Kant

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Palumboism
Posts: 22
Joined: May 25th, 2020, 1:22 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Nietzsche

Re: Kant

Post by Palumboism » July 23rd, 2020, 12:22 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
March 31st, 2018, 1:22 am

It is neither easy nor enjoyable to read.

This is the best book recommendation I have ever seen.

I tried to explain to a friend of mine I was reading Philosophy. He wanted to know how much time I was spending on this activity, as if it was all just wasted time.

User avatar
Jorgen Pallesen
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Jorgen Pallesen » July 23rd, 2020, 11:20 pm

Ephrium wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 11:14 am
Now how shall I take Kant’s theory
As some mad skitzo ramblings, it's completely useless in modern settings, why not even billion dollar businesses doesn't want to hire philosophers for thinking and researching.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2122
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor1 » July 24th, 2020, 4:24 am

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. 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
You might start with stating one part of it to discuss.
You cannot expect decent advice from a question that spans the entire lifetime of a thinker.

Causations and JTB are also theories. Neither right or wrong.

User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 28
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: Kant

Post by Angel Trismegistus » July 26th, 2020, 5:15 am

Ephrium wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 11:14 am
...
Now how shall I take Kant’s theory
As a student of philosophy, it seems to me, you would be well advised to "take" Kant as you should take Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Leibniz, Spinoza, or any other canonical philosopher in the Western tradition, and that is as part of a 2500-year-long conversation which started in Ancient Greece and which may or may not have ended in the mid-20th-century Anglo-American Academy.

User avatar
Bluemist
Posts: 117
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Bluemist » July 30th, 2020, 4:49 pm

Ephrium wrote:
March 30th, 2018, 11:14 am
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
Since Kant was a theoretical physicist and a neo-Platonist it's possible to venture that although Kant was not a hundred percent right in all things he said, neither was he entirely wrong. In the least, Kant understood enough of Newton and Plato to raise some very good points.

One place to start might be his derivation of apparent phenomenal 'objects', whether these be personal or scientific, by the application of the mind to raw sensations of a postulated 'noumenal' world.
If you don't believe in telekinesis then raise your right hand :wink:

User avatar
Ephrium
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 1:20 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Ephrium » July 31st, 2020, 3:25 am

I finished half of CPR. Especially his thesis regarding space. Sadly I found counter arguments so strong that I do not bother about the rest. His thesis seems just a single opinionated piece which is utterly refutable.

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1364
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Present awareness » July 31st, 2020, 9:18 pm

To imagine the absence of objects, one may visualize empty space, but how does one visualize the absence of empty space? The absence of nothing, is a double negative which seems to be impossible, for how can something which is already not there, be anymore not there then it already is?
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Bluemist
Posts: 117
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Bluemist » July 31st, 2020, 11:53 pm

From the SEP article,
Kant wrote:Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation;
instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
SEP article wrote:Is space “real,” or is it “ideal” in some sense? Is it a substance in its own right, a property of some substance, or perhaps neither?
Is it somehow dependent on the relations among objects, or independent of those relations?
What is the relationship between space and the mind?
If you don't believe in telekinesis then raise your right hand :wink:

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1364
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Present awareness » August 1st, 2020, 12:32 am

Since space is not there, it is not objective and also because it is not there, it has no substance. Space is implied by objects which exist within space, so in that sense space is an idea in the mind. All things exist within space, including mind and yet space itself isn’t there. The not-there-ness of empty space is what allows room for that which is there.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Atla
Posts: 986
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » August 1st, 2020, 3:04 am

Kant wrote:
Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation
There's a double twist. Space, as it is naturally experienced by most people most of the time, like it was an absolute container, in which everything is located "within", is indeed not real, it's just a somewhat misleading way how the human experience is constructed. However, relational "space" is real.

User avatar
Ephrium
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 1:20 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Ephrium » August 1st, 2020, 3:40 am

Precisely. In my thesis I presented space as mere illusion merely an aspect. Not a thing. When there is a door, we just represent to ourselves the door. Once the door is not there there is nothing there, no space.

Post Reply