Kant acknowledged that a priori judgements come after experience. — Janus
I think Kant means the validity of a priori judgements are demonstrated by experience. — Mww
(You couldn't conceive of causality, for example if you had never experienced constant conjunctions of events or number if you had never experienced different objects). — Janus
To be the same is the logic of being the same. What else could it be, since it's not a physical relation? — Janus
We’ve been here before, and honestly, I can’t find anything to substantiate Kant’s acknowledgement as you’ve posited it. I’d understand if you’ve no wish to pursue this line of disagreement; to each his own, etc, etc..... — Mww
We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them. This, of course, is one of the explanations for the almost unfathomably deep counterintuitiveness of transcendental idealism, and also for the general notion of 'depth' with which people associate Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. Something akin to it is the reason for much of the prolonged, self-disciplined meditation involved in a number of Eastern religious practices.
We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions
I'd say two different things cannot be the same. — Janus
As to your 'force/ mass x accelaration example" is that a claim of identity or proportionality — Janus
Other examples might be cases of different descriptions of the one thing — Janus
I am sure I remember.....a priori judgements are independent of any particular experience, but not independent of experience in general. — Janus
(You couldn't conceive of causality, for example if you had never experienced constant conjunctions of events or number if you had never experienced different objects). — Janus
Weieieird.... — Hillary
A vase can't change into a fork because then the vase is not the vase anymore, unless the fork is a vase in disguise. — Hillary
I'm an electron! :wink: — Hillary
How can a vase change into a fork? It truly can't, lemme tellya! — Hillary
Long story short...we understand stuff because we’ve come equipped to do it, and one of the ingredients we come equipped with, is the idea of cause/effect. — Mww
Obviously, things we perceive must be possible, else we wouldn’t perceive them, but that doesn’t hold for things we merely think. — Mww
That's why their position doesn't make them different. — Hillary
That may have a mathematical meaning in the context of QM, but it has no logical meaning — Janus
It does. There are two electrons. In superposition. — Hillary
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.