pointed out that in the CPR bodies exist in space and that we have immediate, non-inferential knowledge of them. — RussellA
the matter we experience depends on a source outside of the mind. — RussellA
thinking about the analogy of colour — RussellA
there has to be something in the world for us to be able to perceive something, but the something we perceive doesn't of necessity have to be the same thing as the something that caused our perception in the first place. — RussellA
If space wasn't real, then the garden bucket would be the same size as the Milky Way Galaxy. — RussellA
Space allows me to compare sizes — RussellA
Nevertheless, it is true matter depends on a source outside the mind, an external thing appearing to the senses. — Mww
Irrelevant. Color is just another sensation, given from an undetermined appearance..................................So you’re saying the something we perceive might not be the something that caused our perception. So what? — Mww
How do you get from the fact they are different sizes, that space is real? — Mww
If I think object, the extension of it is given. If I need not go beyond the conception of a body, I need not consider space. And because it’s an analytic judgement, true because of itself, there’s no need for the synthetic a priori judgment the pure intuition of space provides. — Mww
How do you get from the fact they are different sizes, that space is real?
— Mww
If space wasn't real, how could things be of different sizes? — RussellA
A proposition may be analytic or synthetic — RussellA
….he was apoplectic that Feder and Garve….. — RussellA
if the body is real then the space the body extends into must also be real. — RussellA
Maybe, dunno, but we’re not doing physics. We’re doing transcendental philosophy.
I don’t recall saying or implying that seeing was a property of space. Or anything, for that matter. — Mww
is irrelevant in Transcendental philosophy?You can see the body, but can you see the space? — Mww
If you accept, space is invisible emptiness which contains all the objects in universe, then you are seeing it, when you don't. Sense perceives invisible objects.More than irrelevant; incomprehensible. Vision needs that which appears, space does not appear, space cannot be a sensation, space cannot be real. — Mww
Kant is not talking about the space in empirical reality in CPR, but he seems mentioning its legitimacy in various places from presupposition. He is talking about space as intuited concept in TI to explain how Geometry and visualisation works. And whatever you are perceiving, they originate from the external objects.It can be said, however, space can be real in a different way than that which appears. Which is an entirely different philosophy on the one hand, and a separate science on the other. — Mww
Yes, hence his CPR.Nevertheless, whichever it is, reason is absolutely necessary for whatever the conclusions might be. — Mww
By second-handing the content of the original, the poster is merely holding with the opinion of the secondary author, rather than presenting his own in accordance with the actual reading of the text. — Mww
Please refrain from repeating yourself — Mww
As you say, on the other hand, the pure physicalist may insist the extension of objects, and the relation of objects to each other, is impossible without the necessary condition of empirical space. But in CPR no pure physicalist excuses are to be found, except the natural existence or possible existence of real things. — Mww
Sense perceives invisible objects. — Corvus
He is talking about space as intuited concept in TI to explain how Geometry and visualisation works — Corvus
It is true that in the CPR Kant writes that we have an a priori pure intuition of space — RussellA
Now all you gotta do is figure out exactly what that means, and how it reflects on the human cognitive system overall. — Mww
JMD Meiklejohn version CPR is only 500 pages long (the 2nd edition only). All the other versions are 700 - 800 pages because they combined the 1st and 2nd Editions into one book. — Corvus
Pure in CPR means "a priori".What does “pure” mean; what does “a priori” mean; — Mww
A tree is standing in the space and on the ground. For you to perceive the tree, the physical space must allow the particles of the light which reflected from the tree, to enter to your eyes. Without the physical space, the light won't be able to travel from the tree to your eyes making all visual perception impossible. So physical space in empirical reality has to be real existence.To think space empirically is not to think it as being real, but merely to think of it as that which contains the real, in order for the relations of things becomes comprehensible. — Mww
When empirical reality caused the representation to happen in the mind, but if the mind thinks it is sheer nonsense, then it is a problem of the mind.If the representation has no meaning whatsoever, to then talk of its empirical reality, is sheer nonsense. That Kant uses that wording, indicates he means something else by it. — Mww
It means….. — RussellA
It means….. — RussellA
Pure in CPR means "a priori". — Corvus
That objects don’t exist contradicts the human experience. — Mww
Kant mainly uses a priori to mean pure in CPR.Yes, but a priori is not necessarily pure: — Mww
It has nothing to do with pure or impure. It is a priori synthetic proposition.“…. “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience….” — Mww
Not sure if pure / impure has much to do with experience. If it does, it would be minor context.A priori carries the implication of universality and necessity; pure/impure carries the implication of the contingency of experience. — Mww
But please bear in mind that Kant thought some knowledge is both a priori and also a posteriori e.g. Physics.Kant wants it understood that by a priori, he means without regard to any experience or possible experience whatsoever. He just released himself from having to qualify the term with “pure” every time he used it, the word in the book’s title sufficing as the ground of the whole, the justification for the ground given early on in the text itself. — Mww
I’ve never seen 700nm. — Mww
It is nothing to do with pure or impure…. — Corvus
Not sure if pure / impure has much to do with experience — Corvus
But please bear in mind that Kant thought some knowledge is both a priori and also a posteriori e.g. Physics. — Corvus
the cause of their perception of the colour red was the wavelength of 700nm. — RussellA
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.