Common interpretation, that. A template impressed on the world to which it must conform. I would rather think a priori reason is the mold into which t...
In context, I am the non-academic, therefore it is I whose criticism is quite toothless. That is not to say I don’t read, and appreciate the intelligi...
That was a great introduction. Although I couldn’t find when it was written; apparently, Pogson-Smith wasn’t famous enough for a wiki page of his own....
Children do not construct those concepts by adding sensation....agreed, absolutely But if it is meant that the child does construct those concepts by ...
Yes, and raises a very subtle point of Kantian metaphysics: it isn’t what we know, but how we know it. OK, so as the theory goes, there exist a priori...
Yes, I suppose. We talk usually in the form, “We think....”, “You know...”, “I am....”, and so on, which makes explicit a subject/object dualism in ge...
My understanding of the alleged transcendental pretense is that fundamental subjectivity is a license for arrogance, or, that because there is a commo...
I submit Kant means by universal, anywhere there is a human employing those principles in the same conditions under which they were imposed a priori. ...
That may all well be, but it bears keeping in mind that peope don’t think qua think, in language; people think, meaning the private subjective rationa...
The system is complete in itself; the content of the system is predicated on experience, yes. And it really doesn’t matter what name a theory subsumes...
Cool. Thanks. I admit to not thumbing far enough, or thumbing right over it. I lost my place in answering your question. Are you ok with the responses...
I appreciate your familiarity with the subject matter, and your arguments. That things in themselves are only thought is correct, but everything a hum...
Agreed. The point being, the manner it which it became an illusion. I categorical reject the symbolism implicating the thing-in-itself should equate t...
Linguistic convention says there are basketballs out there; transcendental idealism says there are objects out there only called basketballs because t...
—————- —————— I still don’t see how my argument, that paragraph ending in things-in-themselves are unknown to us, is wrong. Your “But if we consider.....
True enough, actually. But, man......those paragraph-long sentences.....I have to start over by the time I get to the end of some of them, I swear. Bu...
Understood, and all well and good. Some groundwork, if I may: Thought. A thought. Full stop. No ways and means, no object, no terminology. Just a spli...
FYI, and of no particular import, Kant demonstrated the refutation of Newtonian absolute space and time (1786), advanced the first iteration of the ne...
You continue to confuse, or equate, the knowledge of a thing with the existence of it. A thing to be known must exist, but a thing that exists may not...
Correct. We can shorten thing-in-itself to just object or thing, without changing anything but the words. —————- No. Things outside us are real physic...
Your (...) leaves out the most important part, that act having its own special name. “.....giving the name of noumena to things, not considered as phe...
All of mine you quoted above is assembled from my quote below: “...objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects, ar...
This is a classic misunderstanding of thing-in-itself. “In-itself” is a knowledge claim, not a claim of condition. We label objects as thing-in-themse...
Yes, what effects us from outside corresponds exactly to what we sense. That which effects our eyes exactly corresponds to what we see; that which eff...
No, I do not grant that what we perceive are representations. Or, if I said something to that effect, then I shall go beat myself up. One needs to kee...
“...But there is one advantage in such transcendental inquiries which can be made comprehensible to the dullest and most reluctant learner—this, namel...
“...objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects, are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility...” ...
Kant is an indirect realist, if such be synonymous with being a representationalist. His entire academic catalog is dedicated to a representational hu...
It exists. It must, or we would have no perception of it. Dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. depends on how alien they are. ————- Thanks. I think I will, doncha...
If this is true, we have no account for justice, beauty, mathematics, or anything that does not have an object strictly of its own. We think justice o...
Oh hell, I can always say more. A-hem...... There are basketballs out there, there are no basketballs in my head. Therefore it is absolutely impossibl...
Yes, give up for things-in-themselves out there (waves at the world), but not for how we think about them in here (taps his forehead). ———————- Yes, r...
Yes, as opposed to objects of reason. Objects of reason are, for example, the categories, numbers, geometric figures. Things not naturally residing in...
This is correct. But one can see what Kant really meant to get across if we merely read it as, “...what Kant calls the thing-in-itself, or, what Kant ...
He does put them side by side, at first glance, a confusing manner, such that it appears they are meant to be the same: “....An undetermined perceptio...
You quoted me talking about noumena/thing-in-itself, but here you’re talking about phenomena and thing-in-itself. Be that as it may, phenomena, while ...
Don’t know how he could say so, given it would seem pretty hard to define a thing when we know absolutely nothing about it. The thing-in-itself is not...
No. They are used in conjunction with each other to show they should be treated the same way. Treating them the same way does not make them the same t...
The problem is that people attribute to noumena some reality it doesn’t have, and the thing-in-itself is given no reality when it is actual quite real...
If there is one object affecting the sensibility of two similar rational agencies, all else being equal, each will cognize “table”, iff each have expe...
“...Suppose now, on the other hand, that we have undertaken this criticism, and have learnt that an object may be taken in two senses, first, as a phe...
Comments