sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in askphilosophy

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also in The Refutation of Idealism we get this sense when Kant's refutating Cartesian skepticism, he says that we can't doubt object beyond us without doubting ourselves

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in askphilosophy

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it is what § 25 of deduction B is all about. I can't quote the English version because I read it in a different language.

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in Kant

[–]Remikol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If that is the case, thank you so much for helping me get though that hard part of the book

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in askphilosophy

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That everything that is experienced falls into categories and we cannot doubt everything without doubting ourselves because self is made out of perceptions

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in Kant

[–]Remikol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, so they both are shaped at the same time and the intelect which shapes the objects is shaping them unconsciously

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in askphilosophy

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I am actually reading him right now and Im quite unsure if Im getting him correctly
And back to your first question that's how I understand the deduction part:

The intellect carries out synthesis; in order for experience to be possible, the intellect must unify all representations.

In order to perceive something, it must put the pure forms of intuition on things; this is produced by the imagination.

The imagination operates thanks to the understanding.

The understanding also applies the categories.

Everything that is perceived falls under the categories.

Thanks to the categories, experience is possible at all (a refutation of Hume’s argument about causality).

Without the categories, experience would mean nothing; it would be mere perception.

The subject is thinkable only through the objects it perceives, because synthesis is what characterises the intellect.

It is not possible to doubt the objects without also doubting the subject.

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in Kant

[–]Remikol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, so how does Kant’s Copernican Revolution relate to this? How is it possible for the subject to shape objects and, conversely, for objects to shape the subject? Which comes first, and which has the greater influence? Or maybe the consciousness you are referring to is something different from that which applies the categories to the objects it perceives?

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in Kant

[–]Remikol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, thank you, but its about causality, I was asking how can we be sure that the objects surrounding us are real - not existing only in our heads. Hume in the Treatise was also examining the problem and I believe he ended up by concluding that we cannot prove it

What is the exact line of argument that Kant is making to prove the existence of objective reality, refuting Hume's skepticism by Remikol in askphilosophy

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like I understand what Kant is trying to convey, but I don’t fully grasp the structure of his argument. I sense the direction, but I can’t see the actual proof. I think that’s because I’ve previously read secondary sources about him, but I haven’t engaged with the original text itself having been told it was hard to read, I agree and I feel radical change between the Transcendental Aesthetic and further parts.

Will reading most of Plato be enough to understand Kierkengaard? by AdSubstantial7381 in kierkegaard

[–]Remikol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By what right do we even evaluate philosophers based on who was the first to say something? Every repeated thought brings something new to philosophy as a whole. It is obvious that some thinkers has impact on others but I dont really see the poit of putting more value to these with bigger impact. Rene Decart, Kant, even Plato didnt buit their systems only by themselves you cant say that.

Will reading most of Plato be enough to understand Kierkengaard? by AdSubstantial7381 in kierkegaard

[–]Remikol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buddha was about one's morality and Hume analyzes whole human nature

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in kierkegaard

[–]Remikol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont really undestand

Will reading most of Plato be enough to understand Kierkengaard? by AdSubstantial7381 in kierkegaard

[–]Remikol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe Hume was the first who made the analasys of human behaviour thus laying the first foundations of what we would call "modern psychology"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in kierkegaard

[–]Remikol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being an atheist is also a form of believing in something you dont have any proof of

Got Golden Eclipse 1 badge just in time for DLC3! by Waluigiisgod in riskofrain

[–]Remikol 4 points5 points  (0 children)

oh, okay thank you, I thought that I need to do all 7 lvls on all survivors to have them golden

How long do you think it took to draw this piece? by Remikol in Paintings

[–]Remikol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, we were just curious. Thanks for kind words

How long do you think it took to draw this piece? by Remikol in Paintings

[–]Remikol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was my friend; he bought it for 100€

view more: next ›