Synthesis

In this post, I am going to (hopefully) clearly lay out what synthesis is and what constitutes it. Since I unfortunately read Husserl's conception of synthesis before I read any Kant, I am having a difficult time not conflating the two, which is only further confusing an already confused mind. I am going to break down one sentence in particular and italicize words the definitions of which confuse me and define the words as I go.

In Book I, chapter I, section 3, §10 of the Transcendental Logic, Kant says, "By synthesis...I understand the act of putting different representations together, and of grasping what is manifold in them in one [act of] knowledge."

Manifold: Kant has yet to strictly define this. It usually seems to be referring to the manifold of appearances, but here it is operating differently, i.e. as an adjective instead of a noun. In order to figure this one out, I'm going to try to define knowledge first.

Knowledge: Kant says that knowledge, properly called, is gained through the understanding, and the understanding brings synthesis to concepts (p.112). Kant goes on two paragraphs later to list three criteria for the obtainment of knowledge. The first criterion that must be given is the manifold of pure intuition. The second is the synthesis of this manifold by means of the imagination. The third and last criterion that must be given is the concept(s) that give pure unity to the synthesis and that consist solely in the representation of this synthetic unity. One act of knowledge, then, comprises the manifold of pure intuition, the synthesis of said manifold, and the concepts that give unity to synthesis.

Unfortunately, this didn't get me anywhere with the manifold confusion.

Manifold: the conception of many in adjective form. Maybe Kant means: "...and of grasping what is multifaceted in them in one [act of] knowledge." Probably not. Maybe: "...and of grasping what is different-occurrences-of-an-object-with-many-properties in them in one [act of] knowledge." This is also probably incorrect, but it's what I think when I read this sentence.

My main concern at this point is to highlight the difference(s) between synthesis and pure synthesis. Kant says that the understanding brings general synthesis to concepts (the ... was actually, "in its most general sense"), but later says that concepts bring unity to pure synthesis. Ergo, there is some kind of difference. The quote first expounded refers to synthesis in its most general form, and later Kant says that, "Pure synthesis, represented in its most general aspect, gives us the pure concept of the understanding." Now we are presented with the distinction between pure concepts and normal concepts. As of right now, I am of the opinion that pure concepts are the categories and normal concepts are something like universals or abstract ideas.

Synthesis, then, is the "result of the power of imagination," something that is formed into concepts by the understanding.

Pure synthesis also gives us concepts, but they are pure concepts.

The only point of confusion arising from this distinction is Kant's third criterion for knowledge. Here he refer to concepts that give unity to pure synthesis. For now, at least, it seems that synthesis is both formed into concepts and arises from the unity of concepts, whether they be the same concepts or different ones.

I am not sure if this is correct, or if it helps anyone, but I think it helped me separate Husserl and Kant's syntheses sufficiently. If anyone has corrections, suggestions, or thoughts, please share.