cognition — KantDane21
"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance"
P- all cognition is of appearance.
Q- [there can be] cognition of noumenon. — KantDane21
My logic is very rusty, I have given it a shot below, but not sure if it is correct. feedback appreciated!
"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance" — KantDane21
"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance" — KantDane21
24
My logic is very rusty, I have given it a shot below, but not sure if it is correct. feedback appreciated!
"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance — KantDane21
1. (A → ~B) v (A & B)
2. (A → ~B) v ~(~A v ~B)
3. (A → ~B) v ~(A → ~B)
True — Srap Tasmaner
(1) is valid — Srap Tasmaner
one thing, in this argument (as such) we are dealing with an exclusive disjunction right?? — KantDane21
(P ∧ -Q) ⋁ (Q ∧ -P) — bongo fury
1. (A → ~B) v (A & B)
2. (A → ~B) v ~(~A v ~B)
3. (A → ~B) v ~(A → ~B) — Srap Tasmaner
B = x is a noumenon (and ~B = x is an appearance) — Srap Tasmaner
P ⋁ Q — KantDane21
P→ -Q
Q→ -P — KantDane21
I cognize something x. Cognition is a higher level function of the brain. I can cognize about x both as an appearance and a noumenon. — RussellA
(doesn't deny the conjunction of P and Q). Rather, it takes that denial for granted: — bongo fury
restatements of the original position -- if all cognition is of appearances, in that very case there can be no cognition of noumena (since noumena aren't appearances) — Moliere
Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance — KantDane21
Another route would be to note that Kant is apparently making a point about cognition — Srap Tasmaner
Is that what Kant is doing? Am I on the wrong track? — Srap Tasmaner
I am unsure whether the intention is to put the above passage into first order logic as it stands independently of Kant or into first order logic such that it agrees with Kant's philosophy. — RussellA
I'm also curious about the context now. Do you have a citation KantDane21 ? — Moliere
"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance" — KantDane21
But yes, mutual exclusivity of P and Q is needed — bongo fury
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.