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
    Kant's account of affection by objects in space leads to ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Kant's account of affection by objects in space leads to a contradiction.

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's 'things in themselves' (Dinge an sich) are distinct from appearances and serve as the genuine source of affection, not spatial objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The affection relation holds between things-in-themselves and sensibility, while spatial objects are the resulting representations, not the cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Henry Allison's 'epistemic conditions' reading confirms that spatial objects and things-in-themselves occupy different conceptual levels, dissolving the causal loop.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rae Langton's 'Kantian Humility' argues that things-in-themselves have intrinsic properties causally responsible for affection, entirely independent of our representational framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the affecting cause is grounded in intrinsic, non-relational properties of things-in-themselves, no circularity arises since spatial representations are effects, not causes, of that prior grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If 'affecting objects' means objects in space, then those objects are the source of affection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.According to Kant, objects in space are only appearances, which are our representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If objects in space are merely our representations, then our representations would have to be the source of the very affection that produces those representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception3 linked

    Related

    According to Kant, objects in space are only appearances, which are our represen...Henry Allison's 'epistemic conditions' reading confirms that spatial objects and...If 'affecting objects' means objects in space, then those objects are the source...If objects in space are merely our representations, then our representations wou...
    +5 moreShow less
    If the affecting cause is grounded in intrinsic, non-relational properties of th...It is contradictory for representations to be both the product of affection and ...Kant's 'things in themselves' (Dinge an sich) are distinct from appearances and ...Rae Langton's 'Kantian Humility' argues that things-in-themselves have intrinsic...The affection relation holds between things-in-themselves and sensibility, while...

    Similar

    It is contradictory for representations to be both the product of affe...81%If 'affecting objects' means objects in space, then those objects are ...80%If objects in space are merely our representations, then our represent...80%Mathematical evidence from Ptolemy conflicts with Aristotle's astronom...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-transcendental-idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    Or one understands by affecting objects the objects in space; but since these are only appearances according to Kant, and thus our representations, one falls into the contradiction that the same appearances, which we first have on the basis of affection, should be the source of that very affection. (Vaihinger 1881: vol. 2, p. 53)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit