PRESENTATION

First, I want to thank you everyone who would help me in this discussion to deepen my knowledge about this topic.

Second I inform you that I am not a native English speaker, nor I am particularly skilled in writing. Thus, I both apologize for errors that may come and ask for corrections.

This said, I am going to present immediately an argument by Kant, concerning the beginning of knowledge.

I will cite from the Cambridge Edition of the Critique of Pure Reason(CPR) by Guyer and Wood.

OPENING ARGUMENT IN THE AESTETHICS

«There is no doubt whatever that all our cognition begins with experi­ ence; for how else should the cognitive faculty be awakened into exer­ cise if not through objects that stimulate our senses and in part themselves produce representations, in part bring the activity of our un­ derstanding into motion to compare these, to connect or separate them, and thus to work up the raw material of sensible impressions into a cognition of objects that is called experience?7 As far as time is con­ cerned, then, no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experi­ ence every cognition begins.» p.136

This argument may be stated as follows. Someone maybe disagree: I am open to receive critics and/or modification about this interpretation. This would require, however: 1indicate where my error is and why 2 an alternative purpose.

A

If our cognitive faculty is awakened, then there is a beginning of knowledge.

But our cognitive faculty is awakened.

THEN

There is a beginning of knowledge.

B

If our cognitive faculty is awakened, then it is so by the object of senses or otherwise.

Our cognitive faculty is awakened.

Then by object of senses or otherwise.

Not otherwise.

THEN

Our cognitive faculty is awakened by object of senses.

C

Definition: the sensitive type of object is experience.

Definition: The awakening of a cognitive faculty, insofar as it produces, effectively, cognitions, is a beginning of knowledge.(This modify the first premiss in A: from an implication to an equivalence)

THUS

All our cognitions begins with experience.

FINIS

Now, there is an interesting restriction just after:

«As far as time is con­cerned, then, no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experi­ ence every cognition begins» ibid.

This do not mean there are two kinds of knowledge(one temporal and one not temporal) but that, if we have knowledge at all, we need to recognize it as knowledge, and in doing so, we presuppose a referential structure(a structure in which the sensible data are processed until a distinction between an objective unity and a subjective unity). This referential structure, however, does not by itself differentiates what is an object an what is a subject(of knowledge). To be so, it is necessary another formal, but sensibly formal, distinction: that between Time, as the form of recognition of the subject side, and Space, as the form characterizing the object side.

Time, hence, is a necessary condition of knowledge, insofar knowledge is relational: it is an order relationship in a referential structure, let's say: between something that select meaningful data and the meaning thus recognizable, such that what operates the selection is called Subject while which results from that selection, in so far as the subject can further work on it, it is called Object.

Yet, Time alone is not sufficient condition of knowledge, because no difference is recognizable in its unities, i.e. instants. Therefore, there would be no reason to distinguish at all between them, and being a mere order of succession, there would be no relation at all between the instants, except for them being all somehow products of a certain process. Time presupposes a referential structure, in order to distinguish a subject of knowledge and an object known, because in time, as an ordered series, there are no STATES but just INSTANTS, regulates by the operations which results in any of them. While our knowledge begins with a difference in a state: the sensibility is affected, and the cognitive faculty, from a state of inactivity, at least: of activity recognizable by us, passes in a state of activity.

I shall point out here, that time is neither a mathematical succession, because mathematical succession as no definite o r i e n t a t i o n; nor a mere ordered succession, because not only is time ordered(in regards to symmetry, and, in this regards, actually this is not true at every scale of natural phenomena), but it as a VERSE(irreversibility): eggs break but do not unbreak(while in general it may be the opposite for other being).

The reason why we perceive events as irreversible is our interaction with that which is designated by the Boltzmann parameter, and being its values sufficiently big, this interaction results in a certain mode of perceiving events, which we call: temporal form of perceiving events.

SUSPENSION

I shall end my opening discourse here, waiting for your critics, comments, amendments. In advance thanking each one that would help me and share their reasonings(for content is the way to reach absolutely valid schemes of reasonings to me, though their formulation and recognizance shall always be bounded to certain conditions).