Philosophy Discussion Forums

I have heard a lot about Kant and am a philosophy undergraduate. However, even after researching many areas, these scholastic papers do not seem to tell me whether Kant is correct or wholesale wrong. For instance even Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy just state what Kant’s viewpoint is

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/

They do not state whether it is rubbish or what

In contrast, other topics such as Causation in philosophy or Justified True Belief have more definite answers whether they are “right or wrong”

Now how shall I take Kant’s theory

Ephrium:

For instance even Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy just state what Kant’s viewpoint is
They do not state whether it is rubbish or what

You should dismiss anything that says that Kant is rubbish as rubbish. It should be realized what an enormous and difficult task it is to say what Kant’s viewpoint is, so difficult in fact, that you will not find general agreement. If you are to either accept or reject something Kant says you must first have a plausible explanation of what it is he is and is not saying. In my opinion, his most important contribution is in showing that perception is not passive, that how we see things is not determined simply by how they are but by how we are. Where I disagree with this is that I do not think there is a universal, unchanging structure of the mind.

There are, of course, so many other topics he addresses that making a general judgment by which the whole of what he says is dismissed as wrong is wrong.

Ephrium wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 11:14 am I have heard a lot about Kant and am a philosophy undergraduate. However, even after researching many areas, these scholastic papers do not seem to tell me whether Kant is correct or wholesale wrong.

If you are studying to be a philosopher, you are going to have to learn how to think for yourself!
One cannot say whether anyone is/was ever "wholesale" right or wrong.
Much of Kant's opinions have been refuted.
'Ancient' thinkers did not have the advantage of modern science (QM) to guide their 'philosophical' ramblings.
Science, all sciences, are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy!
A philosopher is conversant with cutting edge science, and even beyond!

If you are studying Kant, I suggest that you learn how to think critically and learn science (QM) and evaluate his opinions for yourself.

In contrast, other topics such as Causation in philosophy or Justified True Belief have more definite answers whether they are “right or wrong”

Well, if you understand how 'causation/creation' is impossible, and "justified true belief" is nonsense, then you are 'right'! *__-

Now how shall I take Kant’s theory

Kant, like everyone else, has a multitude of hypotheses and opinions and thoughts, there is no 'unified whole' to accept or reject.
It sounds like you have nor studied/read/understood his ideas yet, that you ask this question.
I can refute some of his opinions, but that is because I can evaluate them for myself, and support my analysis/refutation with logic, science.... and my .45! *__-

Read his work and try and understand it as best you can. I wouldn't rely on what others have written about Kant if you've not read him yourself.

Once you've read Critique of Pure Reason cover to cover, and tried your damn hardest to absorb it, then you should look to the thoughts of others. Often you'll find people have many opinions about Kant when they are doing no more than recycling the ideas of others who've read Kant rather than actually reading it themselves.

It's the most worn book on my shelf. It is neither easy nor enjoyable to read. IMO it is a must read if you're serious about improving your reading ability if nothing else.

If you take it on in a respectful manner you'll be referring to it for years to come I assure you. As a piece of analytic philosophy many regard it as the best. It is amazing to think that he could hold such things together in his head.

I have read through My University Guide, A companion to it, a thorough intro it it, The two Stanford articles and searched the web for other opinions.

The Critique itself more than halfway through

And very specifically the first half Most of it is about Space and time And how the things that are seen are first through us.

He gives a number of so called proofs which I do not know how to evaluate them. For instance, he claims The reason we can anticipate appearances is because these appearances are in us, something which I find fishy. Why could not the reason We can anticipate be because we are intelligent and the objects are outside us?

Of course there is his theses that space and time is only a human’s Ground of representation of the outside and inner world where these are nothing outside of us. Now what does physics tells us?

Which is the reason why I am here, to find if there is any consensus on his theories

Ephrium:

For instance, he claims The reason we can anticipate appearances is because these appearances are in us, something which I find fishy. Why could not the reason We can anticipate be because we are intelligent and the objects are outside us?

The appearance or representation in us are not the objects outside us. We can only know these objects in the way we represent them to ourself, that is, as ideas.

Of course there is his theses that space and time is only a human’s Ground of representation of the outside and inner world where these are nothing outside of us. Now what does physics tells us?

Physicists have not arrived at an agreed upon notion of space and time. Most are realists in the sense that they do not think they are merely ideas in the mind, but we should not simply dismiss Kant because of this. We are still dealing with how we make sense of things, with mathematical models rather than direct observations of space and time.

Which is the reason why I am here, to find if there is any consensus on his theories

Doesn’t one of the articles point out that there is not even consensus on what his theories entail?

Okay since there appears from feedback here and my research that there is no unanimous take on his theory, I will list one criticism one of his reasoning.

He claims we have Apodictic certainty that there cannot be no space BECAUSE space is the ground of our representation. Now I question, why can’t our so called apodictic certainty be due to that space itself cannot be absent and we judge it correctly rather than it due to being our so called ground? For instance two parallel lines shall not meet is not because the lines are part of the ground of the basis of our red presentation but rather they cannot meet because in reality they cannot meet!?

Page reference?

What you've written above seems to be the contrary nature of understanding that Kant does his hardest to cut up into manageable pieces.

I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of the impossibility of imagining anything without "space." He was essentially continuing the dualistic problem exposed by Descartes and feeling out its contrary nature.

Also, two parallel lines exist, abstractly or otherwise, only within space (abstractly or otherwise.)

When I read I kept encountering references to A or B something. Why does it not show up in my Kindle? And if I quote it here by referencing % is it okay

The transcendental Aesthetic First section on Space (B37) Points one and two

From the Noema there is a downward or upward emergence. With the emergence of the observer a duality occurs and the negative existencials originate the paradoxes. As such, the Apeiron is not the Noema but it could have a negative existencial if ( like some) have predicate Noematas. Therefore infinity existence and infinity non existence are the same. The Noema and the Apeiron are the same as the One. Change, Time and Space and the Noema as the fourth dimension. This which is changing (emergence) may be the next irreducible reality. The materialistic view or the dualistic nature of our reality. The operational mode of predication sets upon the confines of what is… and what was: an original high energy… the more energy the more freedom. This is true to noein. Infinite freedom.

Ephrium:

For instance two parallel lines shall not meet is not because the lines are part of the ground of the basis of our red presentation but rather they cannot meet because in reality they cannot meet!?:

But they can meet depending on the topology. On a two dimensional plane they do not meet, but twist the paper and they do. Our representations of space have their topologies when we factor in such things as gravity.

Now I question, why can’t our so called apodictic certainty be due to that space itself cannot be absent and we judge it correctly rather than it due to being our so called ground?

If we had no idea of space, that is, if we could not represent it, we could not represent the relation between things or their location. An animal with two dimensional rather than three dimensional sight does not represent space in the same way as we do. What would our concept of space be like if we only saw in two dimensions? would we have to figure out depth via experience? Could we do so if the mind was not able to do so a priori?

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 4:51 pm

Now I question, why can’t our so called apodictic certainty be due to that space itself cannot be absent and we judge it correctly rather than it due to being our so called ground?

If we had no idea of space, that is, if we could not represent it, we could not represent the relation between things or their location. An animal with two dimensional rather than three dimensional sight does not represent space in the same way as we do. What would our concept of space be like if we only saw in two dimensions? would we have to figure out depth via experience? Could we do so if the mind was not able to do so a priori?

Did I say we have no representation of space? The relevant section is Transcendental Aesthetic B37 points one and two. Someone quote it here

Kant claims we are not able to represent no space while we are able to represent no object. Somehow this leads to the conclusion space is an intuition in us.

I am merely counter claiming why could it not be the case we are not able to represent “no space” because of some logical reason that there cannot be no space rather it being due to an intuition in us? Just like Decartes mentioned he cannot imagine a four sided triangle

Ephrium:

The relevant section is Transcendental Aesthetic B37 points one and two. Someone quote it here

How’s this?

Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities [wirkliche Wesen]? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all? (A23/B37-8).

I am merely counter claiming why could it not be the case we are not able to represent “no space” because of some logical reason that there cannot be no space rather it being due to an intuition in us? Just like Decartes mentioned he cannot imagine a four sided triangle

Sorry I misunderstood you. Let me make sure I have it right by putting it in the form of a proposition: Perhaps there is a logical reason why there must be space, and it is for this reason that we cannot represent the absence of space.

Do you mean logical a priori? Or do you mean something about time as an actual entity that would logically prevent it from not existing? If the former, are you suggesting that such a reason would mean that space is a concept rather than an intuition? If it is a concept it is not just like the case of a four sided triangle. We know by definition that a triangle has three sides. Space has no definition by which we can determine that “no space” is logically impossible.

Kant’s concern is transcendental: the condition of the possibility of appearances. (A24/B38-9) If space were a concept but not a universally agreed upon concept how could it stand as the transcendental condition of the possibility of appearances? If it is a physical entity there is still the question of how it is represented.

The narrative of negative existencial is an intuition. This “intuition” is within the realm of the human brain. It is required to be human. No doubt, humans live in a three dimensional Cartesian environment so contemplating this intuition requires a fourth dimension. Quaternions are needed for a proof. The rotation sequences in a three dimensional space will be much like a bird flying or for some a mosquito buzzing in a room. What is: A built in system of high energy particles and also an innate noema. The idea of intuition moves the designs of reality. So, the question: Is fiction a negative existencial?
Nothing compares with the mechanisms packed in the brain of a mosquito buzzing around doing effortless calculations to points in the fourth dimension. To me, existencial negatives require a bigger brain. Enter Kant -ϴ