Why does Kant believe that synthetic a priori judgments are required for metaphysics, how does he attempt to demonstrate their viability, and what are they?
A priori judgments are universally stringent conclusions that are only based on thinking and are unaffected by any sensory experiences. A predicate that is synthetic a priori is one that cannot be logically contained in a subject. They clearly differ from posterior judgments, which must be founded on experience, in that such judgments' veracity can be justified regardless of experience, and they also demonstrate particular issues' limitations and unpredictability. The truth or falsity of these statements can only be proven by nature of their conformity to the ways of the world and not by the words they contain or the virtue of their meaning. This essay aims to discuss synthetic a priori according to Kant, how he proves their possibility and their significance in metaphysics.
Expression of a priori does not indicate sufficient precision to full meaning of the questions in concern
For even the customary sources, there is a capability of having a priori, this means its not solely derived from experience but extracted from the universal rule. For even if senses are eliminated from experience, there still remain judgements and concepts derived from them that have developed completely a priori. However, the term a priori fails to indicate sufficient precision to the full meaning of our concerns. It is therefore derived from the universal rule rather than the experience. In a priori propositions, there is no pure proposition since they are products derived from experience.
The possibility of a priori
Distinction between synthetic and analytical judgements
According to Kant, a priori justification seems to rest on rational intuitions and insights. The two faculties of knowledge correspond to intuitions and concepts. The two faculties are that of understanding and that of sensibility. For Kant, It's of absolute importance to understand the persons we are. Human beings can only know something through the faculty of sensation, implying that the object has to be given to them. Kant extends his thinking that there are also other types of beings (God in this case) that are capable of directly knowing things through thought. He refers to this as intellectual intuition but it's not possible. Thus, it provides validity to human knowledge. Human mind can think of many things but those that have the validity are the ones limited to the sphere of experience. He attributes the production of legitimate knowledge to the integration of concepts and intuitions.
Law of contradiction is the common principle of analytical judgements
All such kind of judgments entirely depend on the law of contradiction, thus they take the nature of a priori cognitions. This is regardless of concepts supplying empirical matter or not. The predicate cannot do without contradiction because it's contained in the subject concept. In a similar manner, its opposite must be denied by the same law of contradiction if it's analytical and a negative judgment. Nature takes such judgments. Due to the above reason, analytical judgments are considered a priori no matter the concepts being empirical. For example, when we say mango juice is yellow in color, for knowing this does not require any other thing but beyond the concept that mango juice is yellow in color. There is only a need to analyze the concept without overlooking other things.
Synthetic judgments needs a different principle from contradiction law
While considering judgments of empirical origin, we may have synthetic posteriori while others may qualify to be a priori that originates from pure understanding and reason. Both of these judgments agree on the possibility of springing neither from the principle of analysis nor the law of contradiction. These judgments need different principles and from whatever the deductions made, they must fall subject to the law which should never be broken. All empirical judgments are considered synthetic and this fact seems known by persons analyzing human reasoning. The judgment seems incontestable to be certain, the most important is its importance.
According to Kant's findings, he realizes that conclusions of all mathematicians come about due to the law of contradiction. Men have attributed fundamental principles to the same law. However, it's a mistake for synthetic propositions to be comprehended according to contradiction law. Kant concludes that all mathematical judgments are a priori because of carrying with them necessity which cannot originate from experience. He says that if the above is not conceded to him, he confines his assertion to pure mathematics, the belief implying composition of pure a priori and not empirical judgments.
Arithmetic judgments are considered synthetically, large numbers plainly provide clear cases. However, close analysis of the concepts indicates that mathematics is a priori. This is because mathematics meets criteria of universality and necessity. Kant thinks synthetic a priori is necessary for metaphysics because he looks at the differences between synthetic and analytic judgments. To him, a priori judgments fulfill the criteria of universality and necessity. Since mathematics is entirely a priori, they are analytic. This is also applicable to metaphysics.
