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 there are things in themselves falling 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 the categories
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using categories to think about things in themselves is unavoidable since categories are the most basic concepts of objects in general
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying categories in thought to things in themselves does not yield knowledge that things in themselves actually fall under those categories
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If categories are genuinely constitutive of objecthood as such, then things in themselves—as objects of any possible cognition—must satisfy them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's own argument that categories are necessary conditions for any object whatsoever undermines the restriction of their validity to appearances only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This tension, exploited by Hegel in the Science of Logic, suggests categorical structure cannot be quarantined to phenomenal objects without self-defeat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's 'Bounds of Sense' argues that meaningful thought requires applicability conditions that are not merely subjective but track structural features of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If thinking about things in themselves using categories is genuinely coherent thought, it must carry minimal ontological commitments about what is being thought.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Applying categories in thought to things in themselves does not yield knowledge ...If categories are genuinely constitutive of objecthood as such, then things in t...If thinking about things in themselves using categories is genuinely coherent th...Kant's own argument that categories are necessary conditions for any object what...
    +4 moreShow less
    Strawson's 'Bounds of Sense' argues that meaningful thought requires applicabili...This tension, exploited by Hegel in the Science of Logic, suggests categorical s...Using categories to think about things in themselves is unavoidable since catego...

    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...85%Using categories to think about things in themselves is unavoidable si...83%

    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

    We can think of any objects whatsoever using the categories
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit