?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
The truth and Anamgol UBF 
17th-Jul-2006 11:49 pm
I found a Sunday message on the website of Anamgol UBF which is considered most elite UBF chapter in the UBF world. Anamgol UBF focuses on recruiting students in Korea University, one of the top five universities in Korea. Mark Yang used to be the director. I don’t know who the current director is and who wrote the message. I wanted to discuss problems of this message because it is based on John 8:31-32 and they happen to be my favorite key verses in the Bible. I want to discuss them in the comment section with the following topics:

I. Some comments on my English translation
II. Issues related to the author’s presentation of Kant and Critique of Pure Reason
III. Issues on the author’s interpretation of ‘truth’ in John 8:32
IV. Concluding remarks
Comments 
18th-Jul-2006 05:50 am (UTC) - II. Issues related to the author’s presentation of Kant
II. Issues related to the author’s presentation of Kant and Critique of Pure Reason

1.

The author mentions Immanuel Kant and his book Critique of Pure Reason. The author says that Pastor Kim was quoting it from Critique of Pure Reason when he said “When this object called a desk in front of me agrees with my understanding of the desk, then we call it truth.” Now I have an English translation of Critique of Pure Reason. The copy I have is the first edition that came out in 1998.

In this copy, I don’t recall if Kant really used a desk example to explain truth. Kant surely mentions something about the definition of truth as agreement of object and our understanding of the object. It is called Correspondence Theory of Truth. But this theory had been in criculation even before Kant. Besides I don’t think that the main objective of Critique is about Correspondence Theory of Truth. It becomes clear to anyone who reads the following excerpt from the section VI of the introduction to the second edition of Critique. His main objective seems to be the investigation of the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge in response to Hume’s claim that such an a priori preposition is entirely impossible.


=======
Exceprt from Critique (I did OCR on the book I have. I hope this is not illegal. If it is, I will quickly remove it from this website.)

VI.(pp146)
The general problem of pure reason.

...The real problem of pure reason is now contained in the question: How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?
That metaphysics has until now remained in such a vacillating state of uncertainty and contradictions is to be ascribed solely to the cause that no one has previously thought of this problem and perhaps even of the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. On the solution of this problem, or on a satisfactory proof that the possibility that it demands to have explained does not in fact exist at all, metaphysics now stands or falls. David Flume, who among all philosophers came closest to this problem, still did not conceive of it anywhere near determinately enough and in its universality, but rather stopped with the synthetic proposition of the connection of the effect with its cause (Principium causalitatis), believing himself to have brought out that such an a priori preposition is entirely impossible, and according to his inferences everything that we call metaphysics would come down to a mere delusion of an alleged insight of reason into that which has in fact merely been borrowed from experience and from habit has taken on the appearance of necessity; an assertion, destructive of all pure philosophy, on which he would never have fallen if he had had our problem in its generality before his eyes, since then he would have comprehended that according to his argument there could also be no pure mathematics, since this certainly contains synthetic a priori propositions, an assertion from which his sound understanding would surely have protected him.
This page was loaded Jun 19th 2019, 11:03 pm GMT.