Originally submitted on February 12, 2017, by Andreas Blaser in German for the ACIT Journal
Translated and rewritten in English below by Paschal Alaemezie
Imagine you are a time traveller who can visit any point in history or the future. You have a device that allows you to adjust the speed of time, so you can experience different events faster or slower than normal. You can also pause, rewind, or fast-forward time at will. How would you use this device? What would you see and feel? How would you explain your experience to others? Would you agree with them on what time is and how it works?
This scenario may sound like a fantasy, but it is a way of exploring one of the most fundamental and puzzling concepts in philosophy: time. Time is something that we all experience and use every day, but we often take it for granted and do not question its nature and origin. However, if we try to think more deeply about time, we may encounter some paradoxes and contradictions that challenge our common sense and intuition.
For example, is time something that exists objectively in the world, or is it something that we create subjectively in our minds? Is time linear and continuous, or is it discrete and fragmented? Is time absolute and universal, or is it relative and variable? How can we measure time accurately and consistently? How can we know anything about time without relying on our senses or reason?
These are some of the questions that the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant addressed in his ground-breaking work, the Critique of Pure Reason. In this book, Kant tried to explain how human knowledge is possible and what are its limits. He argued that human knowledge is based on two sources: sensibility and understanding. Sensibility is the faculty that allows us to perceive objects through our senses, such as sight, hearing, touch, etc. Understanding is the faculty that allows us to think about objects through our concepts, such as numbers, cause, substance, etc. Kant claimed that both sensibility and understanding have certain forms or structures that shape our experience and cognition of the world. These forms are not derived from experience or concepts but are given a priori, that is, before any experience or concept. They are also necessary and universal, that is, they apply to all objects of experience and cognition.
One of these forms is time. Kant argued that time is not an empirical concept derived from any experience, but a pure form of sensible intuition that underlies all intuitions. Time is also not a discursive or general concept, but a single time that has all separate times as its parts. Time is not a property or relation of things in themselves, but a way of representing them in our mind. Time is empirically real, meaning that it applies to all objects that our senses receive. Time is also transcendentally ideal, meaning that it does not belong to things as they are in themselves, but only to our mode of perceiving them.
The main purpose of this article is to introduce and evaluate Kant’s concept of time as a key element of his transcendental philosophy, which aims to answer the question: how are synthetic a priori judgments possible? The main thesis of this article is that Kant’s concept of time is a remarkable and original contribution to the philosophical understanding of time and knowledge, but it also faces some challenges and questions that need to be addressed in future research.
In this article, we will:
- Explore Kant’s concept of time as he presented it in the second section of transcendental aesthetics, which is part of his book where he investigates the nature and role of space and time in human cognition.
- Follow Kant’s arguments and try to understand how he arrived at his view of time as a pure form of sensible intuition that is empirically real and transcendentally ideal.
- See how this view helps him to explain the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments, which are statements that go beyond what we can derive from experience or concepts but are still universally and necessarily true.
- Review some arguments for and against Kant’s concept of time.
What is Time According to Kant?
Kant begins his discussion of time by distinguishing between two ways of examining the concept of time: the metaphysical exposition and the transcendental exposition.
1) The Metaphysical Exposition
The metaphysical exposition is the part where Kant tries to show that the concept of time is not derived from experience or any general concept but is a pure form of sensible intuition that precedes any experience or concept. We can appeal to these examples from mathematics, physics, logic, and metaphysics that show the necessity and universality of time as a form of intuition. For example:
- Arithmetic operations such as addition and subtraction presuppose the idea of time as a succession of moments. For instance, when we say that 2 + 3 = 5, we imply that the sum of 2 and 3 follows them in time. We cannot perform any arithmetic operation without assuming a temporal order of the numbers involved.
- Geometric figures such as lines and circles presuppose the idea of time as a continuous magnitude. For instance, when we draw a line or a circle, we imply that the points that make up the line or the circle are connected in time. We cannot construct any geometric figure without assuming a temporal continuity of the space occupied by it.
- Paradoxes such as Zeno’s paradoxes presuppose the idea of time as a way of representing things in our mind. For instance, when we say that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, we imply that we can divide time into infinitely small intervals. We cannot think about any paradox without assuming a temporal representation of reality in our mind.
These examples show that time is not an empirical concept that we learn from observing the world, but a pure intuition that we use to construct the world in our mind. In addition to that, the examples show that time is not a discursive or general concept, but a single time that contains all separate times as its parts. They are also meant to show that time is not a property or relation of things in themselves, but a way of representing them in our mind.
2) The Transcendental Exposition
The transcendental exposition is the part where Kant tries to show that the concept of time is not only a pure form of sensible intuition, but also a principle of synthetic a priori knowledge, meaning that it allows us to make judgments that go beyond what we can derive from experience or any general concept, but are still universally and necessarily true. For example:
- Time enables us to make judgments about the subjective and ideal nature of time as a mode of representation. For instance, we can say that time is not something that exists objectively in the world, but something that we create subjectively in our minds. We can also say that time is not something that belongs to things as they are in themselves, but something that depends on our subjective conditions of intuition. These judgments are synthetic a priori because they are not based on any empirical observation or any general concept, but on the pure form of intuition that shapes our experience and cognition of reality.
- Time enables us to make judgments about the relative and variable aspects of time depending on the empirical context. For instance, we can say that different people may perceive the same duration of time differently depending on their mood, attention, memory, etc. We can also say that different animals may have different temporal scales and rhythms depending on their biological clocks, metabolism, etc. We can also say that diverse cultures may have diverse conceptions and expressions of time depending on their history, language, religion, etc. These judgments are synthetic a priori because they are not derived from any experience or any specific concept, but from the general form of intuition that applies to all objects of experience.
- Time enables us to make judgments about the possibilities and limits of human knowledge about things as they appear to us in time. For instance, we can say that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge about things as they appear to us in time, such as mathematics, physics, and logic. We can also say that we cannot have synthetic a priori knowledge about things as they are in themselves, beyond our temporal representation, such as God, soul, freedom, etc. These judgments are synthetic a priori because they are not based on any empirical evidence or any general concept, but on the transcendental condition of human cognition that determines what we can and cannot know.
These examples show that time is not only a pure form of sensible intuition but also a principle of synthetic a priori knowledge. Time is thus an essential element of Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which aims to answer the question: how are synthetic a priori judgments possible?
What Are The Implications of Kant’s Concept of Time?
Kant’s concept of time has profound implications for his transcendental philosophy, which aims to answer the question: how are synthetic a priori judgments possible? By arguing that time is empirically real and transcendentally ideal, Kant offers a novel solution to this question.
The empirical reality of time means that time applies to all objects that can ever be given to our senses. Time is not something that we add to our experience arbitrarily, but something that shapes it necessarily. Time is thus an objective condition of our empirical knowledge.
The transcendental ideality of time means that time does not belong to things in themselves, but only to our mode of perceiving them. Time is not something that exists independently of our mind, but something that depends on our subjective conditions of intuition. Time is thus a subjective condition of our transcendental knowledge.
By combining these two aspects, Kant reconciles two contradictory claims: on one hand, we can have synthetic a priori knowledge about things; on the other hand, we cannot know things as they are in themselves. We can have synthetic a priori knowledge about things as they appear to us in time, but we cannot know things as they exist beyond our temporal representation.
Criticisms of Kant’s Concept of Time
- Kant’s concept of time is based on a false analogy between time and space. Kant assumes that time and space are both forms of intuition that precede any experience or concept, but this is not justified. Time and space are different in many ways, such as their directionality, dimensionality, and relation to objects. Time is not a spatial magnitude that can be measured or divided, but a dynamic process that involves change and succession. Time is not a static framework that contains phenomena, but a dynamic aspect of phenomena themselves.
However, one can argue that Kant does not treat time and space as identical, but as distinct forms of intuition that have some common features. For example, both time and space are a priori, necessary, and universal conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge. Both time and space are also ideal, meaning that they are not properties or relations of things in themselves, but modes of representation of our mind. Kant does not claim that time and space are the same, but that they are analogous in some respects. - Kant’s concept of time is incompatible with modern physics and cosmology. Kant argues that time is an empirical reality that applies to all objects of experience, but this is contradicted by the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics. Time is not an absolute and universal measure of change, but a relative and variable factor that depends on the observer’s frame of reference, speed, and gravity. Time is not a continuous and homogeneous flow, but a discrete and probabilistic phenomenon that involves uncertainty and indeterminacy. Time is not a necessary condition for the existence of the world, but a contingent outcome of the evolution of the universe.
In contrast, one can argue that Kant’s concept of time is not meant to describe the physical reality of time, but the transcendental condition of human cognition of time. Kant does not deny that time may have several aspects or manifestations depending on the empirical context, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, or cosmology. He only claims that time, as a form of intuition, is the basis for our subjective experience and understanding of any temporal phenomena. Kant’s concept of time is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical analysis of the nature and limits of human reason. - Kant’s concept of time is irrelevant to moral and practical philosophy. Kant claims that time is a transcendental condition for synthetic a priori judgments, which are statements that go beyond what we can derive from experience or concepts but are still universally and necessarily true. However, this claim is dubious and unnecessary. Synthetic a priori judgments are either analytic or synthetic a posteriori in disguise, or they are false or meaningless. Moreover, synthetic a priori judgments have no bearing on the moral significance of human actions, which depends on the relation between the empirical character and the intelligible character of the agent, or the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself. Time is not a factor that decides the moral value or duty of an action, but a factor that affects the empirical consequences or effects of an action.
On the other hand, one can argue that Kant’s concept of time is essential for his ethical theory, which is based on the idea of autonomy and freedom. Kant argues that human beings are not only subject to the laws of nature, which decide their empirical character and actions but also to the laws of reason, which prescribe their intelligible character and duties. Human beings are free when they act according to their rational will, which is independent of any external or internal influences. Time, as a form of intuition, enables human beings to distinguish between their empirical and intelligible selves, and to act accordingly. Time also allows human beings to conceive of the possibility of moral progress and perfection, which are the ultimate goals of practical reason.
Conclusion
In this article, we examined Kant’s concept of time as a pure form of sensible intuition that is both empirically real and transcendentally ideal. We have seen how this concept enables Kant to account for the possibility and limits of synthetic a priori knowledge, which are judgments that go beyond experience or concepts but are still universally and necessarily true. We have also discussed some criticisms and implications of this concept for Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which aims to answer the question: how are synthetic a priori judgments possible?
Kant’s concept of time is an original and influential contribution to philosophy, but it also faces some challenges and questions. It relies on a dubious analogy between time and space, it contradicts modern physics and cosmology, and it ignores moral and practical philosophy. Therefore, it invites further inquiry and research on the nature and role of time in human experience and cognition.
I hope that this article has sparked your interest and curiosity in this topic. If you are interested in learning more about Kant’s concept of time and his transcendental philosophy, you can consult the following resources for further study:
- Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction by Jill Vance Buroker. This book provides a clear and accessible introduction to Kant’s most famous work, explaining its main arguments and themes, as well as its historical and philosophical context.1
- Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason by Sebastian Gardner. This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, examining its structure, content, and significance for modern philosophy.2
- Kant by Paul Guyer. This book is a concise and authoritative overview of Kant’s life, work, and legacy, covering his contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy.3
- In Our Time: Kant’s Categorical Imperative by BBC Radio 4. This is another podcast episode that explores Kant’s moral philosophy, focusing on his concept of the categorical imperative, which is a universal and rational principle of action.4
References
- Buroker, J. V. (2006). Kant’s critique of pure reason: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
- Gardner, S. (1999). Kant and the critique of pure reason. Routledge.
- Guyer, P. (2006). Kant. Routledge.
- Bragg, M. (2017, September 21). In Our Time: Kant’s Categorical Imperative. BBC Radio 4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0952zl3 (Accessed on September 16, 2023)