Every form of knowledge has the senses as starting point.
But that doesn’t mean that knowledge is down to experience alone.
Every information that isn’t formulated a priori must be logical, so it doesn’t need proof, but information proposed a posteriori can be experimental, rather than merely logical, which means that proof is needed.
Up to Kant, metaphysics tried to understand some objects without even wondering if such things can be subject of rational analysis (God, for example).
A meta-physician has less credibility if he is too detached from sensory information.
If metaphysics doesn’t rely on empirical data, no meta-physician can be proved wrong.
A lot of metaphysical data is fiction.
Analytical statements are produced by decomposing data, while synthetic statements are produced by merging data.
Empirical statements are always synthetic.
Some questions are out of reason’s grasp.
Metaphysics will never cease to exist.
When you are between two equally persuasive premises, you may feel tempted to disregard both and conclude that there’s no correct solution.
Metaphysics is inherently flawed.
It’s also pretty contradictory.
Kant wants to reform metaphysics, rather than destroying it.
We need to question what kind of data is actually within reach, so we don’t try to make science over things that are impossible to reason about.
A “transcendental” science is the study of our own methods to extract knowledge from the world.
While our five senses can show us objects, understanding them is a rational effort of interpretation.
“Transcendental aesthetics” is the study of our sensual procedures, while “transcendental logic” is the study of our thought and interpretation procedures.
We can’t think without conceiving things in space-time constraints.
There’s only one space, that our mind divides in sections (“here” and “there”, for example) because it can’t make sense out of the infinite as is.
Some characteristics of an object are conditional.
We also can not make sense out of eternity, that why we also divide time in sections (“before”, “now” and “after”, for example).
That means that the only real time is an eternal “now” which has no actual constraint, while the only real space is an infinite “here”, also uncontrained, but our mind can only make sense of things by limiting them, implying that time and space as measures only exist in our head.
Time and space are organs in our cognition system.
Time and space, as channels through which we “feel” the world, as studied by transcendental aesthetics.
A “thing in itself” doesn’t change according to our senses or according to surrounding conditions.
An empirical statement, even if statistically secure, can never be completely generalized; there will always be exceptions.
If an information can be traced back to the five senses, it’s knowledge about a “phenomenon” (something perceived by the senses).
Intuition and concepts are two sources of knowledge.
Intuition is sensual, while understanding is the interpretation of such intuitive data in order to achieve a concept.
While there are common rules that are valid for all sciences, each science has also a set of rules that is only valid within it.
If reality corresponds to what I think about it, then the idea I have about reality is “truth”.