Mirror Images

"What can be more similar in every respect and in every part more alike tom y hand and to my ear than their images in a mirror? And yet I cannot put such a hand as is seen in the mirror in the place of its original, for if this is a right hand, that in the mirror is a left one, and the image or reflection of the right ear is a left one, which never can serve as a substitute for the other." Immanuel Kant pg. 27

This to me suggests that Kant is saying no two things are alike. Everything is somewhat different no matter what way you look at it. Even if you look at something in a mirror it appears the same but if you try to duplicate it with something you think is similar it will not work.

Supreme Understanding & Will

"If I say that we are compelled to consider the world as if it were the work of a Supreme Understanding and Will, I really say nothing more than that a watch, a ship, a regiment bears the same relation to the watchmaker, the shipbuilder, the commanding officer as the world of sense (or whatever constitutes the substratum of this complex of appearances) does the unknown, which I do not hereby cognize as it is in itself but as it is for me, i.e., in relation to the world of which I am a part." Immanuel Kant pg 91

This to me says that people see the world the way that they want to see it. That is from their own point of view from whatever situation or part of life they are looking at it from.

Supreme Being

"We must therefore think an immaterial being, a world of understanding, and a Supreme Being (all more noumena) because in them only, as things in themselves, reason finds that in completion and satisfaction, which it can never hope for in the derivation of appearances from their homogeneous grounds, and because these actually have reference to something distinct from them (and totally heterogeneous), as appearances always presuppose an object in itself and therefore suggest its existence whether we can know more of it or not." Immanuel Kant pg. 89

Depending on certain information sitings of a supreme being or an immaterial being can or cannot be known.

Homogeneity

"When we have to deal with extended magnitudes, all the parts must be homogeneous with one another and with the whole. But in the connection of cause and effect homogeneity may indeed likewise be found but is not necessary, for the concept of causality (by means of which something is posited through something quite different from it) does not in the least require it." Immanuel Kant pg. 78

Kant is saying that cause and effect does not really have to be connected. But when talking about extended magnitudes those ideas should be connected through homogeneity.

Connection of Accidents

"Consequently, I do not say that things in themselves possess a quantity,, that their reality possesses a degree, their existence a connection of accidents in a substance, etc. This nobody can prove because such a synthetic connection from mere concepts, without any reference to sensuous intuition on the one side or connection of such intuition in a possible experience on the other, is absolutely impossible." Immanuel Kant pg 47

I believe what Kant is trying to say is that one cannot have any ideas that possess quality if they do not have some sort of intuition behind them. If there is no intuition where did they come from?

PG. 85 KANT CONCLUSION ON DETERMINATION OF THE BOUNDS OF PURE REASON

THE CLEAREST ARGUMENTS HAVING BEENING ADDUCED, IT WOULD BE ABSURD FOR US TO HOPE THAT WE CAN KNOW MORE OF ANY OBJECT THAN BELONGS TO THE POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE OF IT OR LAY CLAIM TO THE LEAST KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ANYTHING NOT ASSUMED TO BE AN OBJECT OF POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT HAS IN ITSELF.

I think that no one can know exactly what is going to happen in certain things if people do not experience it for themselves. A person can argue that they know what is going to happen or may know some of the possibilities but these are just guesses. For example a person can not know what it is like to be in love without experiencing this emotion for themselves. They can have an educated guess or an idea of how it may feel to be in love from a description but they will never know the true felling until they experience it for themselves.

Metaphysics

"How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?... Metaphysics stands or falls with the solution of this problem; its very existence depends upon it. " Immanuel Kant p. 18

Kant is basically saying that if synthetic propositions a priori are not possible than metaphysics can not exist. If you can not infer that something metaphysical exists from something synthetic then what is the point in a priori if you have no synthetic proof?

KANT ON PURE NATURAL SCIENCE PG. 35

NATURE IS THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS, SO FAR AS IT IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAWS. SHOULD NATURE SIGNIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS IN THEMSELVES, WE COULD NEVER COGNIZE IT EITHER A PRIORI OR A POSTERIORI. NOT A PRIORI, FOR HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT BELONGS TO THINGS IN THEMSELVES, SINCE THIS IS NEVER CAN BE DONE BY THE DISSECTION OF OUR CONCEPTS (IN ANALYTIC JUDGEMENTS).

I do not totally agree with this statement. I think that things do exist in nature but nature is not the existence of things. If nature was the existence of things then where would people fall and their existence. But then you must think of all the things that exist in nature like the bodies of water, animals, people, and plant life. i do belice that without all these things nature could not exist but some of the things that exist in nature are not dependant on it. I think this statement proves that is value to human and plant life but it is not the means of existence. I think that nature is something that is a posteriori because it is based on observation and how people, animals, and plant life adapt to there surroundings.

Kant page 13

"The essential and distinguishing feature of pure mathematical cognition among all other a priori cognitions is that it cannot at all proceed from concepts, but only by means of the construction of concepts." So mathematical equations are synthetic meaning we "create them" and build meaning by putting context behind them where then we can analyze them based upon the meaning behind those figures. 

Kant page 11

Hume really begins to state the obvious truth in the beginning of his book and although it may be obvious after reading it was also surprising a few minutes after thinking about what he was saying. He says that all "judgments of experience are synthetic" meaning that they can not be "analyzed" or measured and we sort of have to take them as they occur. Then on the other hand he says that  all mathematical judgments are synthetic which is true considering that we derive these figures through understanding, but what gets me is that unlike those "judgements of experience" math can be predicted accurately and we can also expect certain things to occur, unlike those "experiences" where we can not accurately analyze an outcome or that reaction to that action.