Q&A: A Clarification of Your Understanding of Kant
A Clarification of Your Understanding of Kant
Question
A clarification regarding your understanding of Kant in column 502. Kant assumed that the perception of time, space, and the principle of sufficient reason are part of the structure of our consciousness and do not exist in the noumenon. If so, could you explain to me how you understood that: "The Kantian picture is not talking about filtering out unsuitable contents"? After all, according to him, what can exist in the world as it is in itself would be some unified thing, not a multiplicity of things in which I could distinguish various laws of physics such as gravity and acceleration.
Answer
I didn’t understand.
Discussion on Answer
Why unified?
Because when there is no space and no time, it has to be one single thing. This unity is Schopenhauer’s observation about Kant’s doctrine, except that for him the world as it is in itself is the will, and in itself it is completely opaque.
In my opinion that’s not correct. It’s not that there is no space and time, but rather that space and time are forms of our intuition of 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 that is what Kant meant. Did you study his writings and arrive at this understanding? In any case, Schopenhauer, who continued Kant’s approach, argues for absolute unity.
I didn’t delve into that, 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 correct and what he should have thought.
That is philosophy, not history or biography. You can’t impose your own view on Kant if you are presenting his doctrine.
What can exist in the world as it is in itself according to Kant? A unified thing devoid of time, space, and causality, right?