What is your answer?
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is correct!
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
In other words, it shows how they are the conditions for the possibility of arithemetic and geometry. See p. 242-3.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
No, because it is transcendental (always read conditions for the possibility of) it implies that the knowledge it is speaking of is not possible without the conditions it is giving. See p. 242.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
Yes, it does. See p. 242.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
No, it is an explanation of a principle. See p. 242.
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is wrong. Please try again.
A transcendental exposition
{ 1 } - of space and time shows how the synthetic a priori knowledge of mathematics (respectively arithmetic and geometry) are not possible without them.
{ 2 } - implies that other cognitions are possible without the conditions for explanation it is giving.
{ 3 } - does not imply that other cognition (knowledge) flows from the conception it is exposing.
{ 4 } - is an explanation of a conception as a conclusion from a principle.
{ 5 } - does not explain how other synthetic a priori cognitions can be discerned from a cognition.
Yes, it does. See p. 242.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end