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
    We cannot regard the forms we represent objects as having... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We cannot regard the forms we represent objects as having (spatiality, temporality, causality, etc.) as the real forms of objects independent of ourselves.

    PerceptionTruth & 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 know these forms (spatiality, temporality, causality) a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can only know a priori what we ourselves impose upon experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What we impose upon experience is not derivable from the objects as they are independently of our representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's premise that we can only know a priori what we ourselves impose assumes a false exhaustion: reliable cognitive faculties shaped by evolution or rational necessity could yield a priori insight into mind-independent structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hilary Putnam's internal realism and Wilfrid Sellars's scientific realism both demonstrate that representational success can be explained by correspondence to real structure rather than by idealist imposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If our spatial and causal representations systematically enable successful prediction and intervention in the world, inference to their mind-independent reality is more parsimonious than positing an unknowable thing-in-itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A priori knowledge can arise from mind-independent necessary structures in reality itself, not only from mental imposition (cf. Frege, Russell, and mathematical Platonism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causality and spatiality are genuine features of a mind-independent world, our a priori grasp of them tracks reality rather than constituting it.
      ?

      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

    PerceptionTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A priori knowledge can arise from mind-independent necessary structures in reali...Hilary Putnam's internal realism and Wilfrid Sellars's scientific realism both d...If causality and spatiality are genuine features of a mind-independent world, ou...If our spatial and causal representations systematically enable successful predi...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kant's premise that we can only know a priori what we ourselves impose assumes a...We can only know a priori what we ourselves impose upon experience.We know these forms (spatiality, temporality, causality) a priori.

    Similar

    If our representational forms do not apply to things in themselves, th...81%When considering objects as things in themselves, those objects are no...79%The existence of objects independent of our representations can be ass...79%Considering objects as things in themselves by means of the categories...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: idealism
    View source passageHide passage
    The sources as well as the form of Kant’s position are complex. Kant was deeply impressed by what he knew of Leibniz (many of the texts that are crucial to later understandings of Leibniz, such as “Primary Truths”, having been unknown in Kant’s times, or others, such as the New Essays on Human Understanding, having been published only when he was well into his career) and the view that space and time are phaenomena bene fundata as well as by what he knew of Hume and his view that causation is a
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    What we impose upon experience is not derivable from the objects as they are ind...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit