11. Eleventh Lecture: Keys to understanding Critique of Pure Reason - Freedom and A Priori Synthetic Judgments

Most of my students know that I tend to tackle the same concepts from different angles and repeat the important ideas. This lecture can be considered one of such "extensions" and bonus material, delving deeper into the Critique and especially freedom and a priori synthetic judgments. Many students have understood these concepts well; however, I always feel the need to hammer those home very clearly in this additional lecture. No one is excused from that, not even those who can explain these concepts (and the third antinomy of pure reason) flawlessly, because once we bring in the centrality of religion regarding universal maxims as categorical imperatives, even practical reason will become much more "practical" in an everyday sense. This initiates discussions that enable us to connect the psychological significance of religious thought to everyday matters through the instrumental and conscious use of maxims that meet the needs of the individual in the future (future selves), as well as smaller and larger social spheres, reaching society in general.


Keys to understanding Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason

Understanding Kant is probably the easiest through understanding his masterpiece, the Critique of Pure Reason.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, the term "critique" should be understood not as Kant pointing out the weaknesses of pure reason or criticizing from the standpoint of pure reason. Rather, it signifies an investigation to explore, assess, and explain the limits and capabilities of human reason and its cognitive faculties.

This book stands out due to his impartial approach in addressing the two opposing views: rationalism and empiricism (which are concerned with the idea that everything can be understood through rational analysis versus relying solely on sensory experience). Drawing on the insights of Newton and Leibniz, Kant presents a balanced case for both dogmatic and skeptical approaches. He introduces a groundbreaking way to comprehend reality without dismissing the possibility of God's existence or endorsing atheism.

The essential aspect of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and the key idea that I believe inspired him to write the book, is explaining the freedom of the human mind. This entails our capacity to make judgments that enable us to use reason to guide our lives within the limits imposed by our understanding and sensory experiences.

In the simplest terms, the essential aspect of the Critique of Pure Reason (and one of the most important ideas of Kant’s project in general) is explaining our freedom and ability to make a priori synthetic judgments.

Freedom and a priori synthetic judgments

Let us break down what the “freedom of making a priori judgments” actually means. First, we should understand what is meant by “freedom.” In this context, it states that reason within our mind has power over the causality of the natural world. Although we cannot know exactly how our mind formulates new thoughts, we can evaluate our thoughts and apply the principles we believe in or value to those thoughts.

Thus, we can command ourselves to make decisions, formulate thoughts, and act according to our higher faculties (practical reason and moral principles) as our spirit, not according to reactions to sensations from outside. We as human beings are not simple marionettes of circumstances and the outside world, where every effect has a cause prior to that. Freedom allows us to break free from the deterministic chains of causality in the natural world and take responsibility for our actions, guiding our behavior based on the principles we hold dear.

Making “a priori judgments” is also something we can understand in context. All judgments can be classified in two ways: by their source (a priori/a posteriori) and by their content (analytic/synthetic). “A priori” means “before” having an experience of the event, and “posterior” means we have to experience the event first to make the judgment. “Analytic” judgments are those where the predicate we can conclude is contained within the subject, and “Synthetic” judgments are those without. Thus logically, we could end up with four types of judgments—however, only three of those are possible because analytic a posteriori judgments would be redundant. (As in analytic judgments, the predicate is already contained within the subject, so we do not need any experience to determine the truth of the judgment; thus, analytic judgment based on (a posteriori) experience would not add any new insight.)

Let us look at concrete examples to make the picture clear. Analytic a priori judgment is, for example, that triangles have three sides. Having three sides is included within the concept of the triangle (the predicate "three sides" is included within the subject "triangle").


Synthetic posterior judgment is, for example, the following: “it’s a cloudy day today” (we have to have the experience to make the judgment; the predicate “cloudy” is not included in the subject “day”).
Now, the most exciting type of judgment is, of course, the synthetic a priori judgment. Kant’s famous example states, “7 + 5 = 12.” Here we can see something fascinating: the predicate (“12”) is not included in the subject(s) (“5” and “7”), but we can still know the answer, though never analytically. As Kant put it: “no matter how long I analyze my concept of such a possible sum, I will still not find twelve in it.”

It means that we have reached that within our mind, having no experience prior to making the judgment. Kant’s approach in the Critique of Pure Reason is largely about the possibility of such mechanics. For us as humans to cope in the world, our mind contains the “built-in” forms of intuition—the ability to conceptualize time and space—and by using the faculty of “time,” we can reach the answer (“12”).

In the simplest terms, there are three types of judgments (analytic a priori, synthetic a posteriori, and synthetic a priori). With synthetic a priori judgments, we reach new knowledge by combining ideas in our minds without direct experience from the outside world, using our intuitions (time and space) and categories of understanding.