Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A thing-in-itself that causally precedes experience cannot be wholly stripped of temporal structure without making affection unintelligible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Things-in-themselves exist outside space-time entirely; temporal structure is a form imposed by our cognition, not a feature of noumena themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Affection can be rendered intelligible through non-causal or transcendental accounts that don't require the thing-in-itself to possess temporal properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Admitting temporal structure in things-in-themselves undermines Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, collapsing critical philosophy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Affection requires a causal relatum that acts upon the subject; a wholly atemporal cause cannot act, since action entails temporal succession.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If things-in-themselves lack all temporal structure, the transition from their affecting us to our being affected becomes logically inexplicable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kant's own critical philosophy presupposes that affection involves a real causal relation, which demands minimal temporal ordering in the cause.
?
How convincing is this?
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.