BACK

interconnected *random kant*

* random kant *


To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our judgements have nothing to do with, as far as I know, our ideas, since knowledge of our a priori concepts is a posteriori. The Transcendental Deduction, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is the mere result of the power of the architectonic of pure reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As is evident upon close examination, it is not at all certain that the manifold may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, however, pure logic. Our understanding teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, with the sole exception of the Ideal of natural reason, our concepts, by virtue of practical reason. What we have alone been able to show is that, natural causes are the mere results of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Philosophy, then, has lying before it our faculties, and the discipline of natural reason exists in space.

It must not be supposed that, so far as regards philosophy, the Ideal of human reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, therefore, the objects in space and time, but the objects in space and time can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the manifold, they are what first give rise to speculative principles. As is evident upon close examination, our ampliative judgements exclude the possibility of the transcendental aesthetic. It is not at all certain that our sense perceptions exist in metaphysics, since knowledge of the phenomena is a posteriori. As is evident upon close examination, it is obvious that, on the contrary, the Ideal abstracts from all content of knowledge, yet the Ideal, indeed, abstracts from all content of knowledge. In natural theology, there can be no doubt that general logic has nothing to do with the paralogisms. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.

Since knowledge of the Categories is a priori, metaphysics may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with our a priori concepts, and natural causes prove the validity of our a posteriori judgements. By means of analysis, there can be no doubt that, in respect of the intelligible character, natural causes, on the other hand, have lying before them our problematic judgements, but the objects in space and time stand in need to the paralogisms. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that time teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our faculties. It is not at all certain that our analytic judgements can be treated like the phenomena, as will easily be shown in the next section. By means of analytic unity, our ideas prove the validity of, on the other hand, our speculative judgements. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that pure reason, in particular, exists in the Categories. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it is not at all certain that, so far as regards the discipline of human reason, the Categories are the clue to the discovery of metaphysics, but the Transcendental Deduction is what first gives rise to, when thus treated as metaphysics, reason. By means of metaphysics, we can deduce that the Ideal can not take account of, in the case of space, the noumena, because of the relation between the discipline of natural reason and our concepts.

There can be no doubt that the architectonic of natural reason has lying before it our concepts. By means of the transcendental aesthetic, the things in themselves (and it must not be supposed that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the Categories. The phenomena are what first give rise to the Ideal of practical reason; on the other hand, the Ideal of practical reason, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of the Categories, has nothing to do with our hypothetical judgements. Certainly, it is obvious that our experience is just as necessary as necessity. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the architectonic of practical reason, in particular, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of human reason, it can not take account of analytic principles; as I have shown elsewhere, our sense perceptions are just as necessary as, so, the Antinomies.

Consequently, our judgements, consequently, are a representation of our experience. Metaphysics can thereby determine in its totality our a posteriori concepts. The architectonic of pure reason, in view of these considerations, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a priori. Since some of the things in themselves are disjunctive, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, in respect of the intelligible character, our faculties. Is it the case that our understanding has lying before it necessity, or is the real question whether the things in themselves can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, they prove the validity of synthetic principles? As will easily be shown in the next section, I assert, as I have shown elsewhere, that our ideas should only be used as a canon for our inductive judgements. For these reasons, it must not be supposed that our sense perceptions, by means of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, have nothing to do with the architectonic of human reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. In my present remarks I am referring to metaphysics only in so far as it is founded on inductive principles.

It remains a mystery why, indeed, formal logic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of pure reason, it can thereby determine in its totality deductive principles, yet the phenomena can not take account of, however, our ideas. We can deduce that, insomuch as necessity relies on the objects in space and time, the things in themselves can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, they would thereby be made to contradict inductive principles, but the Transcendental Deduction proves the validity of the Categories. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it is obvious that, indeed, natural causes have lying before them, therefore, our judgements, and philosophy, for example, is the mere result of the power of our experience, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Therefore, space is the clue to the discovery of, in the study of the transcendental unity of apperception, reason, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. It is obvious that, in reference to ends, the objects in space and time, however, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of human reason, they are just as necessary as hypothetical principles, yet our ideas can not take account of necessity. Our faculties have lying before them our experience. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.

As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the manifold is the clue to the discovery of, in reference to ends, natural causes, and our ideas can not take account of our understanding. The Ideal occupies part of the sphere of the employment of the architectonic of human reason concerning the existence of the noumena in general. Because of the relation between the manifold and the Categories, Aristotle tells us that, in reference to ends, the thing in itself, as I have shown elsewhere, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it can not take account of speculative principles, and the noumena constitute the whole content for, consequently, natural causes. The objects in space and time can not take account of our a priori judgements. In which of our cognitive faculties are our judgements and the manifold connected together? Because of the relation between necessity and the Categories, we can deduce that, in respect of the intelligible character, the discipline of pure reason is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a priori, but our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, in other words, natural causes. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that necessity depends on the Antinomies.


original program by mark pilgrim and matt webb
BACK