“….. the predicate B lies completely out of the conception A, although it stands in connection with it. (…) the latter add to our conceptions of the s...
I’ve said it before….you come up with the most interesting stuff to read. Hell, I read them when they aren’t even addressed to me. I’m inclined to sug...
You said synthetic a priori is a principle; Kant says synthetic a priori judgements are principles. Hopefully, it is merely your language use that dis...
I get it; sorry, I shoulda stayed away from ill-begotten attempts at humor. On agreeing with the difficulty in questioning the instinctive sense of re...
Ehhhh…..not never. Let’s be honest. 1964, it was. Historical precedent for me being wrong. I told my buddies those mop-haired caterwallin’ British pun...
It might be part of the issue, but I think the greatest divide is differences in understanding the overall intent of Kant’s text. I think my present d...
Where it all began, yes, but I reject that as nonsense, justification for it not found in the over-used reference. Kant’s synthetic a priori is the pr...
Over the course of seven days, you’ve included B276 in every single one of seven consecutive responses to my posts to you, but never say any more than...
One must not overlook the significance embedded in propositions such as, consciousness of determinations of existence in time. We don’t care, at this ...
In its simplest form, that which doesn’t require any explanation and without regard to any exceptions, we perceive things, and we think things. If the...
While that is the case, it is merely beside the point. It needs be shown why external objects as considered by the established idealisms of the day we...
HA!!! Mysterious forces. There’s some great stuff in your post here, Bob. I particularly note your “introspectively analyze my own thinking” and its r...
The removal/deletion of a single word makes your latest remarkably improved over the preceding. Kant’s use of internal/external experience has to be j...
The quoted section is only a synthetic judgement based on a pure a priori intuition. There are but two pure intuitions, space and time, operating a pr...
By transcendental exposition for the former, by transcendental deduction in the latter. Insofar as pure intuition relates to the form of objects of se...
Makes you wonder, donnit……~3b neuroconnections/mm3 in the human brain, yet we can only have one thought at a time….what are they all doing? Or, how co...
There shouldn’t be a report. Back or otherwise, re: objectively with regard to the impossibility of the physical exercise itself, or subjectively with...
As it should be, and does….. “…..the understanding which is occupied merely with empirical exercise, (…) is quite unable to do one thing, and that of ...
Because of the definition in play for the conception of reality, which is a category, having all the real as schemata subsumed under it, re: “….Realit...
The thing-in-itself is a purely logical concept, distinguishing the concept of the empirical thing as sensibility would have it, from the concept of t...
In experience, I can do nothing with, thus have no more than passing interest in, that which does not appear to my senses. For that of which I merely ...
Yes. It is necessary that some thing exists, which becomes the experience of, in this case, cup. The thing is necessary for human intelligence to have...
Well said. Otherwise is Hume’s “constant conjunction”. Never once have I put a cup in the cupboard, come back later and NOT found that cup just where ...
Too simplistic. For that which is real its existence is given; a real thing cannot not exist (necessity). For that which exists, whether or not it’s r...
I’m saying, the effect of objects on our senses is necessary, but not sufficient, for knowledge about them. It is necessary for the human cognitive sy...
C’mon, Bob. You asked if things-in-themselves are real for me, I said no (by definition), and now you say I said things-in-themselves don’t exist for ...
I considered that part irrelevant, insofar as we know nothing of a thing by its effect on our senses, except that is “…an undetermined something….”. T...
D’accord. ———— Hey….I got the R right. Thanks. ————- The quote is self-contradictory: ….objects of sense as mere appearance, yes; ….based upon a thing...
Relevant indeed. Existence questions are hard, and Kant among others, doesn’t bother with them. There’s a world, it’s really a world…..so what? World ...
I’ve seen that myself, but don’t remember, and couldn’t find, where I saw it. I thought Guyer/Wood’s marvelous intro, but, no luck. Anyway….good point...
Good enough superficially…. …..and superficially because reason cannot do in concreto claims, but is transcendental, which is itself either theoretica...
“…..which has always two aspects, the one, the object considered as a thing in itself, without regard to the mode of intuiting it (…), the other, the ...
So as to not facilitate solipsism and radical skepticism, yes, I agree with that. If the thing-in-itself is known to us as appearing objects, why is i...
A sense of mystery indeed. The raison d’etre for the first Critique was to first, reign reason in from its proclivity for seeking the unconditioned, a...
Real thing as opposed to apparent thing is a common misconception, yes, which makes the comparison by means of them, moot. But in light of this….. “…....
The thing in itself is the thing considered by reason alone. As the referenced quote says. Nothing independent of experience or possible experience ca...
YEA!!!! Make sense outside of what….my interpretation? Or outside of one work? The work under discussion is CPR, so there is no other work that matter...
I’m saying I think that’s what Kant wants understood. What do you think the thing-in-itself actually is, what concept is being represented by those wo...
True enough; I trust nothing I said implies otherwise. If it appears I did, I shall reconcile whatever it was with granting without reservation that t...
Odd, innit. The thing everybody does, in precisely the same way….because we’re all human….is the very thing on which not everyone agrees as to what th...
Notice in the text it’s “objects which affect our senses”, not thing-in-themselves. Which is to say things-in-themselves are not that which affects ou...
Your versions are fine, although I might insist every experience affects the condition of the subject. Agreed. Hence the new terminology in new philos...
While the case may be made that empirical knowledge is impossible without the experience of what the knowledge is of, but it is also quite often the c...
Close enough. Out of respect for our history, I won’t be so brash as to throw the ol’, much-dreaded “categorical error” at you, but rather, merely bri...
Comments