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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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