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's 'things in themselves' (Dinge an sich) are distinct from appearances and serve as the genuine source of affection, not spatial objects.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If things-in-themselves are utterly unknowable, Kant's claim about them as 'affective sources' lacks justifiable content or coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Positing non-spatial causes of spatial intuitions creates an explanatory gap: how causation works across the phenomenon-noumenon boundary remains obscure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction may be conceptually confused: calling noumena non-spatial while claiming they affect us spatially-bound minds seems self-contradictory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Kant must posit things-in-themselves to explain why our representations aren't arbitrary: they're constrained by external non-spatial causes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Space and time are forms of human intuition, not features of reality itself, so the source of affection must transcend spatial existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without noumena distinct from phenomena, we cannot account for the regularity and necessity we experience in empirical knowledge.
?
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.