Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A composing synthesis is required for our representation of space as a whole, not only for representations of determinate parts of space

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Space as a whole is given as an infinite intuition prior to any synthesis, as Kant explicitly states in the Aesthetic (A25/B39).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space is originally given as a whole, synthesis is required only to carve out determinate parts, not to constitute the whole itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The B160–1 note concerns the unity of space as a formal intuition, which can be attributed to the understanding without requiring a composing synthesis of parts into wholes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Longuenesse's influential reading distinguishes between space as form of intuition (pre-synthetic) and formal intuition (product of synthesis), limiting composing synthesis to determinate spatial representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The final sentence of B160–1 is grammatically ambiguous and cannot bear the interpretive weight of extending composing synthesis to infinite space as a whole without independent textual support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The B160–1 note suggests in its final sentence that a composing synthesis is required for our representation of space as a whole
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not sufficient to limit composing synthesis to the construction of figures in geometry or determinate parts of space
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.