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
    We cannot have knowledge of things-in-themselves beyond t... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We cannot have knowledge of things-in-themselves beyond the limits of experience.

    Skepticism
    ?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.Knowing how things must be beyond the limits of our experience would require knowledge of things-in-themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is too much to claim metaphysical knowledge of things-in-themselves given our epistemic limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own transcendental idealism commits him to knowledge that things-in-themselves exist and causally affect sensibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This 'affection problem,' raised by Jacobi, shows the claim generates a self-undermining contradiction within Kantian epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A position that requires what it forbids cannot coherently demarcate the limits of knowledge it claims to establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's pragmatist account holds that the long-run convergence of scientific inquiry tracks mind-independent reality structurally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If theoretical posits like electrons explain observable phenomena with predictive success, their structural features constitute genuine knowledge of the mind-independent world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates unknowability of intrinsic natures with unknowability of relational structure, which structural realism distinguishes.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    A position that requires what it forbids cannot coherently demarcate the limits ...If theoretical posits like electrons explain observable phenomena with predictiv...It is too much to claim metaphysical knowledge of things-in-themselves given our...Kant's own transcendental idealism commits him to knowledge that things-in-thems...
    +4 moreShow less
    Knowing how things must be beyond the limits of our experience would require kno...Peirce's pragmatist account holds that the long-run convergence of scientific in...The claim conflates unknowability of intrinsic natures with unknowability of rel...This 'affection problem,' raised by Jacobi, shows the claim generates a self-und...

    Similar

    Knowing how things must be beyond the limits of our experience would r...91%We can have no knowledge of things in themselves84%One can only know an object well through personal experience of it.84%Human knowledge is confined within the limits of possible sense experi...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: transcendental-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    6. It is then partly because of the apparently rather special nature of these transcendental claims, that the suspicion arises that there will then turn out to be something distinctively Kantian about such arguments; for Kant made it the focus of his critical project to account for metaphysical knowledge of this sort, where transcendental idealism is then supposed to provide the answer to how such knowledge is possible. The idea, roughly speaking, is that it is too much for us to be able to know
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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