| Vasco | Sad to discover that the Kant Generator didn't live on.
Found this snippet i had saved from the heady days of the 90's........
***************************************************************************************
However, the objects in space and time have nothing to do with natural causes, as will easily be shown in the next section. Our ideas constitute the whole content for the objects in space and time, by virtue of practical reason. The Antinomies would thereby be made to contradict our concepts. (In all theoretical sciences, the thing in itself depends on our sense perceptions.) Because of the relation between our knowledge and the things in themselves, Aristotle tells us that, when thus treated as our a posteriori concepts, the objects in space and time are just as necessary as the architectonic of natural reason, but our faculties (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) stand in need to necessity. Our problematic judgements are by their very nature contradictory. And similarly with all the others.
The thing in itself, on the other hand, can be treated like metaphysics, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Our a posteriori knowledge constitutes the whole content for the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. Our concepts constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori. The transcendental aesthetic, on the other hand, abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge, but the Categories, consequently, are a representation of formal logic. What we have alone been able to show is that, in particular, our sense perceptions constitute the whole content for, even as this relates to the manifold, our sense perceptions, yet the objects in space and time are just as necessary as time. On this matter, what has been said already should in any case suffice by itself.
By means of analysis, the Categories, for example, are the mere results of the power of the employment of our a priori knowledge, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. In view of these considerations, the Ideal of pure reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) can thereby determine in its totality the Ideal of pure reason, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. The discipline of pure reason stands in need of the Antinomies, but our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, with the sole exception of the manifold, the Categories. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the phenomena have lying before them our sense perceptions. As is proven in the ontological manuals, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the things in themselves (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) constitute the whole content for the phenomena; in natural theology, our understanding is the key to understanding metaphysics.
As is evident upon close examination, the Antinomies (and it is obvious that this is the case) have lying before them the noumena; thus, the employment of the transcendental unity of apperception constitutes the whole content for the Categories. There can be no doubt that the Categories (and I assert that this is the case) have nothing to do with metaphysics; still, the things in themselves, in respect of the intelligible character, would be falsified. By means of analytic unity, the objects in space and time, in the full sense of these terms, are by their very nature contradictory. (Certainly, the transcendental aesthetic (and it remains a mystery why this is true) constitutes the whole content for transcendental logic, because of the relation between the transcendental aesthetic and the objects in space and time.) Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a priori, the things in themselves can not take account of, in particular, the paralogisms of pure reason, and space (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) has nothing to do with the Categories. The Transcendental Deduction, for example, is the clue to the discovery of our experience, and the pure employment of our understanding, indeed, is the key to understanding the architectonic of pure reason.
As is proven in the ontological manuals, the reader should be careful to observe that the transcendental aesthetic depends on, in other words, the Ideal. As I have elsewhere shown, our disjunctive judgements have nothing to do with the noumena, by means of analytic unity. Since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori, the reader should be careful to observe that the employment of our sense perceptions, on the contrary, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori. Because of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and our judgements, it is obvious that the empirical objects in space and time prove the validity of the things in themselves; for these reasons, the things in themselves, in respect of the intelligible character, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like pure logic, they have nothing to do with inductive principles. The Categories are the clue to the discovery of our faculties; still, natural causes can not take account of, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of our sense perceptions, the discipline of pure reason. Since some of the Categories are problematic, I assert, in all theoretical sciences, that the objects in space and time stand in need to, in other words, the paralogisms; certainly, metaphysics (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is a representation of the transcendental objects in space and time.
As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the thing in itself, so regarded, is by its very nature contradictory. Because of the relation between metaphysics and the paralogisms of human reason, we can deduce that, that is to say, our judgements abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge, and the Categories, in the case of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori. In view of these considerations, it is obvious that the things in themselves, irrespective of all empirical conditions, abstract from all content of knowledge. The Categories, thus, exist in the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, but the Ideal of natural reason, however, should only be used as a canon for the transcendental unity of apperception. Philosophy, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the thing in itself, excludes the possibility of the paralogisms, but the discipline of practical reason would thereby be made to contradict, for example, the things in themselves. On this matter, what has been said already should in any case suffice by itself.
As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the pure employment of the transcendental unity of apperception, however, is by its very nature contradictory; in all theoretical sciences, the Ideal is the key to understanding, consequently, the Antinomies. In the case of our understanding, the objects in space and time can not take account of natural causes, since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori. Natural causes would be falsified. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the noumena, consequently, would be falsified; with the sole exception of space, the things in themselves (and it must not be supposed that this is the case) exclude the possibility of our judgements. As is proven in the ontological manuals, metaphysics occupies part of the sphere of time concerning the existence of our faculties in general; in view of these considerations, the thing in itself (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) is what first gives rise to the architectonic of natural reason.
The Ideal of practical reason is by its very nature contradictory, as is evident upon close examination. The thing in itself proves the validity of, then, the paralogisms of natural reason, but the thing in itself, in respect of the intelligible character, depends on the Ideal. Time would thereby be made to contradict our understanding. Certainly, the paralogisms can not take account of, therefore, the phenomena, as is shown in the writings of Hume. Certainly, the paralogisms of natural reason are the clue to the discovery of our faculties, because of the relation between the discipline of practical reason and natural causes. Space, even as this relates to the transcendental aesthetic, is the clue to the discovery of space, yet the transcendental unity of apperception, in other words, is the clue to the discovery of philosophy.
As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things in themselves would thereby be made to contradict, in the case of natural reason, our ampliative judgements. Consequently, it must not be supposed that our hypothetical judgements can not take account of the manifold, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the noumena prove the validity of the objects in space and time; on the other hand, necessity proves the validity of, consequently, our sense perceptions. The employment of our faculties excludes the possibility of, in accordance with the principles of the noumena, our ideas; thus, our experience teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, indeed, the noumena. The transcendental unity of apperception, in natural theology, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions.
Still, the practical employment of natural causes stands in need of, in other words, the Antinomies, as is proven in the ontological manuals. The thing in itself, indeed, can be treated like our a posteriori concepts, as we have already seen. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions abstracts from all content of knowledge, yet the architectonic of practical reason depends on pure logic. I assert that, indeed, the noumena (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) are a representation of metaphysics, but philosophy (and let us suppose that this is true) has nothing to do with our faculties. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our a priori knowledge would thereby be made to contradict the transcendental unity of apperception, by means of analytic unity.
Because of the relation between time and our faculties, the Transcendental Deduction stands in need of our ideas; in all theoretical sciences, the Ideal of practical reason can thereby determine in its totality, in all theoretical sciences, the discipline of practical reason. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, natural causes are a representation of, certainly, the transcendental objects in space and time, yet the architectonic of human reason has nothing to do with our faculties. The transcendental aesthetic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our understanding, it proves the validity of a priori principles; still, the transcendental unity of apperception (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is what first gives rise to the Antinomies. The thing in itself excludes the possibility of the paralogisms of natural reason, and the Transcendental Deduction occupies part of the sphere of general logic concerning the existence of our concepts in general. As will easily be shown in the next section, the architectonic of natural reason has lying before it, in all theoretical sciences, the paralogisms of natural reason. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our sense perceptions, still, prove the validity of philosophy, but our faculties are just as necessary as the objects in space and time. This may become clear with an example.
Since knowledge of our sense perceptions is a priori, I assert that, so regarded, the Ideal of human reason stands in need of the things in themselves, and the phenomena (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) exclude the possibility of our a posteriori concepts. Since some of the noumena are deductive, the thing in itself, however, should only be used as a canon for our faculties; therefore, general logic, in particular, exists in our faculties. Since none of the paralogisms of practical reason are disjunctive, the empirical objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the paralogisms of human reason. The manifold teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, so far as I know, the paralogisms. The Antinomies (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict the phenomena; by means of time, the objects in space and time can not take account of necessity.
As is evident upon close examination, our concepts can not take account of metaphysics, but the transcendental objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the objects in space and time. The architectonic of natural reason should only be used as a canon for human reason. Our sense perceptions, then, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a priori; in natural theology, the Antinomies constitute the whole content for, then, our a posteriori concepts. The objects in space and time (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) have lying before them the Categories, and space (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is just as necessary as natural causes. Our experience stands in need of, in natural theology, human reason. However, our a priori concepts stand in need to our disjunctive judgements, as is proven in the ontological manuals.
Let us suppose that the Transcendental Deduction constitutes the whole content for, in reference to ends, the phenomena; consequently, the objects in space and time exist in the Ideal. By means of analytic unity, the phenomena are the clue to the discovery of natural causes; on the other hand, the objects in space and time should only be used as a canon for the Ideal of pure reason. Necessity constitutes the whole content for, thus, the things in themselves. Has it ever been suggested that, as any dedicated reader can clearly see, it is obvious that there is a causal connection between the architectonic of human reason and philosophy? Since none of natural causes are a priori, our speculative judgements are the mere results of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. This is the sense in which it is to be understood in this work.
To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, when thus treated as our a priori concepts, the Categories are a representation of, indeed, the transcendental unity of apperception. Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, there can be no doubt that, that is to say, the architectonic of pure reason teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our faculties, but our synthetic judgements exclude the possibility of our inductive judgements. As is proven in the ontological manuals, there can be no doubt that the transcendental aesthetic proves the validity of the objects in space and time; certainly, the paralogisms of pure reason would thereby be made to contradict our ampliative judgements. (Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our ideas (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) are a representation of necessity; as I have elsewhere shown, metaphysics has lying before it, on the other hand, the paralogisms of pure reason.) With the sole exception of the discipline of natural reason, the architectonic of pure reason constitutes the whole content for the employment of the phenomena, as will easily be shown in the next section. The things in themselves have nothing to do with, when thus treated as the objects in space and time, our experience; for these reasons, natural causes are the clue to the discovery of the objects in space and time. This may become clear with an example.
The Ideal is the key to understanding the things in themselves. Since some of our ideas are disjunctive, time has lying before it our sense perceptions; with the sole exception of the employment of our sense perceptions, philosophy depends on the paralogisms of natural reason. For these reasons, pure reason, in all theoretical sciences, exists in the manifold, as will easily be shown in the next section. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, our ideas stand in need to, on the other hand, natural causes, yet necessity (and it is obvious that this is true) proves the validity of the phenomena. As is proven in the ontological manuals, our faculties (and we can deduce that this is the case) constitute the whole content for natural reason.
By means of analytic unity, our faculties, thus, can be treated like the Ideal. In the study of the employment of our sense perceptions, I assert, still, that the objects in space and time have lying before them, with the sole exception of time, the employment of the phenomena, because of the relation between our knowledge and our a priori concepts. The transcendental objects in space and time, however, exclude the possibility of the thing in itself. Since knowledge of our ideas is a posteriori, our sense perceptions constitute the whole content for the manifold. Let us suppose that, that is to say, the transcendental objects in space and time can not take account of time, yet the Antinomies, that is to say, occupy part of the sphere of the manifold concerning the existence of the Categories in general.
Natural causes, by means of space, exist in the manifold. Consequently, the Transcendental Deduction (and it is obvious that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the phenomena, because of the relation between the architectonic of human reason and the Categories. The manifold teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the noumena; in natural theology, the Ideal of human reason (and it is not at all certain that this is true) stands in need of pure logic. By means of analytic unity, the thing in itself (and we can deduce that this is true) teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the phenomena; thus, our experience teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the objects in space and time. Space, in particular, should only be used as a canon for the discipline of pure reason. We thus have a pure synthesis of apprehension.
The discipline of natural reason would be falsified. The paralogisms constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori. The intelligible objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the phenomena. (As we have already seen, the noumena have nothing to do with our understanding, yet natural causes (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are just as necessary as our experience.) There can be no doubt that necessity (and there can be no doubt that this is true) has nothing to do with the paralogisms of natural reason. Our judgements prove the validity of the transcendental aesthetic; as I have elsewhere shown, our synthetic judgements, even as this relates to general logic, would be falsified. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.
And similarly with all the others.The question of this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.But this need not worry us.
As is proven in the ontological manuals, our faculties, in other words, would be falsified. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the objects in space and time prove the validity of the Transcendental Deduction; for these reasons, philosophy would thereby be made to contradict our speculative judgements. The things in themselves are just as necessary as our inductive judgements. By means of analytic unity, our experience (and let us suppose that this is true) proves the validity of philosophy; therefore, our ideas would thereby be made to contradict the Categories. As I have elsewhere shown, the manifold has lying before it the transcendental aesthetic, as is evident upon close examination. Thus, the thing in itself (and I assert that this is true) has lying before it applied logic.
In natural theology, there can be no doubt that the things in themselves have lying before them, in natural theology, the things in themselves, as will easily be shown in the next section. In all theoretical sciences, the phenomena are what first give rise to, by means of practical reason, philosophy. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, I assert, in natural theology, that, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of our knowledge, the transcendental aesthetic has lying before it, certainly, the empirical objects in space and time. Whence comes reason, the solution of which involves the relation between our faculties and time? Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Antinomies constitute the whole content for natural causes, yet the things in themselves are a representation of, certainly, the Antinomies. The discipline of human reason is the clue to the discovery of natural causes. The discipline of human reason is the key to understanding the phenomena, but necessity has nothing to do with, on the contrary, applied logic.
By means of analytic unity, our a priori concepts can not take account of the intelligible objects in space and time. It is not at all certain that, so regarded, necessity is what first gives rise to, still, our ideas. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Ideal has nothing to do with our judgements; however, the phenomena, in the full sense of these terms, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori. Our sense perceptions stand in need to, with the sole exception of our understanding, the architectonic of pure reason; on the other hand, our understanding, indeed, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a priori. The Antinomies are just as necessary as our ideas, yet our a priori knowledge is just as necessary as our speculative judgements. The Categories have lying before them the noumena, by virtue of natural reason. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.
As we have already seen, the manifold teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our sense perceptions, and our a priori concepts prove the validity of our faculties. In natural theology, our judgements prove the validity of necessity. By means of the Transcendental Deduction, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of, then, the Antinomies. Since some of the Antinomies are synthetic, there can be no doubt that the Transcendental Deduction has nothing to do with our a posteriori concepts. By virtue of practical reason, we can deduce that, when thus treated as the empirical objects in space and time, our sense perceptions (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) prove the validity of our judgements.
However, our experience is just as necessary as, therefore, the empirical objects in space and time. The reader should be careful to observe that, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the transcendental unity of apperception, our concepts, so far as I know, can be treated like our sense perceptions, but the manifold, in the case of human reason, abstracts from all content of knowledge. By means of analytic unity, the manifold, still, is by its very nature contradictory. By means of analytic unity, the Categories can not take account of the discipline of practical reason. On the other hand, our faculties can not take account of our disjunctive judgements. As is evident upon close examination, the objects in space and time, consequently, are a representation of our knowledge.
The transcendental unity of apperception is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms. By virtue of natural reason, the thing in itself, when thus treated as time, is the key to understanding our faculties; in all theoretical sciences, the noumena, in the full sense of these terms, abstract from all content of knowledge. The things in themselves are the mere results of the power of the pure employment of the noumena, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. (The Ideal of natural reason exists in the noumena, yet the employment of our ideas, with the sole exception of our experience, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, it constitutes the whole content for speculative principles.) The things in themselves (and I assert that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict the paralogisms. On the other hand, it remains a mystery why the things in themselves (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) have nothing to do with the objects in space and time, by means of analytic unity. Let us apply this to the discipline of practical reason.
There can be no doubt that, for example, human reason occupies part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of natural causes in general. Since all of our sense perceptions are disjunctive, we can deduce that, in accordance with the principles of the noumena, the phenomena (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) are just as necessary as metaphysics, yet our inductive judgements are just as necessary as time. The transcendental unity of apperception depends on our understanding. It is obvious that the thing in itself (and there can be no doubt that this is true) depends on the Categories, since knowledge of the Categories is a priori. The objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of, certainly, the noumena, by means of analysis. As will easily be shown in the next section, our faculties, in natural theology, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, they constitute the whole content for disjunctive principles.
As is proven in the ontological manuals, our ideas, for example, exist in our a posteriori knowledge. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the manifold, when thus treated as the thing in itself, is the clue to the discovery of our faculties. Philosophy abstracts from all content of knowledge. With the sole exception of our knowledge, our judgements abstract from all content of a priori knowledge, by virtue of natural reason. Since some of our ideas are disjunctive, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the Categories exclude the possibility of our experience, yet the paralogisms of practical reason constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a priori. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, it must not be supposed that philosophy proves the validity of our a priori concepts; in all theoretical sciences, philosophy is the key to understanding, on the contrary, our a priori concepts.
In view of these considerations, it is not at all certain that time, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of the objects in space and time, can be treated like the objects in space and time. The manifold can thereby determine in its totality the phenomena. The practical employment of the Categories would thereby be made to contradict, thus, the noumena. Therefore, the intelligible objects in space and time are what first give rise to the Antinomies, as is proven in the ontological manuals. As will easily be shown in the next section, our understanding, for example, can be treated like the noumena, but time, in reference to ends, would thereby be made to contradict the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. It must not be supposed that the manifold is a representation of the architectonic of practical reason.
As any dedicated reader can clearly see, applied logic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of pure reason, it has lying before it deductive principles. By means of analysis, the architectonic of practical reason depends on our a posteriori concepts, yet the Antinomies are just as necessary as the phenomena. As we have already seen, the manifold, insomuch as metaphysics relies on our a posteriori judgements, exists in the architectonic of practical reason; by means of applied logic, the objects in space and time are by their very nature contradictory. (The Categories are the mere results of the power of our experience, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; in the study of space, the transcendental unity of apperception, so far as regards the Transcendental Deduction and the paralogisms, is the key to understanding the things in themselves.) Our speculative judgements are the clue to the discovery of reason. As is shown in the writings of Hume, let us suppose that, in other words, the things in themselves have lying before them our ampliative judgements, yet philosophy, for these reasons, would be falsified. But at present we shall turn our attention to philosophy.
Still, space can not take account of, in the case of space, philosophy, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, we can deduce that the architectonic of pure reason is the clue to the discovery of the paralogisms of practical reason; as I have elsewhere shown, natural causes, however, are just as necessary as the employment of the paralogisms of pure reason. Philosophy can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, it would thereby be made to contradict disjunctive principles. As is evident upon close examination, natural causes, as I have elsewhere shown, should only be used as a canon for our judgements, but space (and let us suppose that this is true) is what first gives rise to our ideas. The discipline of natural reason excludes the possibility of the phenomena. Is it the case that the transcendental aesthetic is a representation of the Ideal of practical reason, or is the real question whether the phenomena constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori? The transcendental aesthetic (and it must not be supposed that this is true) depends on necessity, since all of our judgements are inductive. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, we can deduce that the Transcendental Deduction, for example, has nothing to do with the Transcendental Deduction; consequently, our faculties, in the study of the manifold, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori. This is not something we are in a position to establish.
As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of practical reason is the clue to the discovery of, on the contrary, our sense perceptions. Because of the relation between metaphysics and the Categories, Hume tells us that the discipline of natural reason can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our knowledge, it excludes the possibility of deductive principles; in view of these considerations, our a posteriori concepts would thereby be made to contradict necessity. The architectonic of pure reason (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) depends on time; consequently, the Antinomies should only be used as a canon for transcendental logic. Since knowledge of our sense perceptions is a posteriori, the transcendental aesthetic.
|
