Immanuel Kant - Critique of pure reason

Knowledge obtained solely through logical principles, independent of perception

The concept that mixing different sources of knowledge can obscure the distinction between essential and non-essential elements, leading to pseudoscience

Disciplines grounded in empirical principles and observations. Intuition: The notion that if intuition conforms to objects, it’s not a priori, but if objects conform to intuition, it is a priori. Contains synthetic a priori judgments as principles, derived from cognitive reasoning rather than observation

The approach to distinguishing between empirical and conceptual understandings, utilizing experimentation to validate such distinctions

The necessity for a discipline that determines the possibility, principles, and scope of all a priori cognitions

Judgments true by definition, without the need for empirical observation, serving to clarify concepts

Judgments that involve amplification through experience, extending beyond the mere analysis of concepts

Principles inherent in all theoretical sciences of reason, including mathematics, which combine elements to produce new knowledge

The realm of purely synthetic a priori propositions, seeking to explore aspects of reality beyond empirical observation

A philosophical framework critiquing the notion that all ideas stem from experience or observation, particularly challenging Hume’s proposition. It asserts the existence of innate knowledge and the capacity for individuals to transcend mere sensory perception

Intuition related to an object through sensation, implying a direct connection between sensory experience and cognitive perception

The principles governing pure thinking, distinct from empirical logic, focusing on a priori concepts and their application to understanding the world

A necessary a priori representation that forms the basis of all outer intuitions, not derived from empirical experiences but inherent to human cognition, serving as a subjective condition of sensibility

Another necessary a priori representation, grounding all intuitions, particularly inner experiences. It serves as a form of inner sense, enabling the arrangement of representations and consciousness in experience

This branch of philosophy encompasses space and time as core elements, highlighting their role as pure intuitions a priori and emphasizing their significance in shaping our understanding of reality

The consciousness of oneself, representing the simple representation of the “I,” crucial in understanding the synthesis of intuitions and concepts in cognition

The distinction between objective reality and subjective illusion, particularly concerning the forms of representation such as space and time. It asserts that these forms exist within the mind’s intuition rather than inhering in objects themselves

Philosophy focused on the synthesis of a priori concepts and intuitions, particularly concerning the limitations and scope of human understanding in relation to sensory experiences

The concept emphasizing the role of intuition and concepts in cognition, highlighting the distinction between sensibility (reception of representations) and understanding (thinking about objects)

Kant proposed that instead of our knowledge conforming to the objects, the objects of experience conform to the structure of our mind. This means that the mind actively shapes and structures the sensory data it receives. Just as Copernicus changed the center from the Earth to the Sun, Kant shifted the focus from the external objects to the perceiving subject.

“Thoughts without content are empty”: Thoughts, or concepts, on their own do not have any substance unless they are applied to some sensory data. If you try to think about something without having any sensory input (content), those thoughts remain abstract and meaningless. “intuitions without concepts are blind”: Sensory data, or intuitions, on their own are chaotic and unstructured. Without concepts to organize and interpret this data, it cannot form coherent knowledge.

Kant: “In order to observe a “constant conjunction” you must presuppose the existence of Time & Space” (which Kant believes are intuitions of the human mind, and not necessarily real) You cannot observe a necessary connection between the cause and effect, but you cannot observe time and space either, so that cannot be a reason for the assumption of constant conjunction (that because objects are within the same space and time, that they have a cause and effect)