Can anyone explain in few laic terms the "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant?

Question

I know he needed a volume to explain it, but maybe a short synopsis is possible though.

Answer 1

1) You have basic innate knowledge - mainly, the concepts of space and time. (Synthetic a priori)
2) You can add on to that knowledge by observing the world around you. (Synthetic a posteriori)
3) You can also add to your knowledge by deducing things from stuff you already know (Analytic a posteriori)

The basic a priori sciences of geometry and mathematics are derived from innate concepts of space and time. Geometry fits our idea of time, while the ideas of number comes from the idea of succession (3 follows 2, which follows 1, etc...)

In order to conduct science, the form of this knowledge is what we have to contend with. So science deals with stuff that can be ultimately modelled after geometry and mathematics. Stuff like how much, how long, for what length of time, where, etc... So this, to Kant, is perfectly justified knowledge as it all derives from the way we see the world from birth. It is also objective, since all humans understand space and time.

But then there is the critique of practical reason. People also want to know stuff like: Does God exist? Who am I really? Did time have a beginning? Is killing wrong? Etc..., Etc... For these things, we don't have empiricall certainty. Kant proves that we can succesfully argue one or the other of the answers to these questions equally, because we have no empirical concepts to fit them (This is the idea of placing thesis and counter-thesis side by side in the later part of the book).
This is where the Critique gets a bit strange. Kant basically says that if we have any reason at all to prefer one of these alternatives, that's the one we should choose. It's the 50 percent plus one rule, basically.
So for example, let's say the question is: Are we free? We can demonstrate we are not by saying we are the result of a series of causes. We can also demonstrate that we are, by figuring ourselves as the totality of what happened to us in the past and thus saying, that from that standpoint, we are free agents. So how do we answer that question? Kant would say we have to prefer to choose we are free, because morality is important. We need to be moral people. In order to feel moral, we need to feel responsible for our actions. Therefore, given that one or the other can be true, we choose to believe we are free and that morality therefore has meaning. Kant answers other such questions in a similar way and posits that there is a God, etc...
I have always personally thought that last part of it was spurious. Why not simply posit morality as a necessity? What need is there for the system to fit logically, especially if, as Kant states, there's really no way of knowing, one way or the other? I could equally posit that we are not free, but that we need morality anyway, because we are determined with that need built into us.

Answer 2

No, nobody can. Kant didn't write it so that some dude could come along and say with a few short laic words "oh, well what it's really all about is very easy". The only way to really get into the Kant is to read it and study it and any attempts at reducing it are going to be inadequate or inaccurate.

Answer 3

Kant is actually begging to get laid in the Critique of Pure Reason. He never did, hence The Critique of Practical Reason.

Answer 4

Try reading it for yourself,and submitting you own synopsis to your teacher.

Answer 5

I was going to try for it but realized I could not top yvanoseki.