Kant and Causal Law in Pure Reason

Kant and causation Introduction Criticizing the pure reason, Kant pointed out that "every change will occur according to the law of causality." 1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak reading and strong reading. A weaker reading basically indicates that Kant's statement only means that "all events have a cause"; however, a strong reading is "a second analogism is caused not only by causality but also by causality It is also dedicated ". The difference is to pay attention to the difference between Kant's empirical natural law and universal transcendence. principle

Kant called real things "all that can be achieved by freedom" and purely practical laws never given through perceptual conditions resemble the universal law of causality It is a moral law. The reason is that we can only give "rule of practical freedom through sensation", but the pure practice rules given by reasonable a priori determine "what to do". In the "critique of practical reasons" at the end of the second main part of the analysis, Kant introduced categories of freedom as well as categories that understood the real counterparts. Kant's liberal category is clearly predominantly a condition of the possibility of action (i) free, (ii) understood to be free, (iii) morally appreciated

It is really important to distinguish between the general principle of Cant's causality and the specific causality determined in the second analogy. Equally important, Kant's specific causal relationship is a comprehensive post-incident rather than a comprehensive pre-case (at least in most cases). However, it does not mean that Kant agrees with Hume as to the status of synthetic post - causal law. Conversely, Kant said (as we have seen) Prolegomena, paragraph 29 (he made his official "Hume answer") has only a fundamental difference between "heuristics" Clearly stated. The illuminance of the sun and the true objective law (the sun is the light that passes through it and the cause of the heat) is derived by adding an a priori concept that is due to a simple induction law. In this case (A 91 / B 124):