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 Kant concedes that space does not belong to objects as they are in themselves, meaning spatial experience fails to disclose the true nature of reality.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Kant grants that space structures all possible human experience legitimately; calling this 'failure to disclose' conflates limitation with falsity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If noumena are entirely unknowable, claiming space 'fails' to reveal them assumes knowledge of what true nature actually is.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Spatial properties reliably predict behavior and enable successful interaction; calling this non-disclosive of reality seems arbitrary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Kant distinguishes phenomena (things as they appear) from noumena (things-in-themselves), placing space in the former category.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Space is a form of human sensibility, not a property of objects independent of minds, so it cannot reveal their intrinsic nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our spatial intuitions are constitutive of experience rather than descriptive of reality, limiting what they can disclose about objects.
?
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.