Kant page 86

"Bounds always presuppose a space existing outside a certain definite place and inclosing it; limits do not require this, but are mere negations which affect a quantity so far as it is not absolutely complete."


I understand what Kant is trying to say here. I feel that what he meens is that the only way that bounds are able to occur is if there is some space or object that can create the bounds. When something has a limit it meens that there does not have to be space or an object to limit that objects possibility.

Kant page 66

"In the Critique of Pure Reason it was always my greatest care to endeavor, not only carefully to distinguish the several kinds of cognition, but to derive concepts belonging to each one of them from their common source."

I think that you cannot get concepts of something without fully understanding it. You cannot just go to the common source of something and come up with a concept for that thing, you must look deeper into it and get a better understanding of it.

Kant Page 40

"Quite another judgement therefore is required before perception can become experience."

I agree with what Kant is trying to say. I think that when meeting someone or at least trying to have some sort of experience with someone you must judge at some point. It is as if it is almost required/known to everyone that they are being judged almost every minute of there lives weather they like it or not. It is just something that must be accepted.

Kant Page 31

"When an appearance is given us, we are still quite free as to how we should judge the matter. The appearance depends upon the senses, but the judgment upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object there is truth or not."

I think what is being said here is that you can see something but cannot fully understand the matter at hand. All you can do is view an appearance and make a judgement, but by doing that there really is no understanding of the matter. You will not know if the whole situation is based on truth or not.

Kant Page 27

"If two things are quite equal in all respects as much as can be ascertained by all means possible, quantitatively and qualitatively, it must follow that the one can in all cases and under all circumstances replace the other, and this substitution would not occasion the least recognizable difference."

I do not agree that if two things are alike in all aspects that they have to replace each other and become one. I think that no substitutions should be made. Even if you think that two things are exactly the same there is always that one little flaw that makes the two things different. Therefore nothing can be exactly the same and substitute.

Kant Page 20

"It may be said that the entire transcendental philosophy, which necessarily precedes all metaphysics, is nothing but the complete solution of the problem here propounded, in systematic order and completeness, and that we have hitherto never had any transcendental philosophy."

I think that Kant is trying to say that philosophy is the answer to all questions. He is trying to say that all questions can be questioned until they no longer have any meaning and that if we keep doing this there will never be a complete solution to any problem.

Hume in general

Throughout the Hume book I feel that there was a large mix of subjects. God, politics, mind & body, and personal feelings. I feel that Hume related God & politics alot. I feel that he might had felt that religion and politics were almost the same. He also related to alot of personal feelings and experiences which made the book slightly easier to read, but I do not agree with his mixing of religion and political parties.

Hume Pg 86

"The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. But what better temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven?"

I feel that Hume starts off talking about a literal thing, like a reporter and how he basically enlarges the picture on things happening in life. Then Hume goes to talking about God and heaven again. I think what he is saying is that people should focus more on reporting and learning about God than focusing more on the world we live in now.

Hume

While reading Hume's book I notice that as the story goes on he starts to contradict things. It seems as if nothing in the book is constant. As a writer Hume seems to be quite jumpy, and focus' on more of a down to earth life aspect. There isn't much that I feel relates to God or a spiritual side. With so many different aspects on the mind it makes it hard to follow where he is going.

Hume Page 41

"It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses."

From what it seems to me is that Hume is starting to contradict himself here. Earlier in the book he was talking about how we can excel past the limits of our own minds, and here it seems that he is trying to tell us that we are all pre-programmed. I am interpreting it as if he wants us to think it is impossible for us to think farther than our external and internal senses.