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 philosophy is inconsistent regarding the applicati... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Kant's philosophy is inconsistent regarding the application of categories to things in themselves

    Skepticism
    ?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 distinction between 'constitutive' and 'regulative' uses of categories does not resolve the affection problem, since affection requires causal constitution, not mere regulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the Critique of Pure Reason (A190/B235), Kant defines causation as a rule governing the temporal succession of appearances, making it strictly appearance-relative by its own definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying this appearance-relative concept of causation to things in themselves, as affection requires, violates the very semantic conditions Kant himself specifies for legitimate category use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's own transcendental deduction argues that objective validity of categories is secured exclusively through their relation to possible experience, not through any mind-independent grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, invoking things in themselves as causal grounds for experience simultaneously requires and undermines the transcendental deduction's account of categorical legitimacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant argues that categories like cause-effect cannot be meaningfully applied to things in themselves, because without intuition a category has no sense and is entirely empty of content
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Things in themselves cannot be intuited
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant applies the category of cause-effect to things in themselves by arguing that things in themselves affect us
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Perception2 linkedCausation1 linked

    Related

    Applying this appearance-relative concept of causation to things in themselves, ...In the Critique of Pure Reason (A190/B235), Kant defines causation as a rule gov...Jacobi's objection in the 'David Hume' appendix (1787) establishes that one cann...Kant applies the category of cause-effect to things in themselves by arguing tha...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kant argues that categories like cause-effect cannot be meaningfully applied to ...Kant's distinction between 'constitutive' and 'regulative' uses of categories do...

    Similar

    Jacobi's strongest objection — that Kant's view entails categories can...84%Aristotle's list of categories was the result of an unsystematic proce...82%Reinhold's philosophy is methodologically flawed.81%Metaphysics, as Fârâbî understands it, is not about things in the cate...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-transcendental-idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    The issue of things in themselves affecting us raises another problem for Kant’s theory, for Kant also argues that categories like cause-effect cannot be meaningfully applied to things in themselves. Without an intuition “[the category] has no sense, and is entirely empty of content” (A239/B298). Since things in themselves cannot be intuited, categories (including cause-effect) have no sense or content when applied to things in themselves. Jacobi and others thought this was yet another inconsist
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Kant's own transcendental deduction argues that objective validity of categories...
    Therefore, invoking things in themselves as causal grounds for experience simult...
    Things in themselves cannot be intuited
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit