Well I take it to be a response to:Yes, that's one possible interpretation. — John
Since that's where I am mentioning swimming, hence the idea of a pond in your response. If so, then what other meanings could it have given this context?In modern academic and popular culture circles, and I swim in none of those. — Agustino
Yeah, I'm aware of the refutation. But it's not a refutation of Berkeley, even if Kant thought he was. — The Great Whatever
True, but that we cannot even possibly understand how it could be otherwise is an indication that we have no reason to think it could be otherwise.As we find ourselves experiencing – but this 'finding ourselves' – the faculties we happen to have, for no discernible reason, are still potentially contingent, and Kant admits we can't even sensibly answer questions about what things would be like otherwise. This doesn't mean that he's showed such a necessity, only that he is committed to claiming we can't answer (or possibly even understand) certain questions.
Note that it's always necessary that given something is the way it actually is, it actually is that way. — The Great Whatever
Why did he call it synthetic unity of apperception then? I remember as being that which makes the self and the world possible.Are you wording this from the text itself? My memory of the unity of apperception has to do with the fact that it's only intelligible to have a thought insofar as one can at least in principle intuit that it is 'mine.' This is roughly the move made in the cogito as Descartes qualifies it. — The Great Whatever
Since that's where I am mentioning swimming, hence the idea of a pond in your response. If so, then what other meanings could it have given this context? — Agustino
True, but that we cannot even possibly understand how it could be otherwise is an indication that we have no reason to think it could be otherwise. — Agustino
Why did he call it synthetic unity of apperception then? I remember as being that which makes the self and the world possible. — Agustino
No he can't. A Pyrrhonist doesn't doubt in the absence of reason(s). He must have reason for that doubt, the mere logical possibility of it isn't a reason for doubting, because it's equally a reason for believing (and Kant has provided positive reasons in addition to that for believing it)And so no proof of necessity has been given. Note that the Humean Pyrrhonist can say the same thing. — The Great Whatever
Sure, I can agree with this. But again - this has nothing to do with Descartes unfortunately... if it had, then Descartes would indeed have been worthy of the name genius ;)But the two are, as I recall, deeply related. The unity of the world is related to the unity of the self. — The Great Whatever
But philosophical history ended with Hegel, so then Chomsky is irrelevant. Not worth studying, according to Hegel himself. So to study him would indeed be to stick to the smaller pond :-OIt's interesting to note that, under that interpretation, reason can be seen as either a larger ocean or a smaller pond. When the whole tradition is seen dialectically, as Hegel saw it, then it is certainly a larger pond. — John
How can you do that? :s I can never listen to philosophy while I do work - if I do that, then I don't understand anything of it. Is your work in the garden mostly planning work, or is it actual work in setting it up, or is it management work? If it's actual physical work, then maybe I can see how one can listen and understand something and do physical work at the same time. But for me, I tried many times to listen to philosophy lectures while writing, working, thinking, designing, and I end up not understanding anything of what I listened to afterwards >:OAlthough I did listen to a podcast featuring him, while I was hard at work maintaining a garden a while ago — John
I remember us having a talk with regards to Hegel and the end of history, and you telling me (after you told me I don't understand Hegel >:O ) that the end of history doesn't refer to an actual end of history, but rather to the completion of the revelation of Spirit in thought and in the world or something of that sort. But I may be wrong as well.Sure, if it's not too much trouble, I am curious as to what you are referring to. — John
'Unlike them?' I'm sorry, this is just totally ludicrous. This is the kind of ahistorical nonsense I'm talking about. — The Great Whatever
Again, epistemology is ancient. — The Great Whatever
it's not a refutation of Berkeley, — The Great Whatever
It's not 'laughable' that philosophers before Kant didn't deeply analyse the processes of reason. — Wayfarer
it was Kant who methodically and critically assessed the question. — Wayfarer
You're giving the distinct impression of not knowing what you're talking about. — Wayfarer
One cannot find the world without causality, but it's also true one cannot find causality without the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm really not going to stand for this, man. — The Great Whatever
He's generally credited for innovations that aren't his, and he was fundamentally a reactionary force against the subtler and more exciting British empiricsts. — The Great Whatever
You've given no reasons for anything you've said in this thread, beyond bald assertions, starting with: — Wayfarer
You've shown no insight into why Kant is even discussed, when challenged, you resort to derision then go off in a huff. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.