Gaofeng 055 Metaphysics

The work of metaphysics is like drawing a map of our world, it can fully and without omission outline the colors of this world on the map.

So, on the first hand, in innate knowledge, there is nothing that can be attached to the object except for the subject of thought taking something out of itself.

That is to say, the thinking subject itself can completely determine the existence of the object, without the need to attach anything else. The subject itself can define the object, there is no need to take anything else to define it.

The second aspect is that pure speculative rationality is a unified entity of completely independent and autonomous cognitive principles. So, in the unity, just like in an organism, every link exists for all other links, and all links also exist for every link.

Any of these principles, if not simultaneously examined from the perspective of their entire application in pure reason, can only be accepted based on one of their relationships. That can't be said to be safe and reliable.

That is to say, since metaphysics as a whole is able to fully grasp all the representations presented to us by the object, that is to say, all the links of reason themselves are interrelated rather than disconnected from each other.

So, in this sense, Kant is not a dualist, he is precisely a truly idealistic monist.

Earlier, we read together some of the content in the preface of the second edition of Critique of Pure Reason, with the aim of guiding us gradually into Kant's thought, gradually understanding the starting point of Kant's problems, and gradually recognizing the value of Kant's philosophy.

I don't know if you have read his "Introduction to Metaphysics as Future Science" and the introduction section including "Critique of Pure Reason", especially his book "Introduction to Metaphysics as Future Science", which can be said to be concise and describe the main work of his philosophy in relatively clear language.

This book is relatively easy to understand, although the comparison is relative. We have to ask, what kind of impression do we get from reading these parts of Kant's content?

Perhaps there is a question here about how to understand and grasp Kant's philosophy. If we consider Kant's philosophy as a whole, how can we understand Kant's overall philosophical goals and the work he wants to accomplish?

How can we understand Kant's philosophy, its attitude towards the philosophy of his predecessors, and how can we understand his lifelong contribution to the study of philosophy, and what kind of career he wants to create?

We still remember in the preface of the second edition, Kant clearly told us that previous discussions on metaphysics had fundamental flaws. And this flaw lies in the fact that they have not truly pointed out to us the necessary conditions for this knowledge to become a science, or rather, they have not truly established metaphysics as a science.

By reading Kant, I would like to first ask you a question: What is the metaphysics that everyone understands in their minds so far? Or further, by reading Kant, what exactly is your understanding of Kant's concept of metaphysics?

Simply put, what exactly is metaphysics? I don't know if there has been a significant change in your understanding of metaphysics after seeing Kant, or if there is a big difference between our original understanding of metaphysics and the metaphysics discussed by Kant?

You can first talk about your past understanding, and then talk about your understanding of Kant's metaphysics after reading him. Let's set aside Kant and have a simple understanding of metaphysics, because Kant has a special statement and interpretation of metaphysics.

If we set aside Kant, metaphysics comes from Aristotle's book "Metaphysics", in other words, from Aristotle's discussion of reality in his book. The existence of reality, especially the pursuit of entity or essence, constitutes the main content of metaphysical ontology.

This kind of metaphysics is based on the premise of setting certain prior principles, which are not purely constructed through Kantian prior principles, but solely constructed through logical principles.

You mentioned a very important conceptual methodology, which is actually a point we repeatedly emphasized when we first talked about Kant. Kant provided us with not only, or mainly, a theory about the existence of the world, but also not about the ultimate cause of the external world. It did not tell us what the existence of the world is, so he did not tell us what it is, nor did he answer such questions. This is also a point we repeatedly emphasized earlier.

What exactly does it provide us with? What is the important difference between it and the discussion of traditional metaphysical philosophy?

It is precisely to question our method of discussing ultimate reality, and to tell us the problems with our previous way of discussing metaphysics.

When traditional metaphysics discusses the existence of the external world, we take the existence of an objective object as the premise of our understanding. This objective existence, whether it is felt in experience, such as by empiricists, or a innate concept provided in rationalism, still constructs a theoretical existence based on a priori knowledge as the starting point for our understanding.

Therefore, regardless of the entire history of philosophy, most philosophers before Kant have used questioning of what is reality, what is reality, and how we define reality as a premise or starting point for metaphysical discussions.

Kant, on the other hand, changed this path by telling us that our understanding of the external world cannot be obtained simply by grasping objects through our experiences. Or, in other words, we cannot grasp the world solely by preconceived notions.

What we need to ask is, what was our initial understanding of the world as a whole?

The overall understanding of the world actually requires a predetermined relationship between the objects we know and the subjects we know, whether it is a completely opposite or reflective relationship as traditional philosophy suggests.

Kant pointed out that the mistake of traditional philosophy lies in the belief that human cognitive activities revolve around objects. So, he wants to make a revolutionary change, which is to make the object rotate around the subject.

How to make the object rotate around the subject, and how to make the subject the core of the entire cognitive activity?

There is only one point, which is to imagine or set all objects as objects that we can recognize. Only in this way, that is, we first assume that external objects can be known to us, and we assume that all objects we can know should actually be a priori constructed within our cognitive activities, rather than outside of them.

Because all the knowledge we make up already has a priori innate ability to acquire this knowledge, rather than being passively exposed to external objects that affect our sensory organs, which is the knowledge we humans form. It's not like that, but the opposite. It's the innate ability, or form, of humans to understand the objects we can know.

However, in the process of understanding objects, Kant pointed out his basic path to us. This path is from intuitive perception to intellectual concepts, and finally grasping the principles of rationality.

From the basic perspective of cognition, or in other words, from the basic path of cognition, we humans always start from feelings. This is also our common sense, which tells us a fundamental principle that starts from common sense, experience, and feelings.

However, it should be noted that the feelings and experiences here are two different concepts that we often do not distinguish in our daily lives. Because experience itself already includes the sensory content we acquire through intellectual means. Therefore, only sensibility itself is the initial way for us to acquire information about objects, and experience already includes the principle of grasping the prior of objects.

Therefore, in other words, experience is not pure, and it is difficult to say what pure experience is, because pure experience is often related to human psychological activities, human consciousness activities, and the overall grasp of the external world that occurs within the subject's consciousness.

Therefore, there is no pure experience. When experience constitutes the content of our knowledge, such experience has become sensory content with intellectual concepts or categories.

So Kant set us a goal or premise from the beginning. What is the focus of this' intuitive and intuitive 'exploration?

It targets the 'object' because we acquire sensory experience about the object through grasping it. Please note that every word in my sentence is a specific usage in Kant's sense, and I am not using it casually. Every sentence is not a casual conclusion, and these conclusions can be found in Kant's books.