Well, you are a synthetic hospital.
And they prove dominant concepts that pure mathematics, and especially including in the geometry,
can have objective reality only on the condition that they refer to objects of sense.
So what's particularly important in that passage is the problem, again, as he does, refers to the objectivity of mathematical scientific propositions.
This is all working against claims that current claims and previous ones that Kahn's metaphysics collapses into subject to this.
If it does, it does. So comes objections.
But in the same passage, he declares that the propositions of geometry are both necessarily valid.
Why? Because space itself is nothing other than the form of all external appearances.
So every time he just about every time he asserts the objectivity of the program,
he inserts something that does look like it's a road to subjectivity.
And so the task is to determine just how he can get objective knowledge of the external world by means of a framework that we impose,
the external world for which in the form of the question, how are synthetic propositions known to be true a priori?
Well, here's an answer to the question. We might say Hume's asked the question.
They can't allow it to be the other story.
In fact, most empiricist will argue that it is simply out of the question.
But the truth of the synthetic proposition we establish, we are, you know, back in the 1930, seeing raw reflected.
Of course, this is before private company.
And he said that he said those who insist on the impossibility of our being able to know
the truth of synthetic propositions of art are surely advancing a synthetic proposition.
And it seems to be one that they seem to be self-evidently true.
So then there is this problem that we want to declare once and for all.
But on the side of the question, there can be synthetic propositions,
the truth of which can be established a priori that are you denying it as its own esoteric proposition?
How do you take that synthetic proposition to be so evidently true?
At least in the preface to the second edition of Carnal Traces,
the development of systematic knowledge from Aristotle's logic to the mathematics and science of his own day,
with a lengthy pause over the achievements of a new preceding century.
Aristotelian logic, he says, no surprise here, constitutes the formal loss of all,
but it serves formal a logic, Aristotle's logic, he says, pictorially.
It serves as both the vestibule of the sciences and why it is necessary to enable
us to form a correct judgement with regard to the various branches of knowledge.
Still, the acquisition of real substantive knowledge is to be sought only in the sciences, properly.
So all that is. And here's the claim again, the objective sciences.
So you cannot use Aristotelian logic as a mode of discovery.
You can use it as a truth preserving device.
But basically, when you get to the absurdity of pure reason,
you'll see what happens when you attempt to use logical forms, not merely as a method, but as a mode of discovery.
And of course, you'll end up discovering all sorts of things, all all illusions.
So it is the objective sciences that are against the model.
So why should anyone assume that the objective sciences undersells able to capture the order of
nature of this nature count begins with the assumption that nature is an orderly enterprise,
that it is law of government which illustrates this.
What does he say that? Well, on the strength of Newtonian science, the laws have.
Well from the fact that nature is awful and from the fact that we have uncovered all this nature,
we must have some means by which to overcome subjectivity and reach an objective knowledge of the way things are.
So, so much for scepticism about our capacity for unearthing the objective facts like no economist not taking a lead here believe is ancient,
Aristotle says and the physics. It's the art of ship building or in the world.
We would have ships by nature. So it's for the first time that there are design features to the natural world.
If I were to say intelligent design features.
Natural world doesn't talk and listen well, but it's the opposite of what you'd be able to read trickle down.
And if you led a long time ago, I had a lot of cows die and you would perhaps stand in for the time.
You'll be able to fashion leather sales and something like a tri ring with three rows.
Four horsemen. And you might even be able to wage a legal battle with each.
I knew this would take a great deal of time. The very laws of the objective science show that the science is to have a rational
character so that lawfulness is not given in the appearance of the stimulus,
but arrives at the audience of sex, does not carry any information regarding all this with it.
If it's visual, it's just photons. And it's monitoring.
It's just air vibrations. So the awfulness must be coming from some place other than the arriving wave of stimulation,
our scientific understandings in which all this is the defining feature to find us relating to the objects of understanding in one of two ways,
even by way of rational, rational cognition that determines the concept of the object.
This is common in his most lumbering prose, and it's not easy to ensure a device illustrated by giving the challenge of most.
I should tell you about an incident involving one of the finest philosophers here.
Over here. No more this kind of approach.
He gave a keynote address at the international philosophy meetings in Moscow some years ago.
This is where when you sit down, you kind of just the digest, whatever language you speak.
And 2 minutes into his address, people were fiddling with their dials, trying to find a language that would render all this intelligent, I must say.
The same might be said of a similar sentence like this.
But our scientific understanding in which watchfulness is the defining feature
finds us relating to the objects of this understanding in one of two ways.
We relate to it in one of two ways, either by way of rational cognition that determines the concept well of the Siberian.
And this is a mode of cognition given the mode of cognition.
We determine the concept of a right and we'll. It's not backwards from looking for these things.
It's these things were constructed by factors or by way of rational subjects that establish the very reality that Saturn has rules.
So these are the two ways that we can relate our cognition to an objective reality.
Either the cognition actually determines the concept itself self characteristic of mathematics, or in the natural sciences.
It's in some branches of the natural sciences. Cognitively, we actually can discover things that heretofore had enough.
No. The first form of the relationship between cognition and this object is what counts,
as is the grounding of all the theoretical sciences of which mathematics and physics are the two that are most developed.
But they differ in this respect in mathematics.
All of the concepts are really. In physics.
Some of the concepts arise from other sources, such as direct observation.
What does he mean when he says that all the concepts in mathematics are about away?
And I think it's fair to say contemporary mathematicians probably would not accept that.
But actually the pure intuitions of time and space, not one star.
You could have neither arithmetic nor geometry, because all arithmetic operations are sequential, and sequential presupposes time and time.
That's a pure intuition. That's not something given in the stimulus.
So were it not for our spatial temporal mode apprehension, we would be in a position for neither arithmetic operations nor geometrical operations.
Geometry presupposes just that spatial context that is provided by a pure intuition of space as arithmetic provided as as the pure notion of time,
provides the means by which charismatic sequential operations become possible.
I'm not defending this, I'm sure. So arithmetic requires the pure intuition of time, because it depends on succession and geometry.
It depends on space. Now in this cult pays homage to Sally Steve which that one of the places they
look world or whoever did this he thinks that it was in the ancient Greek world.
But someone perhaps claims he never said it's because he's fixated on sales of the isosceles trial actually came to the recognition.
But it was he, they alleged, who was constructing out of his own conceptual resources that which then could be objectively applied to the world.
But in fact, it was an abstract representation of something that is objectively real and that it
is that of the cognitive resource mathematician that this matching becomes possible.
In demonstrating the properties of the isosceles triangle,
families found it was not sufficient answers to meditate on the figure and thus lay before his eyes,
or that the conception of it merely existed in his mind.
Rather, says Court. This is a process of hope.
It was necessary to produce these properties by a positive offering or a construction,
and that in order to arrive with certainty and offering the right combination,
he must not attribute to the object any other properties than those which necessarily follow
from that which he himself had in accordance with his own concept placed in the object.
Now physics says, Can't you walk? But it developed all the lines.
What Newton and Galileo realised is that reason only perceives light, which it produces after its own design.
You see, you'd have no way of launching the object of physics on entirely a posteriori approach.
You already have a conceptual framework of lawfulness, orderliness, causality, etc. to put the ball in play as counts as accidental observations.
Accidental observations made according to no preconceived plan could not be invited under a necessary law.
But it is this reason six for and requires.
This is one reason this working for one reason takes such an important.
He goes on to say, it is only the principle of reason which can give to concordant phenomena the validity of laws.
And it is only an experiment directed by these rational principles, but gives us any real utility.
And so the question is whether metaphysics can be developed on the same lines.
This gets back to price competition.
Must metaphysics be confined to those on top of crawling around in the dark or cannot proceed along the lines of a systematic science?
Well, this leads to what is often referred to in the psychiatric literature as Copernican Revolution.
Trump's famous Lucian. The problem with that rhetoric is the current use of the term of the president.
And in fact, he only mentions Copernicus in the second edition of the work and they are only in the preface.
And what he refers to there is then asked and again the Donald Tusk of course Copernicus first of.
He's not treating it as a crime. Should we start treating what he's doing for the revolution?
Rather, he's very interested in how the trying to address a problem of some ways.
Copernicus was contacted by Pope Leo the 10th.
Why was that? I mean one.
What was troubling His Holiness. May I say this over?
What was troubling His Holiness was this holy war.
The church has been using this calendar, Julius Caesar's time that contrived a calendar.
Well, it wasn't a bad calendar. Oh, you're off by a little bit.
But of course, by the 14th and 15th centuries, you're off by so much.
But the variation around Easter Sunday is weighing in 2 to 3 weeks, sometimes longer.
So the post office. I wonder if you might give us a hand with this witness, Mr. Sullivan, part of this fight against us.
I, too, have been very helpful. Mathematicians do not agree on the length of the year.
And so then Copernicus tries to experiment just how those things work in a case of I'm standing on the side.
Well, things look quite different. And in fact, the length of the year gets smaller quarterly.
If you assume that the size of the earth is and the important point is that what you're trying to guess
establishes is that the observer is not a passive recipient of things that just come in from the solar system.
He is an active participant in his own observations and his position that his philosophy determines the model of reality, that the obstruct.
That's the main thing that conflicts in Copernicus.
The answer to the question of what this task according to the resolution is.
I have no idea what you're talking. So.
So in my own, what I want is important in what comes out.
And a lot of analysis that was adopted by private companies,
not only fully first the sides very strongly to which we have made significant contributions in the present years.
But there's no doubt that his approach to this first quarter conservatism was
based on something deeper than an insight into Copernicus cognitive processes.
What the critics understood is that reality has no reflects the modes of receptivity by which
events in the external world become translated to experience a contradiction of further.
But it was only by testing various conjectures against the date of the experience.
But a mere Pashtu about might give way to systematic knowledge that will be valid beyond the narrow world of the individual observer.
So again, I suppose this the attempt to reduce this to some sort of subjectivity because of all Copernicus was saying,
is that the model of the solar system you develop just happens to depend on where you are and how you think you might end up with one of these.
Protagoras is the measure of all things. What Copernicus makes clear is that once you've adopted this different perspective,
the result is going to be universally distributed across all recipients.
It's not about that.
But if Jack and Jill both go to the sun and observe events from the sun's point of view, Jack and Jill will be in a state of subjectivity.
And there's no reason to believe that they will agree with each other. No.
What is observed. What is observed is is a reality that is conditional.
That is the representation of that reality is conditional on the place occupied by the observer.
How do we know? This does not subjectively. We know it doesn't.
Because astronomy has developed as a science on the way.
We know that this works. I shall show once more.
This is the last time I did this, which I should use an audio visual aid.
This is the final time. This to you when you.
I look up to be right. This is important.
Now there's an answer to the question of. What that took place.
On the edge of the question is that all parties attract each other with a force that's directly proportional
to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between.
But Newt Gingrich and the summer of 2013 together devised a calculus of functions that appreciate the relationship between the Earth,
the moon, and the other ethical lines. When I read that, I reflected on what I had been doing in the summer with my 23 year old.
Shannon was like, Well, well, naturally this happens.
It's not over and against the fact that where we happen to be positioned as service might have some effect on measures.
Potentially, for example, if we start going very, very rapidly, if we go really, very, very rapidly,
then the assumption of mass as unchanging has to surrender to the fact that mass is going to be affected by velocity.
And that as we approach the speed of life, the mass is going to approach an infinite amount.
Show us that it's not subject to it. No, no.
That's drawn from the natural world from the same perspective, the same project, the same developed science that gave you this in the first instance.
So again and again, how small is the achievement of physics?
The achievement of physics is sufficient to satisfy it that our cognitive resources are capable of other things.
Most of us, in reality, the objective events of the external world.
And the question then is again and again, sorry to be so repetition is how are we doing this?
Given that the resources we bring to bear on the task are perceptual and cognitive?
So to ask how the solar system appears to run standing on the sun compared with what is seen by the standing on the earth,
is to acknowledge that the appearance itself must be grounded in non empirical factors.
Cognition doesn't lead them to scepticism regarding the reality of the sun, the moon, the planets,
rather than the shroud, which is how that very reality will be colonised by the situation observer.
The position of the observer now simply becomes another element in the account and another subject to the knowledge.
Card statement about his own attempt to rescue metaphysics from the incessant groping that a physicians suggests parallels copernicus's efforts.
As with Copernicus, counsel, he says, make another trial of Andy revising.
And sure, he's going to perform a Copernicus like experiment, another trial trial of the same sort that Copernicus has tried.
How is he going to do this? He's going to suppose that's that which by way of the pure categories that we
understand constitute the means by which we impose a structure that fulfils
some of what we're going to find in our systematic observation of reality are
ingredients that we have put in there in just the sense that Copernicus's,
observing the sun, is now an observer that Copernicus has put some place other than we once found it so consciously.
Is the project as as a kind of experiment?
He says the understanding has rules, which I must presuppose as being in me prior to object, being given to me,
and in this case, recurring both to the transcendental aesthetic and injury doctrine of the commonest elements.
That is to say that you have to stay with this.
Keep in mind what empiricism is claiming.
Empiricism is claiming that our ideas are fashioned of experience,
that our experiences are perceptual transactions between an observer and the external world, and that the ideas thus formed,
if they have any bearing on external reality,
simply are the result of elementary sensations being parlayed into something rather more complex and held together by some principle of association.
Conte wants to make clear that in that region you could not have a developed science.
You couldn't even hold together the concept of causality, let alone show that operates in the realm of physical reality.
So nothing in the stimulus will support a project of science.
And yet the project of science is successful so far.
So the necessary ingredients must be supplied.
US nothing in our priority knowledge can be ascribed to objects.
Say what the thinking subject derives from itself.
So in this confidence tracking and I shouldn't say tracking because it suggests a dependency that will remain to be established.
You might include in your readings some work by Manfred Kane on the influence of the Scottish environment on German philosophy.
King does make a case for count, having had access to translations, reductions and translations of region oriented.
The human mind of Karl Emmerich's distinguished scholar has recently argued that they are definitely reading resonances,
reading elements in much of events, at least in some of the first be.
And in several places he has made the same case that there are aspects of grief
that match up so well with cancer argument that it's not a question of dependency.
But here's how it applies to double standards.
Reid and Carter are both troubled most by shield, thus to undertake a criticism of him as what is taken to be the weakest points.
Should result in no surprise to critics and those coming up with very similar ideas.
What? Well, what you're getting is something rather simultaneously and causal.
Now Read takes up the question of causality on which country spends so much pain, particularly in the second analysis when read Texaco.
He asserts that principles of association simply are inoperable here,
but that no concept of association is even if the empiricists make clear what they
mean by no merely associative concept carries with it the idea of causation.
The constant conjunction of.
Would never be a nice read, says Connecticut Bush, to the notion of causality except in a creature possessed of actual power.
I want to flesh this out for you. Imagine yourself to be totally devoid of will.
But you do have intelligence. Which is to say there isn't anything you can resolve to do.
You don't even know the meaning of the term. So you have no agent in power.
There's nothing you can do, identically or pathologically.
Reid's argument is that such a creature, frankly, but it's an intelligent creature.
Never on the basis of experience could rise to the concept of causality.
The concept of the call, says Read, is our externalisation of what we recognise in ourselves to be an act of power.
As I can act and forbear from that,
I understand immediately and intuitively I understand to allow reflects my soul to be the source of events that I bring about.
It's on the strength of that that I am prepared to make an inference when I see events taking
place in a pattern way in the external world that something must have brought them about.
So the concept, of course, Reed says, is parasitic on the intuition of acting to find a creature lacking active power.
It could not have the concept of causation. Now, that's one way of showing how resources within the organism,
resources within the human being are projected onto the external world to create a representation of events not given by the events themselves.
HUME is right in so far as he argues, there's nothing empirical.
That's when those billiard balls collide and one moves to the other.
And he says, I must go. I do not see. So the third term of the twitch them quite so.
There is no empirical source of causal dependency.
So he was right again when he says that that if you are looking for the locus of causality.
Well, let me just say somewhere between our ears or whatever, which we do these things.
But how do we do these things even between our peers?
How would it be possible nearly on the basis of constant conjunction ever, at the notion of causal dependence?
Reid says it's not much, but the notion of causal dependency is parasitic on the intuitive recognition of oneself as an agent.
So I ask the Scottish Common Sense version of the cognitive and volitional resources of the observer now constituted
the grounds for causal attributions and context in which the external world could provide no way to avoid.
Recall Reid's comment about. No.
Two events as constantly conjoined in human experience as day and night.
On that note that in coming years, as ever,
government takes the course of the night or night of the course of the day and you hear resonances of this,
one can't take up the question of cytogenetics.
So again, it's back into the observer, back into the cosmos that we must go to find the sources of these representations,
these representations of objective, objective reality.
So a surgeon here would confess that nothing in the Montreal knowledge can be ascribed to objects shared,
but the thinking subject derives from itself.
If you want to translate that into the reading critique of humans notion of causality, you would say that.
But nothing in the external event carries with it the concept, the notion, even the grounding of causality, except in the short form,
as there is a precipitate first up whose resources are such that our overall approach is able to represent,
able to compromise lawful dependencies, causal dependencies, and distinguish them from merely constant conjunctions.
Again, understanding human understanding has rules which I must presuppose has been in me prior to objects being given to me.
Well, here again. Concepts that we understand.
Were they not in place for you, simply the creature that that a radical empiricism would have.
What's the basis upon which? You'd even connect something like this.
Fuzzy white and blue tablecloths tend to be a century.
How are these connections led to all the empiricist account of associations, the associations with form?
I'm not really aware of that.
Do you understand that? Well, no, I can't get enough use all of that.
But you're you're looking at this, which is selective.
There's a tremendous amount going on that's going on. Why don't you go to which one of which?
Why not my speculation. Why not just try to track your time?
So you are already tuned. Selectively to bring to bear a certain order on the external world such that some
things will be associated and others will be relegated to background considerations.
Shall I bring this to life for you? The neonatal rhesus monkey at 3 hours.
It's shown to have cells in the auditory cortex that respond selectively to the distress cries of that species.
That's what I mean by a rating selectivity of perception, as people would argue, were we not thus constituted.
You couldn't get across the street for the sake. The trouble with radical empiricism is that you can't get across the street.
You can't even get a street. Surely she was.
Wasn't for double duty. Look, you don't have to be. Let's.
Here's a way to be foolish while being extremely intelligent, have a theory, and then defend it against all odds.
John Stuart Mill was doing great at age and so much a series of positive integers was in fact an empirical achievement.
This is a serious person. Thinks about my country or something like that is a serious person.
He actually rose for one term. It's an imperfect world, but that never got elected at all, which is a beautiful thing.
A linguist in one term said so.
So I'm reading an account closely.
Even the lowly caterpillar will crawl across a thousand leaves until it finds the one.
That's the. The words. Is just a matter of the tree.
Illustrates the principle of common sense. Read as a sort of free Darwinian.
A providential creator who has studied creatures out to be able to negotiate the requirements of life on Earth.
And most philosophers set out to explain how somehow that's all impossible.
That system was reduced to the source of laughter.
Can't get much more tenuous. Metaphysically, which way wants to make the same kind of argument that finally broke?
The structure of science is at once created by the cognitive resources of intelligent beings,
offering only resources that must be in place for order itself to be colonised.
And at the same time. That apparatus generates representations of external reality in a manner that is objective, and a model is a model of science.
Well, this permits me a very brief canonical summary of the very difficult position to come,
and that has to do with how we're going to ask the question how some propositions can be known to be true.
You are. The answer is how could they not?
You see if we put their. How could it be otherwise?
How could it be? Do you start?
The answer to the question how can we know the truth about synthetic opioid propositions?
Is that in fact, the propositions,
to the extent that they constitute a reality that we have friend that has been structured by the pure concepts of the understanding will have reason
finding its own grounding in the very phenomena that it's setting out to to explain it is on the basis of the authority resources of the company.
But also reality is made possible in the first instance.
So the trick there is not to establish how a priori synthetic propositions can be known to be the case.
The trick is how they have been known to be the case by way of resources that are not conducive to subjectivity.
And it's all massive budget cuts, production cuts, supports continue to pass.
So that's all.