Simple Layman's Version
The factuality of a compound idea made up of two ideas is checked in two ways:
- "Passive-thinking judgement": Idea B is already related to Idea A inside the mind, or
- Here, identity connects the two ideas.
- Idea B adds nothing new to Idea A.
- The mind only analyzes its relation to Idea A, but in a confused way.
- "Active-thinking judgement": Idea B is not yet related to Idea A inside the mind.
- Idea B entering the mind adds a new relation to Idea A that it did not have and so could not be analyzed before.
“All bodies occupy space,” is a passive-thinking judgement.
- My mind already has the relation between "bodies" and "space" so it does not need to get external ideas or relations.
- My mind just needs to analyze the idea.
- My mind just needs to be aware of the properties of the idea of "bodies" in order to discover the idea of "space" in it. [just needs to trace the connection]
“All bodies are heavy,” has a new idea "heavy" totally different from the idea "weight" which my mind has pre-connected to the idea of "body".
- This new idea makes it an active-thinking judgement.
Kant's Process of Judgement or Deciding-Whether-New-Ideas-Are-Fact
Judgements of experience are always from active-thinking.
- It would be absurd to base a passive-thinking judgement on external experience, because in checking my memory, I do not need to go out of my ideas.
- This makes external experience unnecessary.
“Bodies occupy space" is not an empirical judgement, but a proposition which is firmly confined-to-my-mind.
- Because before looking into new experiences, I know that bodies occupy space from my previous experience.
- I only need to connect both ideas in my memory, according to the principle of contradiction.
- At the same time, I only have to be aware of why I am making the judgement, something that I could never learn from experience.
Initially, I do not have the idea of "weight" in my idea of "body" in general in my mind.
- By my mind analyzing my previous experiences in memory, I know that the idea of "weight", as well as "impenetrability", "shape", etc have some connection to the idea of "body" in my mind.
- Now I extend my knowledge.
- I look back on the experience in my memory on bodies.
- I find "weight" always connected with "impenetrability", "shape", etc.
- Therefore, I connect "weight" to my idea of "body".
- I say “All bodies are heavy.”
The connection of the idea of "weight" with the idea of "body" inside my mind relies on experience, even if the idea of the one is not connected in the other.
- However, those two ideas are still connected to each other as parts of a whole experience, which is itself a connection of thought-processes.
But to active-thinking judgement confined-to-the-mind, such experiential thought-connections are totally lacking.
- If I go out of and beyond idea A to see its possible connection with idea B, how do I connect both and make it a certainty?
- I cannot rely on experience for that.
For example, the compound idea “Everything that happens has a cause.”
- In the general idea of “events”, I think of an existence within time.
- I then derive passive-thinking judgements from this.
- But the idea of a general "cause" lies out of scope of my memory of specific events and their specific causes.
- The compound idea indicates general causes entirely different from “specific events.”
- “Specific events” is consequently not contained in the compound idea.
- How can I assert "specific causes" to "events in general"?
- How can I connect a "specific cause" not connected to "general events", yet belonging to "general causes", and even related to events consequentially?
- What is this specific X that the mind thinks of when it believes it finds a foreign idea B connected to the main general idea A?
- It cannot be experience, because:
- my principle annexes the cause and effect to existence, with:
- universality, and
- Experience cannot give this because no one experiences universality
- This is completely confined-to-the-mind and from pure conceptions.
- Our speculative knowledge confined-to-the-mind depends on such active-thinking propositions or our mind going out to explore new connections.
- Passive-thinking judgements are highly important and necessary.
- But they are only needed to arrive at creating new ideas via new connections.