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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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