certainty. Besides, the rationale is that metaphysics ought to rest on a priori judgments since anything else can be informative or unjustifiable. Besides acquired concepts can well answer the question of metaphysics. Therefore, metaphysics can lead to an understanding of God's nature, immortality, and freedom. The special functions in synthetic propositions a priori include the way they can provide new information. Synthetic priori knowledge should, however, be captured well before the question is answered.

References

Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., & Ridderstrale, J. (2002). Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure?. Organization Science, 13(3), 274-289.

De Pierris, G. (1992). The constitutive a priori. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 22(sup1), 179-214.

Sadala, M. L. A., & Adorno, R. D. C. F. (2002). Phenomenology as a method to investigate the experience lived: a perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty's thought. Journal of advanced nursing, 37(3), 282-293.