The Mars Hill Club

As with Kant’s other antinomies, this one starts off with a thesis and antithesis which he claims are equally valid based on pure reason. They cannot both actually be true so Kant then works to resolve the antinomy.

Keep in mind four things regarding Kant as he develops and resolves these antinomies:

1) Kant, as well as most academics of his time, was enamored of Isaac Newton and the new breakthroughs in physics that Newton brought to science. It seemed as though science would and could solve all of the mysteries of the universe.

2) Kant was trying to use reason alone without resorting to either empirical data or metaphysical speculation. As seen in this quote:

“Thus the solution of these problems can never be found in experience, and this is precisely the reason why we should not say that it is uncertain what should be ascribed to the object [of our idea]. For as our object is only in our brain, and cannot be given outside it, we have only to take care to be at one with ourselves, and to avoid that amphiboly which transforms our idea into a supposed representation of an object that is empirically given and therefore to be known according to the laws of experience.” (435 [A484, B512])

What Kant is saying here is that our experience doesn’t generate knowledge of our object ‘as it really is’ or in noumenal form. In fact, he is claiming that what we have is merely knowledge of a set of experiences which is different from knowing a thing as it is; this is what he refers to as the phenomena. His main point above is that since we can only know the phenomena and never the noumena then we cannot use our experience about an object as justification for any claims, particularly those claims that have to do with resolving the antinomies.

3) Kant is trying to divorce reason and metaphysics. This means that he does not want to invoke God in any of his explanations. His goal is to use reason alone to investigate the problem in question.

4) The term ‘Cause’ for Kant means specifically naturalistic cause according to the laws of nature. The term ‘Freedom’ means for Kant free-will action by any power capable of instigating a cause without being caused itself. Technically, cause through the laws of nature and cause through free-will are both causes. So what Kant is really trying to do is to differentiate between two different types of causes. One is cause due to laws of nature, which he calls ‘cause,’ and the other cause by an uncaused free-will power, which he calls ‘freedom.’

Thesis

Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another causality, that of freedom.

Antithesis

There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with the laws of nature.

Kant (409 [A444-445, B472-473])

Kant argues both arguments by assuming that the major premise is true and then mining out the ramifications if this is the case.

[To Be Continued...]