Definitions HQ

Experience (n.) could ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠have no certainty if the rules by which it proceeds were themselves always empirical and contingent.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠by no means the only field to which our understanding can be confined.

Experience (n.) without ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠community among things would break off with every perception and have to start entirely over with every new object.

Experience (n.) without ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the synthetic unity of concepts would not be cognition at all but a rhapsody of perceptions.

Experience (n.) never ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠offers us the greatest of all possible effects, the kind that would bear witness to a highest being as its cause.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not the source of the pure concepts but derived from them — a completely reversed connection that never occurred to Hume.

Experience (n.) can ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠never prove the non-existence of a cause; all it tells us is that we do not perceive it.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠laced with cognitions of a priori origin: strip away everything belonging to the senses and certain original concepts still remain.

Experience (n.) can ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠show only that one state of things often, or at best commonly, follows another — never strict universality or necessity.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠my place, its fertile bathos — not the high towers of metaphysically-great men, around which there is much wind.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠able to rouse, but never satisfy our reason since experience never gives us any general truths, which is the class of knowledge reason is anxious for.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠itself a kind of cognition requiring the understanding, whose rule I must presuppose in myself before any object is given to me.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠itself a fact that needs explaining: it consists of judgments, and the question is whether those judgments secretly presuppose pure a priori ones.

Experience (n.) does ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not teach necessity; rather, experience is first generated by adding a concept of the understanding, like cause, to perception.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the raw material of sensible impressions worked up by the understanding — comparing, connecting, separating — into cognition of objects.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠wrongly taken, by long habit, for a mere empirical combining of perceptions; it reaches much further and gives empirical judgments universal validity.

Experience (n.) has ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠no hiatus — no gap, no leap, no chance, no fate; nothing can enter it that proves a void or permits one as part of empirical synthesis.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the X outside the concept on which empirical synthesis rests: weight is not in the concept of body, but experience shows it always connected with the other marks.

Experience (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠told apart from dreaming only by the lawful connection of appearances; let a lawless freedom loose inside nature and that mark would largely disappear.

Experience (n.) never ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠fully satisfies reason: every answer it gives begets a new question, proving the insufficiency of all physical explanation.