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 Jacobi's objection in the 'David Hume' appendix (1787) establishes that one cannot enter Kant's system without presupposing things in themselves cause representations, yet cannot remain in it while doing so.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kant distinguishes between logical presupposition and transcendental condition; affirming things-in-themselves isn't a causal claim within experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Jacobi conflates the epistemic question (how we know things-in-themselves) with the metaphysical question (whether they exist), missing Kant's solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant can consistently posit things-in-themselves as limiting concepts without claiming we cognize their causal operations on our representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental idealism requires an external cause (things-in-themselves) to explain why representations have the specific content they do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Once admitted, the causal claim 'things-in-themselves affect us' violates Kant's own principle that causality applies only within phenomenal experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Jacobi correctly identifies that Kant needs but cannot justify the bridge between noumena and phenomena without self-contradiction.
      ?

      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.