Kants’ Critiques of Pure reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysics
Kant states that, “In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins, but although all of our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience,”(CPR,41). What he means is that we do not rely on experience inorder to have knowledge, but knowledge and experience are connected for to have knowledge we must begin with experience. There are four types of knowledge that Kant deduced. A priori, which is knowledge that is independent of experience, knowledge which is always true, does not rely on a person to experience it inorder for one to realize that it is true. A priori knowledge are entitled pure when there is “no admixture of anything empirical,” (CPR, 43). Kant also states that, “Necessity and universality are sure criteria of apriori knowledge, and are inseparable from once another,” (CPR, 44). A posterior knowledge on the other hand is knowledge which is dependent on experience, and requires it inoder to understand it.
     Analytic judgments are, “those in which the connection of the predicate with the subject is thought through identity,” (CPR, 48). Synthetic judgments are, “Those in which the connection between the predicate and the subject is not present,” (CPR, 48). Analytic judgments are explicative because they add nothing new to the subject, but only further the understanding of the subject, while Synthetic judgments are ampliative because they add to the understanding of a concept. Kant affirms that, “Judgments of experience, as such, are one and all synthetic,” (CPR, 49). This makes sense because it would not make sense to found an analytic judgment on experience.
     Kant thinks that the general problem of pure reason is contained in the question: How are apriori synthetic judgments possible? Kant postulates that if he is able to figure out or understand the conditions in which the sciences are possible to exist he can also figure out the conditions of which a priori synthetic judgments can exist. Kant defines pure reason as, “that which contains the principles whereby we know anything absolutely a priori. Phenomena is an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumena which is an object as it is in itself independent of the mind (the thing in itself).
     Rational beings may align their "will" either with the objective laws of reason and morality or with subjective needs and interests. Reason's demands may be called "imperatives." "Hypothetical imperatives" command that a particular action is necessary as a means to some purpose, such as the attainment of personal happiness. Categorical imperatives require that some action is necessary in and of itself. Thus the categorical imperative may be formulated as follows: act only in such a way that you could want the maxim of your action to become a universal law. This statement can also be given this formulation: act as if your action would establish its maxim as a universal law of nature. In pursuing their objectives, rational beings must always view themselves not only as means to some purpose, but also as ends in themselves, “What serves will as the objective ground of its self-determination is an end, and this, if it id given by reason alone, must hold equally for all rational beings, and what on the other hand contains merely the ground of the possibility of an action the effect of which is an end is call a means,” (GM, 36). Thus he formulates the categorical imperative in terms of the will of a rational being, in such a way that you always treat other people not merely as means to some end, but also as ends in themselves.
     Kant states that , “the concept of every rational being as one who must regard himself as giving universal law through all the maxims of his will, so as to appraise himself and his actions from this point of view, leads to a very fruitful concept dependent upon the kingdom of ends,”(GM,41). When rational beings pursue morality and the kingdom of ends, they elevate themselves above the demands of nature and of their material circumstances. They thus establish the independence, or "autonomy," of their will. By contrast, when a person's goals are determined by something other than universal law, their will is "heteronymous", meaning it depends on external factors in determining its goals.