I never asked you do thinking for me. I was trying to find out how on earth you came to the claim. The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them.Dunno what to tell ya, bud. If you can’t find the connection, or you think there isn’t one, that’s all on you. But I’m not doing your thinking for you. — Mww
The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them. — Corvus
What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims.Pretty much what I thought as well. There is no relation. The reference shows what god, freedom and immortality are, and from that, it is clear the thing-in-itself doesn’t relate to them. That’s the connection you missed. Which is sufficient refutation that the thing-in-itself was never used, as you claimed, “to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality”. — Mww
What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims. — Corvus
They are all transcendental objects. — Corvus
Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects — Corvus
Aren't they all transcendentally deduced objects? Please elaborate.No, they are not. One is so-called, the others are merely transcendental ideas, the conception of an object adequate for representing it, is impossible. — Mww
My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point.Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects
— Corvus
He did that, it was significant, but hardly his main interest. — Mww
Bro, WHAT?
But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Mww — AmadeusD
Just a word "God" doesn't mean that we are discussing Kant's Theology.It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus
but not because such things don't exist — fdrake
ut the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God — Corvus
his position means God is possible in the noumenal realm but that he does not posit his existence - whcih seems to be exactly what you're getting at here. — AmadeusD
My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point. — Corvus
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.