Kant's Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism
Classified in Philosophy and ethics
Written at on 
English with a size of 2.14 KB.
Hume on Causality and Kant's Response
David Hume argued that cause and effect cannot be discovered by reason, but only by experience. Any argument dependent on experience is based on the similarity discovered between objects in the past, leading us to expect similar effects in similar cases. Custom, therefore, leads us to believe events will repeat as they have previously. Confidence in the future is not based on reason, nor is it absolute security; it is merely a belief.
Immanuel Kant, responding partly to Hume, sought a solid foundation for Mathematical Physics. Judgments, Kant argued, should be synthetic (expanding our knowledge), yet also universal and necessary, valid in all circumstances and times. Science cannot rely solely on analytical judgments (which are universal, necessary, and a priori) because, being tautologies, they do not extend knowledge. Conversely, purely synthetic judgments (a posteriori), being subject to the particularity of experience, lack the necessary universality, making science unreliable. Therefore, Kant sought a basis for scientific judgments in synthetic judgments a priori. These judgments would be universal and necessarily true like analytic judgments, yet also expand knowledge like synthetic judgments. Kant found these in Mathematics and Physics.
Kant's Critical Philosophy
Kant's Criticism represents a fusion of rationalism and empiricism. From rationalism, it retains the idea that the mind possesses universal contents prior to experience (innatism). From empiricism, it retains the idea that knowledge must originate in experience.
Kant identified philosophy as a "tribunal of reason." Reason's role is to judge (critically) the claims to validity of all knowledge. This applies to theoretical reason (science) as well as practical reason (morality, politics). Kant aimed to determine if human knowledge could be justified, or if certain domains (like metaphysics) lacked a solid foundation. His analysis investigates whether the claims of rational knowledge have limits.