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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kant's subjective idealism is unacceptable

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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