There. The 'we can know' in the second statement refers back to 'it is known' in the first statement; to balance the knowing, not to modify the acting: the conclusion is valid through knowing.*“we can know we act unconditionally” (i assume since there are other ways we can act too). — KantDane21
There. The 'we can know' in the second statement refers back to 'it is known' in the first statement; to balance the knowing, not to modify the acting: the conclusion is valid through knowing. — Vera Mont
"to satisfy the formal validity of the argument, the 2nd premise should be expressed in modal terms: “we can know we act unconditionally” (i assume since there are other ways we can act too) — KantDane21
did he offer any other reason why it has to be stated in modal terms? — jancanc
If anything is an appearance it is known conditionally;
We know we act direct and unconditionally;
Therefore, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21
The argument (taken from Fred Bieser — KantDane21
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.