Wasn’t what I asked. What is it with people, who can’t maintain dialectical consistency. If a guy asks about a certain thing, but gets a response that...
Hmmmm…… He said Kant said: Our exposition therefore establishes (…) the objective validity… I said: The objective validity (…) is deduced He said Kant...
Yes, he did. One was the transcendental exposition, the other the metaphysical exposition. The former concerns objects thought, re: your example regar...
Ok. Nothing untoward about that. It’s a footnote, and says nothing about perception of space or that space can be an appearance. It just says space wi...
Not from my point of view. That something appears inconsistent and vague may be my fault, in which case reading between the lines just shirks the resp...
Yes, but to presuppose is to deduce, it is not to perceive. Then you must grant that space can affect the senses in the same manner as objects, which ...
It isn’t. No. The objective validity of that which relates the objects as separate from the perceiver, or as separate from each other, is deduced from...
Perception is an activity; space is a pure representation. In so far as space is merely itself a representation, and perception of representations is ...
Here is a perfect transcendental illusion: One intelligence puts forth a certain proposition, in which there resides in the subject a certain concepti...
Transcendent: one of two domains to which cognitions relate. Transcendental: that mode of pure reason by which certain modes of cognition are determin...
The explanation of the antinomies, the exposition of what they are, is A407/B434, wherein pure reason is concerned only with itself and the troubles i...
Find A491/B519. It will tell you what you want to know, but not what you should be asking, at least with respect to Kantian metaphysics in general and...
Inevitably ending in making of him something for which he would be in no position to affirm or deny. So what’s the point? What does it matter with res...
What would be the ground of making him anything but what he made himself? So a guy knows what TI stands for, then reads herein TI has nothing to do wi...
Your moderator’s move of some of the comments on here, to a different place on the forum. Usually that shows up as a clickable link, colored letters, ...
He stated without equivocation the principle of causality could not, why it should now be category of causality, and that it might, I have no idea. So...
What does it matter where it comes from? It’s fine, though. One inclined to “much prefer the phenomenological approach”, as you admit, isn’t likely to...
You can say what you like, but depending on the ground of the determinations by which you say anything at all, re: how you understand things in genera...
Actually, the thing-in-itself is both. “…. The estimate of our rational cognition à priori at which we arrive is that it has only to do with phenomena...
Best I could come up with, for the substance equivocation in Descartes, was Aristotle’s physics was still method of the day, re: pre-Newton. Dunno if ...
Good point, hence Kant’s attribution of “problematic” idealism to Descartes on the one hand, and his specificity of substance as a pure category on th...
Yeah, you said so yesterday, I think it was. Probably my fault for branching off, in that I think your “I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until ...
Yep, a mathematical proposition, to distinguish the principles of its origin. Which is why the distinction in principles. Mathematical propositions ca...
Ahh, but my good man, you initially made no mention of 12. All you stipulated was 5 + 7, in which…. “…. That 7 should be added to 5, I have certainly ...
In this case, that’s what I meant, yes. But it is a possible scenario where he already knows about the things in the basket, and because he knows that...
Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will k...
If that were the case, synthetic a priori cognitions would be impossible, from which follows the entire ground of transcendental philosophy fails. So ...
Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from ...
No word is ever spoken that isn’t first thought. To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. The simplest nature o...
Yep, provided one accepts the tenets of transcendental philosophy. That is not to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given ...
Yeah, sorry. A judgement is the synthesis of conceptions. A cognition is the synthesis of judgements. The use of one judgement authorizing only this c...
Of course there isn’t one. What is irrefutable, is the fact Kant writes most importantly on the critique of reason in its various forms, all of which ...
By what measure? By whose standard? I’d never be so bold as to call him, or deny to him, anything he wasn’t on record as calling himself, re: a dualis...
Of a sort, perhaps. On the other hand, if late-Enlightenment transcendental philosophy stands as a legitimate, albeit speculative methodological syste...
“…..I should have a reasonable hope of putting an end for ever to this sophistical mode of argumentation, by a strict definition of the conception of ...
Simply put, all concepts are from the understanding, hence always arise a priori. But it isn’t enough to class all conceptions as a priori when their ...
Hmmmm……most obviously, I suppose, objects are separated from concepts by definition, when the former is conditioned by space and time, but the latter ...
Ehhh….it’s defined well enough as a concept, but I’d agree it’s not well-defined as an object. Problem is, and hence the notion of transcendental illu...
Comments