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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kant's account of affection by objects in space leads to a contradiction.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42