Shane is using "experience" differently from me (I had this same conversation with Michael Pollak offlist). By "object of experience" he appears to mean "some object that is perceived, whether physical or mental," which is actually how Kant generally uses it. However, by "object of experience" I mean "something of which you are aware," this obviously including both space and time.
--- On Wed, 9/2/09, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> In fact for Kant those things would be examples of what
> he called the synthetic a priori. In his view
> knowledge of
> such things as the axioms of geometry or the laws
> of arithmetic constutute a priori knowledge, since
> we do not need experience to know these truths.
> But they are not analytic either, since Kant maintained
> that in none of these cases were based on having
> their predicates contained in the subjects (as
> was the case for propositions like "all bachelors
> are unmarried"). Therefore, for Kant these
> things were examples of synthetic a priori
> propositions and such propositions were
> the basis for any sort of viable metaphysics.
>
> Much of the history of philosophy over the
> past century has centered around debates
> over whether there is really such a thing
> as synthetic a priori, and if there is,
> how such a thing possible.
>
> Jim F.
>