Synthetic a priori judgments and Kant's response to Hume on induction.

This paper will make the case that we can find in Kant's Second Analogy a substantive response to Hume's argument on induction. This response is substantive insofar as it does not merely consist in independently arguing for the opposite conclusion, but rather, it identifies and exploits a gap in this argument. More specifically, Hume misses the possibility of justifying the uniformity of nature as a synthetic a priori proposition, which Kant looks to establish in the Second Analogy. Note that the focus on the paper is on Kant's identification of the form that a solution to Hume's inductive scepticism must take. In making this point, my paper will look to establish two lemmas: (1) Kant identifies synthetic a priori judgments as a means of justifying metaphysical knowledge in a way that circumvents Hume's dichotomy between matters of fact and relations of ideas; (2) the Second Analogy looks to establish the uniformity of nature of as a synthetic a priori proposition. However, my paper generally abstains from the question of the tenability of Kant's argument in the Second Analogy. Doing justice to this latter discussion would require more space than I am able to offer here. My paper therefore has a conditional bearing on the philosophical issue of inductive scepticism. If one believes Kant's Second Analogy to be philosophically cogent, then Kant offers a successful justification of induction against Hume's scepticism. If not, then at least one can still admire Kant's identification of the gap in Hume's argument, which, to a degree, can be exploited independently of Kant's system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]