Are irrelevant until (such time of) the manifestation. The proposition was emphasising the time factor.A possible existence and its possible phenomenon may be irrelevant at a certain time, but time isn’t something to be ignored in general. Contingency in empirical knowledge mandates successions in time, so….. — Mww
Of course not, but it was to make the point that the alternative is not always the case.But that isn’t the system as a whole. It is human nature so want to know, and for that the whole system…..whatever it may be…..is a prerequisite. — Mww
How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it?Nature is the totality of all that is possible independent of whatever intellect receives it. — Mww
I would suggest that concepts such as rough and smooth are innate and pre-exist any phenomena subsequently experienced. — RussellA
you hear the sound, but don’t know whether it’s a firecracker or the tailgate on a dump truck. — Mww
For practical experience, true enough. Phenomena always antecede the conception, but they certainly do inform the concept. — Mww
pure logic, antecedes the phenomenon. — Mww
Is the suggestion here that without the concepts that allow phenomena to cohere in the understanding, we wouldn't actually intuit (in the Kantian sense) anything of any comprehendable nature? — AmadeusD
Would you accept that even in that case, the objects exist, we just have no access to even their indication? — AmadeusD
without concepts that allow phenomena to cohere in the understanding, we wouldn’t actually cognize anything at all, as made clear here: — Mww
in which the major is (1.)the understanding of the manifold of conceptions related to an object, the minor is (2.)the judgement regarding the compatibility of the synthesis of those conceptions to each other, and reason (3.)concludes the validity of that synthesis with respect to those already given — Mww
It sounds absurd that you can reason on something which is independent of whatever your intellect received. — Corvus
Could you please elaborate? — Corvus
How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it? — Corvus
Nature is the totality of all that is possible independent of whatever intellect receives it. — Mww
If something was independent of experience, then it would be A priori. But if something was independent of intelligence, then would it be also A priori? Well, then we wouldn't know what it would be. I wasn't sure on that. And your claim, that we don't prove, but reason on it sounded not making sense, because we don't know whether it were A priori or Thing-in-Itself, or some unknown empirical object.How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it?
— Corvus
….makes no sense to me, and my…. — Mww
I wasn't meaning to deny existence because we are not receptive of a thing, but rather was saying that having a concept of something doesn't warrant its existence of it.…..seems to have made no sense to you. I meant by the proposition that just because we are not receptive of a thing is not sufficient warrant for us to den its existence. Whereas, if we were to deny the existence of that which is a cause of our sensations, we contradict ourselves. — Mww
I wasn't meaning to deny existence because we are not receptive of a thing, but rather was saying that having a concept of something doesn't warrant its existence of it. — Corvus
No prob, but it goes without saying…..any comment on Kant is only an opinion at least, and a best guess at most. I mean, when you come across sentences half a page long, you’re bound to miss the mark sooner or later. — Mww
Which has non-philosophers like me wary of even trying to make sense of him….. — Tom Storm
Are there readings of Kant by academics you consider to be wrong or misconceived? Are there schools of Kant? — Tom Storm
Schop's reading. — Tom Storm
The question he has is somewhat similar to mine.................his question is Kant's use of the word 'experience' with regard to delineating between 'understanding' and 'intuition'. He is asking why Kant thought he could get away with the premise that het two are necessarily distinct and why, with regard to Humean/Leibnizian alternatives, he thought it could not be argued against. — AmadeusD
In fact, an object is only its set of properties, in that if all the object's properties were removed, then no object would remain. — RussellA
I'm late to the party but ordering it today! I'll be sure to check the version :) — Daniel Duffy
take it that the Cambridge translation by Guyer and Wood is considered the best when considering a ratio between readability and accuracy to the original. — AmadeusD
Are things more than their parts? — 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.