The second metaphysical argument maintains that it is possible to imagine nothing in space, but impossible to imagine no space.
It seems to me that no serious argument can be based upon what we can or cannot imagine; but I should emphatically deny that we can imagine space with nothing in it.
You can imagine looking at the sky on a dark cloudy night, but then you yourself are in space, and you imagine the clouds that you cannot see. Kant's space is absolute, like Newton's, and not merely a system of relations. But I do not see how absolute empty space can be imagined.
There is a somewhat analogous fallacy as regards what is conceived. Hylas maintains that he can conceive a house which no one perceives, and which is not in any mind. Philonous retorts that whatever Hylas conceives is in his mind, so that the supposed house is, after all, mental.
Hylas should have answered: "I do not mean that I have in mind the image of a house; when I say that I can conceive a house which no one perceives, what I really mean is that I can understand the proposition 'there is a house which no one perceives,' or, better still, 'there is a house which no one either perceives or conceives.'" This proposition is composed entirely of intelligible words, and the words are correctly put together. Whether the proposition is true or false, I do not know; but I am sure that it cannot be shown to be selfcontradictory.
Some closely similar propositions can be proved. For instance: the number of possible multiplications of two integers is infinite, therefore there are some that have never been thought of. Berkeley's argument, if valid, would prove that this is impossible.
I raised a similar point about this same issue here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11642/the-critique-of-pure-reason-discussion-and-reading-group — darthbarracuda
I don’t see any problem in imagining the empty space in my coffee cup. — Present awareness
If there were no things in empty space, then empty space itself, would not exist. — Present awareness
I guarantee I'm not who you had in mind. I get the feeling that Kant was good at coming up with ideas people can chew on without ever really tasting. It seems like Russell was suggesting that perhaps it's time to spit out the gum and get onto something that can be right or wrong or otherwise progressed. We gave it a hundred years; the morality bit was good, but time to move on. At times I wonder how much was window dressing just so the church can feel like he wasn't a threat.So, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in Kant, like Mww, can help me out here (though of course anyone else is free to help) with the question in the title. — Amalac
I should emphatically deny that we can imagine space with nothing in it.
However, in the space above the table in front of me there is no apple. — RussellA
It must be completely dark in there. — SoftEdgedWonder
But can you actually visualize, in your mind's eye, there just being darkness? When I try to do that, I can't help but also imagine space as having edges of another color. — Amalac
What color has space? — SoftEdgedWonder
That's because your eyes have edges. Space can be closed, finite, and without edges. — SoftEdgedWonder
Therefore, if this infinite space is the same as the empty space to which Kant is refering, then I can't imagine it being empty, in fact I can't even imagine it not being empty. — Amalac
Black is the color of an object (or the it). It refers to an object. Space is no object. — SoftEdgedWonder
Then in that space of pure darkness, there's a black object, and therefore that space is not empty, right? — Amalac
The objects have no color. Only when connected to our minds they have color. — SoftEdgedWonder
Kant's space is absolute, like Newton's, and not merely a system of relations.
So if you imagine there being nothing in the table, then space would still not be empty — Amalac
So, if I can imagine "a space" of 1m size with nothing in it, there is no reason why I cannot imagine "a space" of 1km size with nothing in it, or "a space" of 1 light year size with nothing inside it. In fact, there is no reason why I cannot imagine "a space" of any size with nothing in it. — RussellA
As we are born with an innate concept of "red" — RussellA
Kant is not saying that we don't observe the world (as he uses the words "sensed externally" and "intuition"), but he is saying that what we think we observe is determined by the innate nature of our brain.
Kant wrote: "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings. Critique of Pure Reason (A26, A33) — RussellA
Regardless of the degree of correspondence with any "space" existing independently of us, as we are born with an innate concept of "space", it would be impossible for the brain to ignore something that was a part of it's own structure.
In this sense, it is "impossible to imagine no space" — RussellA
Regarding Russell, who correctly denies the possibility of imagining space with nothing in it, for to do so is to imagine the non-existence of that which contains the subject thinking space as empty of all things, a contradiction, Kant stipulates that by objects space is thought to be empty of, are those external to he who is thinking, from which is derived the principle that space is no more than the necessary condition by which objects relate to each other as such, or, relate to us as mere phenomena. — Mww
in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is, to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent them not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in separate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation....” — Mww
In fact, in “The Metaphysical Principles in the Foundations of Natural Science”, Kant refutes Newton’s iteration of both absolute time and space, which ironically enough, predates Einstein by a century, and even though Einstein had precious little appreciation of Kant, at least in some respects. — Mww
Anyway....hope this helps. — Mww
space with nothing in it — Amalac
wouldn't that refute Kant's argument that we can imagine nothing in space — Amalac
Or did Russell misinterpret what Kant meant by “imagine”? — Amalac
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.