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.
This is the best book recommendation I have ever seen.
You might start with stating one part of it to discuss.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
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.
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.
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?
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.Kant wrote:
Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation
No. When the door is not there, there remains your apriori intuition of space which is presupposed by the possibility to even have an experience of a door. Space is a structural feature experience, and does not go away any more than math goes away when you close your book. It abides in you.Ephrium
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.
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
...[links omitted because this site will not let me post links]
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
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023