I don't care that this is the wrong board... we're really fucked and needing some loving right now..
Can anyone explain (in baby english) what transcendental deduction is? Before 2pm? Because our notes don't make sense...
[hr]
dev ksereis, alla eimai trella erotebmevei mazi sou..
Home
TheSinner.net
PY2004
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re:
by WashingtonIrving on Sat May 19, 2007 10:17 am
Ooh I can actually be helpful here. I assume you are talking about the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals? Don't worry, that part is virtually incomprehensible unless you know a whole lot of other stuff, I remember when I did the course it was sort of passed over. Did Jens Timmerman explain the whole freedom thing using glove puppets?
Anyway, basically a transcendental deduction in Kant is always the substantiation of a synthetic a priori claim, in this case the moral law. The idea is that in the first 2 parts of the book Kant uses analysis in order to show what, if there is such a thing as morality, the moral law must be. So after these 2 parts the moral law might, or might not, actually exist.
The 3rd part is where Kant tries to show it does. He basically does this by saying that freedom and the moral law reciprocally imply each other, if you have the moral law you have freedom, and if you have freedom then you have the moral law. We know that we have freedom because we can 'think ourselves free', what this means is vague but its to do with the 'Copernican Revolution'. You have the distinction between the world as it is (intelligible) and as it appears (appearances). We are members of both worlds, as members of the world of appearances we are ruled by inclination, as members of the world as it is we are really free, and action is under the moral law, not the law of causality. So, basically, we think ourselves free when we consider ourselves as members of the intelligible world. So, we are free, hence we have morality.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, when I did the course the whole thing was totally incomprehensible. You'll get questions on Kant which focus on the earlier parts of the book.
[hr]
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
Anyway, basically a transcendental deduction in Kant is always the substantiation of a synthetic a priori claim, in this case the moral law. The idea is that in the first 2 parts of the book Kant uses analysis in order to show what, if there is such a thing as morality, the moral law must be. So after these 2 parts the moral law might, or might not, actually exist.
The 3rd part is where Kant tries to show it does. He basically does this by saying that freedom and the moral law reciprocally imply each other, if you have the moral law you have freedom, and if you have freedom then you have the moral law. We know that we have freedom because we can 'think ourselves free', what this means is vague but its to do with the 'Copernican Revolution'. You have the distinction between the world as it is (intelligible) and as it appears (appearances). We are members of both worlds, as members of the world of appearances we are ruled by inclination, as members of the world as it is we are really free, and action is under the moral law, not the law of causality. So, basically, we think ourselves free when we consider ourselves as members of the intelligible world. So, we are free, hence we have morality.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, when I did the course the whole thing was totally incomprehensible. You'll get questions on Kant which focus on the earlier parts of the book.
[hr]
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
-
WashingtonIrving
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:27 pm
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests