If you see empty bucket, then the bucket and space in and outside of it are all outside of you. But if you imagine or visualise empty bucket, then the bucket and space in and outside of it are all in your mind.Guess you didn’t think about the empty bucket, huh? I was kinda looking forward to your account of what kind of sensation you got from its apparent emptiness. — Mww
Well, there are clear quotes from CPR what Kant is clearly saying, which are contradicting what you are saying. I suppose you have read them. And I have explained about them too with the example of tree and triangle.Sorry, but I cannot find a justification that it isn’t exactly that. In other words, I find that is precisely what he’s saying. And not only that with respect to perception, but indeed, because the space in which the extension of things occurs cannot be thought away as can all its properties, it absolutely must reside in the subject himself. — Mww
the bucket and space in and outside of it are all outside of you — Corvus
You insist that this is a thread for Kant's CPR reading, but you are not even accepting what Kant was saying in CPR in plain English (translated of course).Wasn’t what I asked.
What is it with people, who can’t maintain dialectical consistency. If a guy asks about a certain thing, but gets a response that doesn’t contain anything about that thing…..what a farging waste of the guy’s time, I would think. — Mww
Kant had been clear about this point in the quotes. He "asserts space as Empirical Reality " for perceptions via sensibility. He then goes on making points on space as internal a priori necessary condition in the case of Transcendental Ideality. How much else could he have been clearer? I don't think the quotes are minor extracts. If you are reading CPR word by word, nothing is minor.Yet again, the relative obscurity has nothing to do with individual understandings. While it may be true there is no obscurity in the quotes, it remains, insofar as the quotes are minor extracts from a whole…. — Mww
You seem to be disregarding the other side of his points only seeing the one side.THAT should be clear to everyone. Well, actually, everyone who “….rises to the height of speculation….”. Which leaves aside, as you say, the so-called “vulgar”, who do not. — Mww
I am not sure why we are now looking into space for thing-in-itself, when we have been talking about space for the objects in the empirical reality.Break it down, and see if you find, as I did: We maintain the empirical reality of space…..if we look upon space as something that belongs to things in themselves. Which, of course, we don’t, insofar as how can we know space belongs to things-in-themselves when our knowledge is not and cannot be of them. — Mww
it is nothing as soon as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends. — Mww
I wonder if we are allowed to withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends. Kant would say, the condition is a necessary a priori condition, which is given as innate nature of human mind.Withdrawing it as that condition makes it nothing, and if it is nothing, to then declare it an empirical reality, is self-contradictory, and if it is self-contradictory it is immediately false, and the whole aesthetic argument falls apart. — Mww
It is in CPR, and Kant is propounding for the legitimacy of its operation when we work on Geometry or imagining a postoffice on the street contrasted to seeing an empty bucket.What is this alleged transcendental ideality anyway, and where in the bloody hell does it come from, and why MUST I have to admit to it. (Sigh) — Mww
He is also known to be inconsistent, hence requires the reading clubs suppose. :nerd:Some quotes are clear, others…..not so much. — Mww
He "asserts space as Empirical Reality " for perception via sensibility….. — Corvus
…..space for the objects in the empirical reality. — Corvus
That doesn’t relate to his maintaining the empirical reality of space? I couldn’t locate the exact wording he “asserts space as Empirical Reality” and highly doubt he would have capitalized it anyway, so I just figured it was your wording. — Mww
Space for the objects would be one, which applies to all the objects for the perceptual instances universally, I would think. The bottom line is, you cannot see empty bucket without space around it.You mean, like, space for this object, space for that object? Are you wanting the space an object is in to be as real as the object itself? How would that work? — Mww
He was not just saying, but he was asserting. — Corvus
The bottom line is, you cannot see empty bucket without space around it. — Corvus
Space in Transcendental Ideality case is for doing Geometry, and visualising a postbox in mind. In that case, it is in the form of a pure intuition. But seeing a tree in the garden is via your sensibility. You will always see a tree with space.Yes, he was, but to make the point that is not what it supposed to happen. Think of it as a minor antinomy. Something reason lets us do (think the empirical reality of space), before making us see that’s not the right way of doing it (space is not an empirical reality) but something else (space is a transcendental ideality in the form of a pure intuition) is better suited to explain what we want to know. — Mww
Here I am seeing an empty cup in front of me. There is space in the cup, and also around it. Without space, the cup wouldn't even exist, let alone be visible. If I was visualising the cup, not seeing it, then the space in the cup and around it would be a priori pure condition which made the visualisation possible.Nope, not the bottom line. I wasn’t talking about either of those things, yet you want to qualify something I was talking about, with something I wasn’t. — Mww
I find strange that anyone would insist that you see a cup in front of you, but the space is in your mind as a pure intuition. Space is what contains the universe and all the objects outside of you. :grin:What is it with people……. — Mww
Here is another quote from CPR in JMDM version.Yes, he was, but to make the point that is not what it supposed to happen. Think of it as a minor antinomy. — Mww
But seeing a tree in the garden is via your sensibility. You will always see a tree with space. — Corvus
If I was visualising the cup, not seeing it….. — Corvus
Here is another quote from CPR in JMDM version. — Corvus
We are talking Kant's CPR here. You cannot perceive a tree without space around it.A tree….with space. A tree with bark, a tree with leaves. A tree with branches, roots, cones/nuts. A tree with space? What does space do for the tree as those other properties do? — Mww
It is not about precedence, but it is about different type of perceptions.Man, are you gonna have fun wading through the schematism of the pure understanding, wherein visualizing takes precedence over seeing. — Mww
J M D MeiklejohnGood quote. What’s JMDM? — Mww
Not necessarily. Phenomena is external. You seem to have forgotten, that Kant said in the preface, all internal mental sense content comes from empirical experience.You do understand, right? That phenomena cannot be external? — Mww
If your space is internal to your mind, you would be saying, you are sitting in your mind.By external phenomena, he means those external things which become phenomena according to their sensations. Hence, because phenomena are internal, and space is the condition for phenomena, then space is internal — Mww
By "approximation", do you mean that the "soul" can be understood as a figure of speech such as "gravity" can be understood as a figure of speech? — RussellA
We are talking Kant's CPR here. You cannot perceive a tree without space around it. — Corvus
It is not about precedence, but it is about different type of perceptions — Corvus
I am not getting your point why you cannot see space when seeing a tree. Tree is occupying the space it is standing. Without space, existence is impossible. All the quotes from CPR I brought in were mostly about this point. Space is empirical reality's precondition for all the existence in the universe.Yes, we are talking CPR, and in which we find….we don’t perceive a tree in the first place. We perceive “an undetermined object” by its appearance to our sensibility. The undetermined object doesn’t obtain its name, which represents how understanding thinks it, until further along in its systemic process. So not perceiving a tree without space around it is just nonsense, from the perspective of strict CPR textual reference. — Mww
Visualising is active perception which is closer to imagination. You conjure up the non existing image into your intuition by imagining them. Seeing is visual perception with physical objects in front of you usually, and it implies passive perception. You perceive the objects without having to try to perceive them. They are different types of perception in terms of the availability and type of objects, and also the way of perception too.There is only one type of perception. What your intermingling with it, are apprehension, contained in sensibility when considered transcendentally, and apperception, also much further along in the systemic process. — Mww
My JMD Meiklejohn CPR is an old battered copy printed in 1959, and it is around 500 pages (well less than any other translated versions), but it seems written more clearly than the other translation versions. I like the Max Muller version too. I am not a fan of NK Smith version, but it seems to be the most widely used CPR. I am not sure what the GUYER version from Cambridge (the most recently published version) would be like.Crap. I forgot Meiklejohn had two middle initials. — Mww
I am not getting your point why you cannot see space when seeing a tree — Corvus
I see space all the time. The primary property of space is invisibility and emptiness. So space is substance which is invisible and empty. You are seeing an invisible object when you are seeing space. That is why you are mistaken to think that you see nothing, or you are not seeing it. But you are seeing a substance which is invisible and empty.The very idea of seeing space is logically contradictory, re: impossibility of receiving a sensation from the inside of an empty bucket, and just plain silly otherwise. WTF would space even look like when I see it? — Mww
You are seeing an invisible object when you are seeing space. — Corvus
If you are in space where it is not purely empty, then there would be all the molecules and dusts of tiny sizes will be floating in the space. If you had highly sensitive hearing, then you can hear them moving floating in the space. But because your naked eyes wouldn't be able to see them, the space will appear still empty, but the sounds of the molecules and dusts floating would be audible to you. But have you got highly sensitive hearing which can hear the super sonic noise? Guess not.OK. So can I hear space? — Mww
No no, just letting you know that you have been perceiving physical space all your life without knowing it. :)I’m beginning to think you’re pullin’ my leg here. — Mww
But hte point is that, i think the claim that those concepts are beyond human cognition, is a placeholder for 'beyond normal, waking cognition'. — AmadeusD
If you've experienced an altered state of consciousness, that conclusion (that a 'soul' is beyond comprehension) is perhaps best thought off as an approximation — AmadeusD
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.