/lit/ - Literature

>>9257143
I've read the Prolegomena and the Critique.

Hume was wrong that we learn cause and effect through "habit" empirically. In the sense that Hume meant it, he was wrong, because Hume really was regarding things as they appear to us. Hume's argument was like this - if I hit a nail with a hammer and it goes into the wood, how can I know a priori whether the hammer caused the nail to go into the wood, or whether these two events simply happened together at the same time, and through habit of seeing this we aquire from experience the idea of cause and effect?

Kant says we can infact know a priori cause and effect BUT only insofar as we regard things as appearances, which is the only way we need to regard things anyway.

Kant proves that cause and effect are a necessary analogy in order to synthesize unity in the apperception of time. In this way Kant proves a priori cause and effect for things as they appear to us, because, without cause and effect things would not appear to us at all, which is the way he proves nearly everything in the Critique.