Ah! I see. You simply think ‘transcendent’ means mystical? Strange as it may seem he actually meant it in terms of your ‘non-material’ etc.,.:RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:05 amOf course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. "Ontology Introduction," Corollary 3: The Necessity of RelationshipI Like Sushu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am RC -
The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?
Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!I cannot imagine why you have such a need. I don't, "oppose," Kant, I reject his entire philosophy as nonsense. I also do not spend much effort in refuting all the wrong philosophies in the world, since almost all of them are wrong. I'm only interested in presenting what is true. So I'll just briefly mentions some things in Kant that are the most absurd.
There no such thing as a priori vs a posteriori knowlede, or analytic vs synthetic propositions. His entire epistemology is an abomination of made up concepts requiring an intuitive faculty. There is no mysterious knowledge prior to experience and no mystical intuitive faculty.
His idea that perception is a product of (or at least shaped by) reason and that there is a transcendent existence behind the one of consciousness (which of course cannot be known) leads to extreme skepticism, not to understanding of anything.
If you can accept that your initial impression of what Kant meant by ‘transcendent’ is at fault you’ll find his work much more useful.It is obvious that material existence is not all that exists, but everything else that exists (the non-material) only exists as the product of the human mind, that is, psychologically or epistemologically. Reality includes everything that exists materially and non-materially. Knowledge, mathematics, science, history, philosophy, language, and literature all really exist, but not materially. The books or other physical ways these are recorded are material (physical), but any "meaning" they have is psychological (non-material).
The very mention of this term in CoPR is here:
“I call all knowledge transcendental which deals not so much with objects as with our manner of knowing objects insofar as this matter is to be possible a priori.”
So he is referring to the innate faculties that allow for experience NOT ‘knowledge’ in the sense of conscious awareness. Your ‘non-material knowledge’ appears to be closely related to Kant’s ‘transcendental knowledge’.