BACK

interconnected *random kant*

* random kant *


Our a posteriori concepts (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) prove the validity of the phenomena, by virtue of pure reason. So, the Ideal is the mere result of the power of our experience, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. In the study of our understanding, time is just as necessary as our ideas. Natural causes occupy part of the sphere of our a priori knowledge concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general, and the objects in space and time are a representation of metaphysics. In natural theology, it remains a mystery why the Transcendental Deduction depends on the manifold.

To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, insomuch as the discipline of practical reason relies on our a posteriori concepts, the thing in itself, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of general logic, occupies part of the sphere of the discipline of natural reason concerning the existence of the empirical objects in space and time in general, yet the paralogisms of pure reason are the mere results of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it is not at all certain that, that is to say, our sense perceptions, consequently, are the mere results of the power of metaphysics, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The objects in space and time, in natural theology, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori. The Ideal of practical reason is by its very nature contradictory, but the paralogisms of natural reason, in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, can not take account of the Categories. Metaphysics can thereby determine in its totality, with the sole exception of the manifold, the things in themselves. By virtue of natural reason, our faculties abstract from all content of knowledge, yet the manifold is the clue to the discovery of the Ideal. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, I assert, in the study of philosophy, that, in particular, our experience constitutes the whole content for natural causes, yet our ideas (and I assert that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict time. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of the objects in space and time.

There can be no doubt that, for example, our understanding is what first gives rise to, when thus treated as the noumena, our ideas, and reason (and we can deduce that this is true) is just as necessary as our ideas. Metaphysics can not take account of philosophy. In the study of metaphysics, metaphysics may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, certainly, the architectonic of natural reason. Has it ever been suggested that, by means of analytic unity, it must not be supposed that there is a causal connection between the Ideal of human reason and the noumena? As I have shown elsewhere, the manifold, as far as I know, is a representation of the discipline of human reason, as is evident upon close examination. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our sense perceptions (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) are just as necessary as the Ideal of pure reason, but natural causes are a representation of, for example, the transcendental aesthetic. The question of this er's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.

Certainly, we can deduce that the transcendental unity of apperception, in view of these considerations, is the mere result of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The Transcendental Deduction has nothing to do with, in view of these considerations, our sense perceptions. As will easily be shown in the next section, the thing in itself is a representation of our sense perceptions. As we have already seen, Aristotle tells us that the Transcendental Deduction proves the validity of, in particular, our judgements. Aristotle tells us that the phenomena are what first give rise to the noumena; by means of necessity, the objects in space and time stand in need to, certainly, the Ideal of human reason.

For these reasons, our judgements (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict necessity. We can deduce that 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 natural causes. The things in themselves, in the study of the discipline of human reason, have nothing to do with the Categories. Therefore, the architectonic of pure reason is the clue to the discovery of natural causes. Since all of our concepts are hypothetical, the reader should be careful to observe that, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of our ideas, the paralogisms of human reason constitute the whole content for our concepts. I assert, consequently, that general logic, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of formal logic, exists in transcendental logic. Since knowledge of our sense perceptions is a priori, I assert, so, that our sense perceptions (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) are what first give rise to natural causes. The question of this er's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.

The Categories can not take account of the Antinomies. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, what we have alone been able to show is that the Ideal (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is the clue to the discovery of the architectonic of pure reason; as I have shown elsewhere, general logic stands in need of, in other words, our ideas. It must not be supposed that the Ideal is a representation of, in natural theology, the Categories. As is shown in the writings of Hume, what we have alone been able to show is that the transcendental unity of apperception is by its very nature contradictory. As we have already seen, it remains a mystery why necessity stands in need of the architectonic of pure reason. The discipline of pure reason is a representation of, in accordance with the principles of the manifold, the objects in space and time. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.


...
original program by mark pilgrim and matt webb
BACK