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 transcendental idealism is not equivalent to Berkeley's idealism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's things-in-themselves are never experienced and play no explanatory role distinguishable from simple non-existence, as Jacobi's critique established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A distinction between idealist systems that turns on positing causally inert, unknowable entities is philosophically vacuous rather than substantive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Berkeley's God performs the same structural role as Kant's things-in-themselves: grounding the regularity of experience without being directly accessible to finite minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant explicitly states that objects of outer intuition exist only as representations in us, which is the defining thesis of Berkeleyan immaterialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Refutation of Idealism in the B-edition was added precisely because contemporaries like Garve and Feder correctly identified Kant's first edition as collapsing into Berkeleyan idealism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant denies that spatiality and temporality belong to things as they are in themselves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant provides no reason to deny that there are things distinct from our representations of them and our own minds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Berkeley's idealism does deny the existence of things distinct from minds and representations
      ?

      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.