Macner notes 2:

Kant on the Transcendental Aesthetic and Logic

Before we can even begin to start understanding the transcendental aesthetic and logic, first
we must read the summary on the transcendental philosophy (which is the prior document).
At this point, now that we have attained certain knowledge, we must move onto defining
many sets of definitions and only then can we obtain the keys that are the transcendental
aesthetic and logic. In order we will begin defining the first set of definitions (intuition, pure
intuition etc.). Intuition can be most easily defined as every means and way through which a
cognition may relate to an object that has itself directed towards an end; this is called
intuition. Now, this intuition only takes place when our capacity to acquire through
representations the way in which we are affected by objects which is called sensibility exists.
And therefore, objects are given to us through the means of sensibility. Thus, it alone gives us
intuitions, but this sensibility arises from understanding from which also arise concepts,
which will be defined later here, but what is important to know is that ultimately all thought,
either directly or indirectly must by related to intuition and in our case sensibility as there is
no other way in which an object may affect us. Now let us not confuse sensibility and
sensation, and yet intuition that is empirical. There things hinder our understanding of
sensibility and intuition, especially sensation as sensation itself is the effect of the object on
the capacity of representation (sensibility) and thus it hinders our way of understanding.
Through this we can also come to define an empirical intuition, an empirical intuition is just
the relation of the object and the effect of sensation on the object, we call this sort of intuition
that is hindered by sensation an appearance.
With all this in mind, how can we keep our representations pure, as in, how can we stop the
hinderance of sensation on our understanding? Well, all pure and sensible intuitions in
general are to be encountered a priori, wherein all appearance is intuited in sensation which is
a hinderance. From this we have clearly seen a new division of intuition, the job now is to
clearly define these two. Well, one is already defined which is empirical intuition, but the
other one which is called pure intuition is actually the clear form of sensibility itself. Using
this we can separate from representation of a body all that which the understanding thinks
(substance, force etc.) and all that which belongs to sensation (colour, hardness etc.). But it is
quite obvious that there still remains something of empirical intuition, this is extension and
form. Well, these actually belong to pure intuition, these are purely a priori as they are a mere
form of sensibility within the mind. Thus, we have finally come to understand the first set of
definitions and have the key to understanding a science that arises from these principles, a
science of pure a priori sensibility which Kant calls transcendental aesthetic.
The transcendental aesthetic explains something called space and time. Space and time are an
incredibly complicated topic which I will be trying to define here, although it will be
simplified. By space we must understand that it is the distinct representation of that which
belongs to a concept, but this exposition is metaphysical as it exhibits concepts as a given a
priori. This essentially means that this exposition explains the concept as a principle into
which insight to the possibility of other cognitions can be gained, to fulfil this we must
understand that cognitions flow from a given concept and that they are only possible when
this concept is explained in a given way for which we will give the example Kant gave,
which was geometry. Geometry is a science that determines properties of space synthetically
and a priori. This means that clearly that geometry understands space in such a way that the
original concept from which it's understanding flows is intuition. This is because in geometry
the concept of for example a straight line between two points and the concept of the shortest
line between two points can never be analytically extracted.
This means that the principles of geometry express relations among basic geometric concepts
which grounds or rather exhibits them in intuition. From this we ultimately conclude that
there is an intuition that precedes objects, which are determined a priori, and which is
ultimately seated in the subject. This posits space as an outer intuition. To move further on
we must define what the reality and ideality of space is. The reality of space is precisely
everything that can come before us externally as an object (i.e objective validity) and the
ideality is in regard to things that are considered in of themselves through reason, i.e without
taking into account sensibility. Thus, from this we clearly derive the empirical reality of
space and a transcendental ideality of space. The empirical reality of space really is just all
possible outer experience and transcendental reality is the grounding of things in themselves
as we leave out the condition of experience. Now we will dive into the five principles of
space and what concepts we derive from these concepts. Keep in mind I won’t be naming
them all I will just me underlining what the principles and its concepts are.
Space is not an empirical reality that has been drawn from outer experiences for in order for
certain sensation to be related to something outside thus in order for the representation of this
relation to exist in relation to outer appearance this outer experience needs itself to be
representation, which is an absurd notion as it would essentially negate the need for space as
space would merely be defined as where objects are encountered. This means that space is a
necessary a priori representation which is actually the ground of outer intuition. What this
means is that it itself is the condition of the possibility of empirical appearances and it isn't
merely dependant on them as their determination. This grounds all outer appearances and
means that space itself is an a priori representation. This may be obvious to the well-read
reader that this follows but this completely rejects the notion that space is an a posteriori
representation as it would negate Kant's example of geometry and it would merely make it a
science of perceptions. Thus, it would not even be necessary for one line to exist between two
points because experience would always teach that, even though it does not but the line is
rather determined a priori. Now what follows is really quite simple and that is that space is
not the general concept of relations of things but a pure outer intuition.
For, only one space can be represented as ultimately multiple spaces all fall into one space. It
is a single manifold from which things such as the two sides of a triangle together always
being greater than the third is derived from, as one would not be able to derive this simply
from the pure existence of a line and triangle as they never are. From all this we can derive
that space does not represent property of anything not any relation, it does not determine the
attachment of objects themselves, space itself is nothing more than merely the form of all
appearances, the subjective (in this sense, literally grounded in the subject) condition of
sensibility under which outer intuition is only possible. We can ONLY speak about space
from a human standpoint as, if we tried to depart from the subjective condition that defines
space, we would ultimately see that the entire concept itself collapses. Space itself is the outer
intuition which means there is no object that is intuited itself, this means that objects are not
known to us at all and they are merely representations of sensibility, whose form is space but
who's true correlate or the thing itself cannot be cognized through themselves.
Now with the knowledge of space we can move onto time.
Time, like space, is not an empirical concept that is drawn from space. Because simultaneity
or succession would not themselves come into perception if time did not ground them a
priori. Only under the presupposition that it is a priori can only explain that several things
that are inherently contradictory exist at the same time or successively. Thus, time itself is a
necessary representation that grounds intuitions which makes it a given a priori. Only in it is
all actuality of appearances possible because even if appearances themselves can be removed
from time even though time cannot. Different times are not simultaneous but successive and
it has only one dimension because of this, what this means is that time itself cannot be drawn
from experience, for time would not be a universal nor unfalsifiable certainty. The infinity of
time signifies nothing more than that every magnitude of time is only possible through a
single one, or rather that time is limited in its boundaries and it limits every single magnitude
of itself.
Because of this it's unlimited yet its parts can only be represented through limitation. Time is
nothing other than the form of inner intuition, the intuition of the self and our inner state. For
time cannot be a determination of outer appearances, it does not belong to shape or position.
But it does determine the relation of representations in our inner state. Time is the a priori
condition of all appearances, while space is the pure form of all outer intuition. But because
all representations whether or not they are outer things are determinations of the mind, they
still belong to the inner state and this inner state ultimately belongs to inner intuition. Thus
time. So, we come to the conclusion that time is all appearances in general i.e all objects of
the senses, are in time and its relations.
With this remark we finally have all the clues to end our voyage, and we can finally obtain
the keys of the transcendental aesthetic.
The transcendental aesthetic is the solution to the general problem of transcendental
philosophy which is how are synthetic a priori propositions possible. And our solution to this
is that namely they are possible through purely a priori intuitions of space and time, in which,
if we try to go beyond them, all we find to be discovered is that an a priori judgement is
connected in a synthetic a priori way. Not in the concept but rather the intuition from which
the concept flows.
Now the transcendental aesthetic does not merely answer everything, while it does answer the
question of intuition it does not answer the question of our cognization of intuition or the
flowing of concepts. Which is where the transcendental logic comes in.
Kant argues that their cognition arises from two fundamental sources in the mind, the first of
which is the reception of representations and the second of cognizing the object by the means
of those representations. Through the former an object is given to us and the latter it is
thought of in the relation to the representation. Thus, intuition and concepts constitute
elements in the cognition because neither of these concepts can yield cognition without
corresponding to intuition. Cognition can either be pure or empirical, a cognition is empirical
if sensation is contained therein. But pure if no sensation is mixed into the representation.
One can call the latter the matter of sensible cognition. Thus, pure intuition contains merely
the form of something intuited, and the pure concept only the form of thinking of an object.
Only pure intuitions and concepts alone are a priori but empirical ones are only a posteriori.
If we call receptivity of the mind to receive representations sensibility, then the faculty to
bring forth representations is understanding. It comes with human nature that intuition is
nothing but sensible i.e that it itself contains only the way in which we are affected by
objects. But the faculty for thinking of this intuition is understanding. Neither of these is
preferred to the other as there is no understanding without sensibility and vice-versa.
Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Only from the
unification of senses and understanding, as the first cannot think and the second intuit, can
cognition rise. One must not mix up their roles but carefully separate them from each other
and distinguish them. Hence, we distinguish science of the rules of sensibility (aesthetic)
from the science of the rules of understanding (logic).
General logic is either pure or applied. In the former we abstract all empirical conditions
under which understand is exercised (we escape the influence of senses and imagination,
memory, habit, inclination etc., for which we require experience). A pure logic therefore is
purely a priori but only in regard of their use. Applied logic however is then directed at the
understanding of subjective empirical conditions that psychology teaches us. Although it is
therefore empirical it utilizes understanding insofar as in regard to the difference of objects.
From this we conclude that applied logic abstracts all contents from the cognition of the
understanding and has nothing to do with the mere form of thinking. Pure logic has no
empirical principles and thus draws nothing from psychology and is completely thus, a priori.
We must say though, that not even a priori cognition is transcendental but only those that by
which means we cognize them and how certain representations are applied completely a
priori or are possible. Because of this neither space nor any geometrical determination is a
priori but yet is not transcendental, but only the cognition that they are a priori may be
considered transcendental. In transcendental logic we isolate the understanding and elevate
from our cognition the part of our thought that has its origin solely in the understanding. The
use of this pure cognition depends on the condition if the object is given to us in intuition, to
which it can be applied. Without intuition after all, cognition would lack objects and thus
contents and be completely empty. Thus, the part of the transcendental logic that expounds
elements of pure cognition and the principles without which no object can be thought at all is
the transcendental analytic and the logic of truth. Thus, we conclude by saying that
transcendental logic really is just the principles of pure cognition, of pure thinking.