Questions

(Introduction to the Dialectic/Concepts of Pure Reason) Consider a hypothetical syllogism of the form:

If all C is D, then all A is B.
But, all C is D.
Therefore, all A is B.

Explain the diﬀerence between (1) the unity of the understanding which allows the concept A to be brought under the concept B and (2) the unity of reason which allows the judgment All A is B to be explained by the principle, If all C is D, then all A is B. In particular: both (1) and (2) involve the uniﬁcation of the same manifold of possible cognitions: which ones? The purpose of the uniﬁcation (1) is to “collect much possible knowledge into one” — that is, in this case, to allow the predicate concept, B, to be applied at once to every object of the subject concept, A. So the possible objects of A are to be united by virtue of their common conformity to the concept A. In virtue of what, and for what purpose, are objects to be united in (2)?

(Concepts of Pure Reason) In the Transcendental Analytic, it is argued that the object of experience must be such as to allow the understanding to think it under concepts. Why would it wrong to argue, further, that the object of experience must be such as to allow reason to think the object of experience under principles? If, nevertheless, we make such a demand, why does this result in an attempt to think something further through the categories, which are pure concepts of the understanding? (Hint for both parts: what faculty thinks an object?) Finally, why does this new alleged use of the categories involve applying them transcendently, that is, using them to think an object which could never be the object of experience? (Hint: why is any judgment about the object of experience always conditioned?)

(Paralogisms) Consider the syllogism on p. 371 (B410–11). Kant says that it involves a sophisma ﬁgurae dictionis: that is, a fallacy of equivocation. Give another example of a syllogism which displays this fallacy. Where is the equivocation in your example? What phrase, then, in Kant’s example, must contain the term that is being used equivocally? (You should be able to identify the phrase where the equivocation must be just on the basis of the form of the syllogism.) Why, based on Kant’s text, might you think that the speciﬁc term used equivocally is “thought”? If you can, make a case that the term used equivocally is actually “subject.”

(Antinomies) According to the Thesis of the Third Antinomy, p. 409 (A444/B472), “it is necessary to assume that there is,” in addition to natural causality, “also another causality, that of freedom.” Explain how “freedom” is deﬁned here, and explain why, according to Kant, reason (in its argument for the Thesis) demands the existence of a “free” cause (in that sense of free). On the other hand, how can we tell, based on the conclusions of the Transcendental Analytic (in particular, the Second Analogy), that this demand could never be fulﬁlled by any object of experience, i.e. that we can never experience anything which is in that sense “free”? (Note: of course the argument for the Thesis of the Third Antinomy contains a mistake, according to Kant, since the Antinomy as a whole, both Thesis and Antithesis, is a product of transcendental illusion, as are all the Antinomies. So your explanation of “why reason demands” this will incorporate the mistaken step or steps. The inconsistency of the conclusion with the Second Analogy will then show why Kant must think there is a mistake somewhere.)

(Solution to the Third Antinomy) Freedom (more precisely: transcendental freedom) would seem to be inconsistent with determinism, for the following reason. Suppose I freely choose how to act at time t. According to determinism, whatever happens after t must be completely determined by what happened long before t (i.e., only one course of future events can be compatible with that course of past events). Therefore, I can only choose one way, i.e. can’t choose freely. What would Kant say about this argument? (Note that this is a contemporary argument which Kant does not address directly. You can’t answer this question by just summarizing the Solution to the Third Antinomy; you will need to think about how Kant would respond to a question that no one actually puts to him.) (Hint: if I am free, is my free choice something that happens at a time? Is there more than one way I can choose? What is my “intelligible character”?)

(Ideal) What is (supposed to be) the concept of an ens realissimum? Explain what makes this concept an “ideal,” as Kant deﬁnes that term on p. 485 (A568/B596): explain, that is, why this is the concept of an individual object. How, according to Kant, is this concept related to the totality of all possible things? In particular: why does reason’s demand, that a thing be known as possible by seeing it as one among all the possible things, i.e. by comparing it to the sum of all possibilities, end up being a demand that everything be thought by comparison to the ideal of the ens realissimum? How does the argument depend on the principle that realities cannot oppose each other, i.e. that the only thing opposed to reality is negation?

(Impossibility of the Proofs) Suppose we have a concept, C, and we already agree that C’s are possible. Suppose (1) I go on to tell you that some C’s are heavy. This involves adding further information about what is possible: not only is a C possible, but a heavy C is possible. Suppose, on the other hand, (2) I go on to tell you that some C’s are actual (i.e., that there actually are some C’s). How, according to Kant, is (2) diﬀerent from (1)? Assuming C is an empirical concept, what am I adding to the claim that C’s are possible when I say that at least some are actual? Explain using the example of the 100 thalers (dollars). How is this related to what Kant says about the modality of judgments at the bottom of p. 109 (A74/B99–100) and about the categories of modality, at the beginning of the “Explanation” of the Postulates of Empirical Thought, on p. 239 (A219/B266)?

(Canon) Explain the diﬀerence between a pragmatic law and a moral law, according to Kant. How is each related to happiness? (Explain what “happiness” means, according to Kant.) Explain further why, given these deﬁnition (of moral law and of happiness), and given that the “supreme good” (or “supreme derivative good”) is as Kant describes on pp. 640–41 (A813–14/B841–2), our only hope for the supreme good would be to assume that God exists. What is the deﬁnition of “God,” as the term is used in the conclusion of this argument?