My statement that your claim is not the case is proved in the reference. The only thing that has to do with me, is I know where to look for the refuta...
Meaningless is one way to put it. Concepts are representations of the understanding, arising spontaneously from pure thought. To say, then, the thing-...
Ya know….everything from the output of our sensory devices, to the input to the brain, and even through some of the regions of the brain itself…..we h...
Then why not let Nature be the causes the thing that appears. That way, we can get away with saying the appearance is caused by the thing. We don’t kn...
Those existences….more accurately termed transcendental conceptions…..are listed under something very much other than the thing-in-itself. To be fair,...
Not here, no, but there are objections, which was what I actually implied. And it is true, if one doesn’t hold with transcendental philosophy and all ...
Been the bone of contention since 1781, hasn’t it? Why have something necessary for this one thing, but about which nothing can be known? If nothing c...
While we cannot conceive of things entirely askance from any empirical intuition, these are merely representations belonging to the internal human sys...
The root of our discussion is here, from pg 12, with which I disagree: Then, from pg. 16, in which I disagreed with #1: Now, because the second effect...
In any relational environment, such must be the case. In order to dismiss the distinction, the conditions by which it is necessary must be dismissed, ...
It’s actually impossible, no matter what -ism is assigned to the idea. While it may be the case we alter the state of affairs in Nature with highrise ...
A193 doesn’t relate to the paragraph title you gave, which is found at A538. And I couldn’t come up with a reasonable connection between A193, A538 an...
I’m sorry for not presenting an argument sufficient enough to prevent being so badly misunderstood. “…. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it w...
Actually, it doesn’t. Looks like you’ll need some sort of self-generated epiphanic episode to catch the philosophical drift. But, as I said, most folk...
All good, except…. 1. The thing-in-itself is not that which appears. As I said, it is “-in-itself”. In German, it is ding an sich, which some translat...
Our impressions are not of the things-in-themselves; they must be of things, otherwise we couldn’t say where such impressions come from. Like here: “…...
Yes, an altogether fascinating appendix to The Analytic of Principles. It solidifies what some consider the gibberish of that preceding book. Kinda fu...
HA!!! I consider myself warned. Yes, regarding monads. “…. And so would it really be, if the pure understanding were capable of an immediate applicati...
Yeah, my bad. I get a little carried away sometimes. Nevertheless, and despite Kant’s apparent textual contradictions, there are entries where the equ...
I left off the part of your post which parted ways with CPR. Our impressions cannot be of the things in themselves, else they wouldn’t be in themselve...
THAT’S what I hoped to hear. I might insist images or words, or the irreducible seeming of them, just IS cognition, presupposed in meaning. Bu this is...
Cool. I get that. I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they u...
I get your point, but it can’t be a dialogue. It’s just the brain keeping you informed that it’s still working. Won’t ever let you know how it does wh...
Close enough. If anything, the primary consideration is worthiness, not happiness. It is possible, and often the case, happiness occurs but worthiness...
Oh dear. Correlationism. Yet another “Kantian catastrophe”!!!! Fascinating, innit? To save ourselves from ourselves, we should understand it’s “…entir...
After all the metaphysical reductionism, desire is a mere want, the satisfaction of which is anything sufficient for it, hence, contingent. A desired ...
Right off the bat, maybe I shouldn’t comment, being more a subjective moralist than a normative ethicist, but one thing that stands out in my mind, as...
Descartes, however infamously, wanted mental substance to be that to which certain attributes are known to belong, in order to distinguish from extend...
They in fact do ignore, because there is none. Might you be confusing, or co-mingling, the nature of, which can ignore the empirical, with the applica...
I’ll grant the “best explanation” is a condition of the epistemological process, in that some knowledge is either affirmed or denied by it. But the qu...
Whoa. There’s some serious paralogisms you got goin’ on right there. Well done, I must say. Not so sure about what the conclusions might be, but that’...
Consider me as one of those physicalists that won’t deny that the world might contain, as you say, many items that at first glance don’t seem physical...
That deduction is for necessity and universality, rather than that which is either or both. The application of these is to experience, but not the der...
The possibility is given by showing how an empirical deduction doesn’t work. The justification is given by the demonstration of their place and purpos...
The greatest danger to pure reason is reification, the blaming of reason for doing, or the blaming for failure in not doing, this or that merely becau...
“….if a deduction of these conceptions is necessary….” “….an explanation of the possession of a pure cognition….” He doesn’t. There’s no need, no reas...
“…. Among the many conceptions, which make up the very variegated web of human cognition, some are destined for pure use à priori, independent of all ...
Not a whole lot, truth be told. You’ve presented a worthy argument for a specific theory, blessed it with a Kantian foundation, but….. ….basing metaet...
I shall consider myself vindicated. So on the one hand you’re offput cuz you gotta do some reading, and on the other you’re missing the point that the...
Comments