In a previous post I exposed the sophistry of Kant's a priori ideas, saying that they are reallya posteriori ideas from other people, because my reasoning was based on the traditional definitions:
I couldn't understand why Kantians objected to this, until I realized that they have accepted in their minds totally different meanings of words created by Kant:
I guessed that the culprit was either the English translation or most likely, Kant himself using complicated words for something very natural and simple. So I fixed it.
Kant's use of strange words makes his work difficult to understand. So I change the terms to a more consistent-easy-to-understand version:
|predicate||sub-idea||Connected to the main idea|
|intuitions||passive knowings||The mind arrives at the thought automatically, the mind is like an apple falling effortlessly|
|conceptions||active knowings||The mind makes an effort to create the thought, the mind is like an airplane or bird making an effort to fly|
|analytic||passive-thinking||The passive effort of the mind to connect ideas (rather than using 'union' or 'division', this paradigm uses 'energy')|
|synthetic||active-thinking||The active effort of the mind to connect ideas beyond what it is immedately connectable (forming things takes more energy than smashing them to pieces, fusion needs more energy that fission)|
|analytic judgement||passive-thinking judgement||like a CPU getting data easily from RAM|
|synthetic judgement||active-thinking judgement||like a CPU getting data from the Hard disk or other inputs as external experiences with more effort|
|a priori||confined-to-the-mind||Mind does not look outward|
|a posteriori||mind-goes-out||Mind looking externally|
|synthetic judgement a priori||active-thinking judgement confined-to-the-mind||like a CPU getting data from the Hard Disk, or a person thinking seriously alone|
This converts the confusing word "synthetic a priori judgements" into "judgements made from active thought confined within the mind", or for brevity, active-thinking judgements confined-to-the-mind. This includes any serious thought, problem solving, and even prayer or meditation that is supposed to output an answer.
This simplifies the statement:
Much easier, huh?
With geometry, you can think of whatever shapes inside your mind and it would be fine. But you can't do the same with geology or chemistry. But why did Kant end up having to create so many weird new concepts anyway?
Premise: All thinking is based on feeling. If a computer were a thinking being, then its electricity would be its feeling. A computer with no electricity cannot think and is technically dead, but once electricity runs through it, it becomes 'alive' and starts to process logic in its virtual memory.
For some reason, Kant denies reality to focus purely on the virtual by cutting off all experience and feeling, similar to unplugging a computer to see how a computer would run all by itself. Instead of relying on an external power source or external experiences and feelings, he imbues the mind or computer with that power directly, by assigning new qualities and dimensions to its processes:
It's similar to Islam banning interest on loans, which causes it to be transferred as rent as a workaround or roundabout solution, and then creating processes to regulate that, as a bloated complex idea called Shariah banking. I call Kant's system as Transcendental Whatever.
Instead of basing the judgement on strong or weak feelings or sensations and their location or distance from the self, Kant adds strength or weakness and distance on the thinking action itself. This is why he has to painstakingly specify whether a thought process that led to a conclusion was high energy (active thinking) or low energy (passive thinking) or was confined (a priori) or not confined (a posteriori) each time.
Mechanically, it would be like totally denying the relation of gasoline consumption to engine power, or electrical consumption to CPU speed with the belief that the engine power and cpu speed can run by themselves, or that the mind exists for or by itself (as "I think"). These then leads to obvious fallacies in his explanation of the nature of time, existence, and, more importantly, morals, which we will explain in future posts.
I could only think of Hegel and Marx as similarly-complicated-writers who write so much but have relatively little meat or valuable thought. Reading through Critique and Groundwork, I don't see any new idea from him that hasn't been mentioned by pre-19th century philosophers. His categorical imperative is the Golden Rule, and his nothingness of space and time were known before, so it would be wise to avoid Kant like one should avoid Marx.
Indicate your name, email, and interest to know when SORA will be available in your city or get updates on business opportunities or theories