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
    Thinking about things in themselves using categories does... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Thinking about things in themselves using categories does not establish that it is even possible for things in themselves to fall under the categories

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.We can think of any objects whatsoever using categories
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using categories to think about things in themselves does not yield knowledge of the nature or possibility of things in themselves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The categories are not merely psychological tools but express the formal conditions under which any object can be coherently conceived at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If something is genuinely conceivable as an object, it must conform to the minimal logical structure the categories articulate, regardless of its ontological status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the applicability of categories to things in themselves is a precondition of their being thinkable as 'things' rather than a contingent cognitive imposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hegel argues in the Science of Logic that Kant's sharp division between thought and being is itself incoherent, since being that is wholly external to thought is an empty abstraction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the thing-in-itself is genuinely beyond categorical determination, it collapses into pure indeterminate nothingness, which cannot serve as the ground of appearances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim thus undermines the very notion of a thing-in-itself it seeks to protect, rendering Kant's own framework internally inconsistent.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Hegel argues in the Science of Logic that Kant's sharp division between thought ...If something is genuinely conceivable as an object, it must conform to the minim...If the thing-in-itself is genuinely beyond categorical determination, it collaps...The categories are not merely psychological tools but express the formal conditi...
    +4 moreShow less
    The claim thus undermines the very notion of a thing-in-itself it seeks to prote...Therefore, the applicability of categories to things in themselves is a precondi...Using categories to think about things in themselves does not yield knowledge of...We can think of any objects whatsoever using categories

    Similar

    Thinking about things in themselves using categories does not establis...98%Applying categories in thought to things in themselves does not yield ...91%Using categories to think about things in themselves does not yield kn...86%Using categories to think about things in themselves is unavoidable si...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-transcendental-idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    We can think of any objects whatsoever using the categories. In fact, this is unavoidable; the categories are the most basic concepts of objects in general, so we cannot think about anything whatsoever without using some categories to do so. But in thinking about the things in themselves using categories we do not thereby (a) know that there are things in themselves falling under the categories or (b) even that it is possible for there to be things in themselves falling under the categories. The
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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