Random Philosophy

As we have already seen, let us suppose that practical reason can be treated like the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; therefore, the phenomena prove the validity of, in view of these considerations, the things in themselves. In view of these considerations, I assert, still, that the thing in itself constitutes the whole content for our judgements, as we have already seen. Our concepts are the clue to the discovery of, then, the thing in itself. As we have already seen, the architectonic of natural reason, in the full sense of these terms, can be treated like the objects in space and time; however, the Categories would be falsified. Our faculties are what first give rise to the noumena; therefore, the thing in itself would thereby be made to contradict, however, the discipline of human reason.

It is obvious that the Transcendental Deduction teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the phenomena, by means of analytic unity. By means of analysis, we can deduce that the transcendental aesthetic is a representation of, in reference to ends, practical reason. The phenomena constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it remains a mystery why, in particular, the Categories constitute the whole content of the phenomena. As is evident upon close examination, Aristotle tells us that, so regarded, the noumena exclude the possibility of the transcendental unity of apperception. On this matter, what has been said already should in any case suffice by itself.

Hume tells us that the phenomena are a representation of space; in all theoretical sciences, the transcendental aesthetic occupies part of the sphere of practical reason concerning the existence of natural causes in general. The architectonic of natural reason, for these reasons, exists in the phenomena. We can deduce that our sense perceptions are a representation of, in view of these considerations, our ideas, as will easily be shown in the next section. It is obvious that our a priori concepts exclude the possibility of the things in themselves. Since all of our faculties are disjunctive, what we have alone been able to show is that our judgements, as I have elsewhere shown, would thereby be made to contradict our ideas. Necessity is a representation of, as I have elsewhere shown, necessity. By means of analytic unity, the paralogisms are just as necessary as, by means of time, our experience. The transcendental aesthetic has lying before it the Categories.

In view of these considerations, I assert that the Ideal of natural reason (and I assert, consequently, that this is true) proves the validity of the Categories, since none of natural causes are disjunctive. I assert that the Transcendental Deduction, so regarded, depends on the architectonic of human reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. As will easily be shown in the next section, our sense perceptions, however, constitute the whole content of the Categories. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, it remains a mystery why the phenomena, in other words, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our understanding, they are just as necessary as analytic principles; as I have elsewhere shown, philosophy, by means of the Ideal of human reason, can be treated like the Antinomies. Yet can I entertain the thing in itself in thought, or does it present itself to me? For these reasons, our understanding (and there can be no doubt that this is true) is the clue to the discovery of the phenomena.

In natural theology, the noumena (and I assert, in natural theology, that this is the case) have lying before them our ideas. Our faculties constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori, yet practical reason, in particular, exists in the manifold. The transcendental aesthetic would be falsified; still, necessity teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, in accordance with the principles of the paralogisms of natural reason, our ideas. (Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a posteriori, natural causes are what first give rise to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.) To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our a posteriori concepts stand in need to the objects in space and time. What we have alone been able to show is that, insomuch as the architectonic of practical reason relies on the things in themselves, our experience has nothing to do with the objects in space and time, but the transcendental unity of apperception can not take account of the Categories. This distinction must have some ground in the nature of our understanding.

By means of analytic unity, let us suppose that the phenomena stand in need to natural reason; consequently, the manifold, indeed, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a priori. I assert that, on the contrary, general logic, by means of the Transcendental Deduction, is by its very nature contradictory. The Categories are just as necessary as the Ideal. (The reader should be careful to observe that our knowledge, indeed, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of natural causes.) The architectonic of human reason is the key to understanding human reason. Our concepts, however, are by their very nature contradictory, by means of analysis.

It must not be supposed that the Ideal is what first gives rise to, in accordance with the principles of the Categories, the Antinomies; certainly, philosophy can not take account of natural causes. By means of analysis, the manifold is the key to understanding our a priori concepts. In view of these considerations, the discipline of practical reason, in reference to ends, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, it excludes the possibility of analytic principles. Time has lying before it applied logic. Because of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and natural causes, natural causes would thereby be made to contradict the noumena.

It remains a mystery why, that is to say, the thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, in the case of necessity, the transcendental unity of apperception. In the study of our knowledge, our knowledge, so far as I know, is by its very nature contradictory. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, Galileo tells us that metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, exists in the objects in space and time. The architectonic of pure reason is what first gives rise to time. The Transcendental Deduction can thereby determine in its totality, as I have elsewhere shown, metaphysics. Because of the relation between the manifold and the noumena, the things in themselves abstract from all content of knowledge. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the reader should be careful to observe that, insomuch as the transcendental unity of apperception relies on the paralogisms, our faculties exclude the possibility of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, but the manifold can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our understanding, it is just as necessary as a priori principles.



This is a randomly generated philosophy just for you! No one else will get this wisdom! Try to make sense of it after few drinks! No our bot was not under GUI(Generating Under Influence)! If you kant understand it, don't say it is all kant(rubbish)!


This is awesome!

Get me a new one!