timelets

timelets @ 2023-03-12T22:53:00

2023-03-13T05:58:16Z

Paraphrasing Kant, [Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them:] limits and co-limits."

comments

timelets @ 2022-06-28T00:18:00

2022-06-28T07:20:50Z

Hillary Putnam on Kant's insight into the connection between time, space and causality.

https://youtu.be/DPQZfsAHgSg?t=812

comments

timelets @ 2020-02-04T11:20:00

2020-02-04T19:28:24Z

( Read more... )

comments

timelets @ 2020-01-10T22:43:00

2020-01-11T07:08:13Z

From a purely logical POV, killing (or imprisoning) an evil person can make a situation worse if they are replaced by an even more evil person. This goes back to Kant's analysis of hypothetical statements ( The Critique of Pure Reason, "If perfect justice exists"). Framing the killing as an act of justice implicitly hypothesizes that evil is unique, rather than a systematic result of the underlying condition.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-09-16T04:52:08Z

Time is not
a discursive,
or as it is called,
general conception, but

a pure form
of the sensuous
intuition.

Different times
are merely parts
of one and
the same time.

But the representation
which can only be given by
a single object is
an intuition.

Besides,
the proposition that
different times
cannot be coexistent
could not be derived
from a general conception.

For this proposition is
synthetical,
and therefore
cannot spring
out of conceptions alone.

It is therefore contained immediately
in the intuition
and representation
of time.

-- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

timelets @ 2019-07-20T15:00:00

2019-07-20T22:10:08Z

3. All relations of thought in judgements are those (a) of the predicate to the subject; (b) of the principle to its consequence; (c) of the divided cognition and all the members of the division to each other.”

Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.

From a purely formal perspective, discussions and misunderstandings about whether Trump is a racist stem from a deficiency in natural human language that expresses statements of category 3b as 3c. Kant describes such errors as illusions of reason, analogous to illusions of perception.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-07-19T06:51:01Z

Of all 
     mental notions, 
                   that of conjunction 
is the only one 
               which cannot be given 
through objects, 

but can be originated 
           only by the subject 
                               itself,
because it is an act 
              of its purely 
                      spontaneous 
activity. 

...the possibility of conjunction 
                      must be grounded 
in the very nature 
                   of this act, 

and that it must be equally 
                valid for all conjunction,

and that analysis, 
          which appears to be 
                             its contrary, 
must, nevertheless, 
                   always presuppose it; 

for where the understanding 
                    has not 
                       previously conjoined, 
it cannot dissect 
                   or analyse, 

because only 
            as conjoined by it, 
must that 
            which is to be 
                           analysed 
have been given to 
              our faculty 
                     of representation.


Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

timelets @ 2019-07-11T13:01:00

2019-07-11T20:09:57Z

Secondly, there is truth in respect of the deductions from it. The more true deductions we have from a given conception, the more criteria of its objective reality. This we might call the qualitative plurality of characteristic marks, which belong to a conception as to a common foundation, but are not cogitated as a quantity in it.

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.

We can think about it as a Big Bang moment of truth that enables a partial order of consequence relations (see the Strassburger paper on logic). The more, the better.

comments

timelets @ 2019-07-09T21:27:00

2019-07-10T04:33:40Z

..the criterion or test of an hypothesis is 

the intelligibility 
                   of the received 
principle of explanation,
                          or its 
unity

(without help from any subsidiary hypothesis)

— the truth 
            of our deductions 
                                from it 
(consistency with each other 
                         and with experience)
— and lastly, 
                   the completeness 
of the principle of 
                    the explanation 
of these deductions, 
               which refer to                              
neither more 
                          nor less 
than what was admitted 
                      in the hypothesis, 

restoring analytically 
                      and a posteriori, 
what was cogitated 
               synthetically 
                           and a priori.

-- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-07-08T05:43:20Z

By the word 
             synthesis, 
in its most general 
                     signification, 
I understand 
      the process 
                of joining different 
representations to each other
                and of comprehending 
their diversity 
                  in one cognition.

But the synthesis 
                of a diversity 
(be it given a priori or empirically) 

is the first requisite 
                  for the production 
                                of a cognition, 
which in its beginning, 
indeed, 
                   may be crude and confused, 
and therefore in need 
                       of analysis — 

still, synthesis is 
          that by which 
                               alone 
the elements of our 
               cognitions 
                    are collected and united 
into a certain content, 

consequently 
it is the first thing 
                     on which we must 
fix our attention, 
                    if we wish to investigate 
the origin 
                           of our knowledge.

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-07-05T07:05:04Z

Or suppose some one
recommends you a man
as steward,
as a man to whom
you can blindly trust
all your affairs;
and, in order to inspire you
with confidence,
extols him as a prudent man
who thoroughly understands
his own interest,
and is so indefatigably active
that he lets slip no opportunity
of advancing it;

...while as to the means
(which, of course, derive all their value
from the end),
he is not particular,
and is ready to use
other people’s money
for the purpose
as if it were his own,
provided only he knows
that he can do so safely,
and without discovery;

you would either believe that the recommender was mocking you, or that he had lost his senses.

--- Immanuel Kant “The Critique of Practical Reason.”

comments

Funny how certain things never change

2019-07-04T06:40:55Z

“Consistency is the highest obligation of a philosopher, and yet the most rarely found. The ancient Greek schools give us more examples of it than we find in our syncretistic age, in which a certain shallow and dishonest system of compromise of contradictory principles is devised, because it commends itself better to a public which is content to know something of everything and nothing thoroughly, so as to please every party.”

--- Emmanuel Kant, “The Critique of Practical Reason.”

comments

timelets @ 2019-06-30T21:02:00

2019-07-01T04:08:23Z

What then are 
             time and 
                     space? 
Are they real 
               existences? 
Or, are they 
            merely relations 
or determinations 
                 of things, 
such, however, 
        as would equally 
                        belong 
to these things 
                 in themselves, 
though they should never 
                  become objects 
of intuition; 

or, are they such 
          as belong only 
                       to the form 
of intuition, 

and consequently 
          to the subjective 
                       constitution 
of the mind, 
             without which 
these predicates 
                   of time and space 
could not be attached 
                      to any object? 

In order to become 
informed...

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

timelets @ 2019-06-29T00:24:00

2019-06-29T07:30:26Z

...the common 
      fate of human 
                   reason 
in speculation, 
            to finish 
                   the imposing 
edifice of thought 
          as rapidly 
                   as possible, 
and then for 
                the first time 
to begin to 
      examine whether 
                the foundation 
is a solid one 
                 or no. 
Arrived at this point, 
                all sorts of 
excuses 
         are sought after, 
in order to 
         console us 
                    for its want 
of stability, or 
         rather, indeed, 
                      to enable us 
to dispense altogether 
                  with so late 

and dangerous an investigation.

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-24T05:31:40Z

if we take 
          away 
              by degrees 
from our 
      conceptions of 
                    a body 
all that can be 
        referred to
                mere sensuous 
experience — 
            colour, hardness or softness, weight, 
even impenetrability — 

the body will then 
                   vanish; 
but the space 
           which it occupied 
                       still remains, 
and this it is 
            utterly 
                    impossible to 
annihilate 
          in thought.

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.” iBooks.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-21T05:58:57Z

The usual test, 
           whether 
                that which 
any one maintains 
        is merely his 
                    persuasion, 
or his subjective 
              conviction at least, 
      that is, 
                his firm belief, 
is a bet. 

It frequently happens 
                 that a man delivers 
his opinions with 
             so much boldness 
                        and assurance, 
that he appears to be 
                  under no apprehension 
as to the possibility of 
                    his being 
                            in error. 

The offer of a bet 
                 startles him, 
and makes him 
           pause. Sometimes 
                       it turns out that 
his persuasion 
         may be valued
                     at a ducat,         
but not at ten.
 
For he does not hesitate, 
                     perhaps, 
to venture a ducat, 
                but if it is proposed 
to stake ten, 
            he immediately 
                      becomes aware 
of the possibility 
             of his being mistaken — 
a possibility which has hitherto 
              escaped 
                     his observation.

If we imagine to ourselves that we have to stake the happiness of our whole life on the truth of any proposition, our judgement drops its air of triumph, we take the alarm, and discover the actual strength of our belief. Thus pragmatical belief has degrees, varying in proportion to the interests at stake.

---- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

timelets @ 2019-06-19T23:59:00

2019-06-20T07:01:10Z

“there is nothing, in the world more fatal to the maintenance of a good cause than deceit, misrepresentation, and falsehood.”

--- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-19T05:20:03Z

The holding 
        of a thing 
               to be true is 
a phenomenon
          in our understanding 
which may rest on 
             objective grounds,

but requires, also, 
                subjective causes 
in the mind of the person 
                       judging. 

If a judgement is valid 
                    for every 
                           rational being, 
then its ground 
               is objectively sufficient, 
and it is termed 
                      a conviction. 

If, on the other hand, 
                   it has its ground in 
the particular character 
                     of the subject, 
     it is termed 
                      a persuasion.

Persuasion is a mere 
                         illusion, 
the ground of 
            the judgement, 
                   which lies solely 
in the subject, 
          being regarded 
                      as objective. 

Hence a judgement 
            of this kind 
            has only private validity — 
is only valid for 
           the individual 
                     who judges,

and the holding of 
              a thing to be true 
in this way 
            cannot be 
                     communicated.

-- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-17T05:50:18Z

It is quite admissible
                   to cogitate 
the soul 
       as simple, 
              for the purpose of 
enabling ourselves to 
              employ the idea 
of a perfect 
          and 
              necessary unity
of all the faculties
                  of the mind 
as the principle of 
             all our inquiries into 
its internal 
             phenomena, although 
we cannot cognize 
              this unity 
                     in concreto.

But...

The simple is never
                 presented 
                     in experience; 
and, if by substance 
               is here meant 
                  the permanent object of 
sensuous intuition,
                    the possibility of 
a simple phenomenon
             is perfectly 
                         inconceivable.

--- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Same cause, opposite effects.

2019-06-16T02:27:04Z

I'm having trouble verbalizing why this particular Kant phrase fascinates me. Nevertheless, here it is:

“...the light of the sun, which shines upon a piece of wax, at the same time melts it, while it hardens clay”

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-13T05:53:09Z

All ignorance is 
      either ignorance 
               of things or 
of the 
        limits of knowledge. 
If my 
      ignorance is 
              accidental and not
                         necessary, 
it must incite me, 
               in the first case, 
to a dogmatical inquiry 
                    regarding 
the objects 
          of which 
                 I am ignorant; 
in the second, 
            to a critical 
                investigation into 
the bounds of all 
               possible knowledge. 

But that my 
       ignorance is 
             absolutely necessary and 
unavoidable, and 
              that it consequently 
absolves from the duty of 
                         all further 
investigation, 
          is a fact which 
                      cannot be made out 
upon empirical grounds —
                    from observation — 
but upon critical grounds 
                     alone, that is, 
by a thoroughgoing investigation 
                  into the primary sources of
cognition. 

It follows that 
             the determination 
                  of the bounds of reason 
can be made only 
              on a priori grounds; 
while the empirical limitation of 
                                 reason, 
which is merely 
              an indeterminate cognition 
of an ignorance that can never 
                  be completely 
                              removed, 
can take place only 
                   a posteriori.

Immanuel Kant. “The Critique of Pure Reason.”

comments

Kantian Meditation

2019-06-11T05:39:25Z

I. Of Definitions. 

A definition is, 
       as the term itself 
                    indicates, 
the representation, 
             upon primary grounds,
of the complete
               conception 
                           of a thing 
                                      within 
its own limits. 

Accordingly, an empirical 
                        conception 
cannot be defined,

            it can only be explained. 

For, as there are in 
              such a conception 
                                only 
a certain number 
         of marks or signs, 
                     which denote 
a certain class of 
              sensuous objects, 
                        we can never be sure 
that we do not cogitate
               under the word 
                      which indicates the same 
object, at one time 
                   a greater, 
                             at another 
a smaller number 
                 of signs.
...
We employ 
       certain signs 
                   only so long 
                            as we require them 
for the sake of 
                 distinction; 
new observations 
               abstract some and 
                             add new ones, 
so that an empirical 
                   conception 
                          never remains 
within permanent 
                  limits. 

It is, in fact, 
             useless 
                  to define a conception 
                                of this kind. 
If, for example, 
            we are speaking 
                       of water and 
its properties, 
           we do not stop at 
                     what we actually think 
by the word 
         water, 
            but proceed to observation 
and 
     experiment; 

and the word, 
        with the few signs 
                  attached to it, 
is more properly 
             a designation than 
                           a conception 
of the thing.

--- Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason.”

comments

Kantian meditation

2019-06-10T06:11:27Z

... it must be perfectly 
         indifferent to you 
                   whether you say, 
when you 
       have discovered 
                   this unity: 
God has wisely 
            willed 
                   it so; 
         or:
Nature has wisely 
                arranged. 

For it was nothing but
                the systematic unity, 
which reason 
           requires 
                 as a basis for the investigation
of nature, 
that justified you
                in accepting 
                           the idea of
a supreme intelligence
                       as a schema for
                              a regulative principle;
and, the farther you 
            advance in the discovery 
of design 
        and finality, the more certain 
                                  the validity 
of your
           idea.
...
These principles, 
             by placing the goal of all
our struggles 
             at so great 
                        a distance, 
realize for us 
              the most thorough 
                         connection between 
the different parts of 
                     our cognition, 
                               and the highest 
degree of systematic unity. 
                            But, 
on the other hand,
              if misunderstood 
                        and employed as 
constitutive principles
                of transcendent cognition, 
                                  they become 
the parents of illusions 
                    and contradictions, 
                            while pretending to 
introduce us to 
             new regions of 
                          knowledge.

--- Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason.

comments

Time for our nightly Kant meditation

2019-06-09T06:25:26Z


...the idea of God. 

We have not 
          the slightest ground 
                             absolutely 
                                     to admit the existence 
of an object 
          corresponding to 
                           this idea; 
for what can empower 
                  or authorize us 
                               to affirm 
                                        the existence 
of a being 
           of the highest 
                          perfection — 
a being 
         whose existence 
                         is absolutely necessary — 
merely because 
               we possess 
                         the conception of 
such a being? 

The answer is: 
                It is the existence 
of the world 
              which renders 
                          this hypothesis 
                                     necessary. 

But this answer 
                makes it perfectly 
                                     evident that 
                                                   the idea of 
this being, 
           like all other speculative ideas, is 
                                                essentially 
nothing more 
              than a demand upon 
                                  reason 
that it shall regulate 
                       the connection which it 
                                          and its subordinate 
faculties introduce into 
                          the phenomena of 
the world 
             by principles of 
                              systematic unity 
and, consequently, 
                  that it shall regard 
                                      all phenomena as 
originating from 
                   one 
                         all-embracing 
being, 
        as the supreme 
                            and 
                                  all-sufficient 
                                                   cause.

Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason.”

comments

timelets @ 2019-06-08T00:06:00

2019-06-08T07:18:23Z

When principles 
                which are 
                           really regulative 
are regarded 
                  as 
                            constitutive, 
and employed 
                  as 
                           objective principles,
contradictions 
                 must 
                           arise; 


but if they are 
                  considered as 
                                 mere maxims,  
there is no room 
                  for contradictions 
                                      of any kind, 

as they then merely 
                  indicate the different 
                                      interests of reason, 
which occasion 
                   differences 
                                in the mode of thought. 


In effect, 
             Reason has only one 
                                   single interest, 
and the 
           seeming 
                   contradiction 
                                  existing between
her maxims 
              merely indicates 
                                 a difference in, 
and a reciprocal 
                limitation of, 
                                   the methods 
by which 
            this 
                   interest 
                                 is satisfied.”

This reasoner has at heart the interest of diversity — in accordance with the principle of specification; another, the interest of unity — in accordance with the principle of aggregation. Each believes**** that his judgement rests upon a thorough insight into the subject he is examining, and yet it has been influenced solely by a greater or less degree of adherence to some one of the two principles, neither of which are objective, but originate solely from the interest of reason, and on this account to be termed maxims rather than principles.

---Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason.”

**** The two thinkers use different methods of aggregation; therefore, they come up with different classes of equivalence, and as the result their logics are necessarily different.

comments