Explain your understanding of Kant.
A note on your understanding of Kant in column 502. Kant assumed that the perception of time, space, and the principle of sufficient reason are in the structure of our consciousness and do not exist in the noumena. If so, can you explain to me how you even understood that: “The Kantian picture does not speak of filtering out inappropriate content”? According to him, what can exist in the world in and of itself is a unity, not a plurality of things that I can even discern in various laws of physics, such as gravity and acceleration.
I didn’t understand.
What can exist in the world by itself according to Kant? A unitary thing devoid of time, space, and causality, right?
Why unity?
Because when there is no space or time, there must be one and only one thing. This unity is Schopenhauer's diagnosis of Kant's doctrine only when, for him, the world itself is the will and is in itself completely closed.
In my opinion, this is not true. It's not that space and time don't exist, but that space and time are our ways of looking at things. But even in them there are parts and complexity, and their description is done in our language. I discussed this at length in that series of columns.
The question is whether this is Kant's intention. Have you read his writings and come to this understanding? In any case, Schopenhauer, who continued Kant's view, claims absolute unity.
I didn't delve into it because I'm interested in philosophy, not history or biography. I'm not interested in what Kant thought or what he meant. The question is what is true and what he was supposed to think.
This is philosophy, not history or biography. You cannot impose your view on Kant if you present his doctrine.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
