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 subjective idealism is unacceptable — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Kant's subjective idealism is unacceptable

    PerceptionTruth & 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 framework renders the thing-in-itself causally inert yet paradoxically treats it as the causal ground of appearances, a contradiction Jacobi identified as fatal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A coherent epistemology cannot simultaneously require and prohibit application of the category of causality to the same explanatory posit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This internal incoherence, independent of bifurcation worries, constitutes sufficient grounds for rejecting Kantian subjective idealism on its own terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wilfrid Sellars and John McDowell demonstrate that conceptual content must reach all the way to world-involving experience, not terminate at mind-imposed forms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the structured contribution of sensibility and understanding exhausts our epistemic access, empirical knowledge loses its normative anchor in how things actually are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory of knowledge that severs the rational responsiveness of thought from mind-independent reality cannot account for the objectivity that scientific inquiry presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant's idealism posits a world 'in itself' that is essentially inaccessible by any subjective cognitive means
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This makes 'the real' outside our grasp, resulting in a one-sided and bifurcating position
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One-sided bifurcating positions are philosophically unacceptable
      ?

      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

    PerceptionTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A coherent epistemology cannot simultaneously require and prohibit application o...A theory of knowledge that severs the rational responsiveness of thought from mi...If the structured contribution of sensibility and understanding exhausts our epi...Kant's framework renders the thing-in-itself causally inert yet paradoxically tr...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kant's idealism posits a world 'in itself' that is essentially inaccessible by a...One-sided bifurcating positions are philosophically unacceptableThis internal incoherence, independent of bifurcation worries, constitutes suffi...This makes 'the real' outside our grasp, resulting in a one-sided and bifurcatin...Wilfrid Sellars and John McDowell demonstrate that conceptual content must reach...

    Similar

    Bradley's argument for idealism is fallacious82%Berkeley's argument for idealism is fallacious82%Kant's idealism posits a world 'in itself' that is essentially inacces...81%Hegel's idealism departs from Berkeley's substance-based idealism.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    Although Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) too embraces a dynamical conception of idealism in the spirit of Fichte and Schelling, he deviates from both of them by not relying on mental activities of some subject or other or on some primordial subjectless cognitive act as the most basic features of reality. He thus tries to transcend any traditional form of idealism. Given his deep distrust of irreconcilable dichotomies, of anything unmediated and one-sided, one cannot expect Hegel to be
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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