Kant’s Philosophy

[Ephrium]

I am a philosophy undergraduate and had Kant’s Critique and especially his concept of time and space been debunked? I read through for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/



They seem to only mention what Kant’s viewpoint is, Kant’s conception is this or that. It does not seem to state whether it has been debunked or wrong or what. I wonder how should I take the modern viewpoint of his theory

[Impenitent]

regardless of what the communists claim, the irremovable goggles have not been removed; nor has the egocentric predicament been cured...

-Imp

[Ephrium]

Who was renowned for the egocentric principle? This if was solved there would be no need for there to be criminal trials. A judge can tell whether you are guilty by looking at your face

[fooloso4]

Ephrium:

It does not seem to state whether it has been debunked or wrong or what.

That is because there is no general agreement among philosophers or physicists.

I wonder how should I take the modern viewpoint of his theory.

Good question. Take them (there are various contemporary viewpoints) with a grain of salt. Read Kant, read what others have to say, think about it, reach some tentative conclusions, and be prepared to revise them. For every opinion you are given someone else will give you a different opinion. Is your main interest in learning what others think or in developing your own thoughts?

[Impenitent]

Who was renowned for the egocentric principle? This if was solved there would be no need for there to be criminal trials. A judge can tell whether you are guilty by looking at your face

several philosophers actually (Berkeley in particular as well) and Kant never gets out of his head either

-Imp

[Ephrium]

I am interested in whatever is true

Is your main interest in learning what others think or in developing your own thoughts?

[Greta]

Has Kant been disproved?

The naturalist angle would be that space is merely relative; it's never truly empty, replete with quantum fluctuations impacted upon by stray gravitational and EM forces. That leaves us with one, fully connected universe (at least), with areas relatively dense or diffuse, with connections that may be stronger or weaker. Does any of this conflict with Kant?

From the standpoint of a neutron star, the Earth is akin to space - something through which it could move unimpeded, as though it was a thin cloud. From the standpoint of the smallest flying insects, the air that we perceive as empty space is like water through which they swim (and thus, their tiny wings are paddle-shaped). To quantum scale phenomena, the impact of a single photon is a massive event.

Sense of space can vary greatly, depending on one's size, density and makeup, but that does not detract from the reality of the relative space that was responsible for the idea of space being conceived of in the first place.

[fooloso4]

Ephrium:

I am interested in whatever is true

But how do you determine what is true? If various people tell you various incompatible things about Kant that each claims to be true, where does that leave you? If various people tell you various incompatible things about space and time that each claims to be true, where does that leave you?

From the second article you cited:

… there is no consensus on how Kant’s conception of space and time ought to be characterized and explicated.

One thing that should be kept in mind is Kant’s use of the term ‘objective’. It means the universally subjective, that is, the way things are represented to us according to the structure of the mind. In other words what is objective is ideal, that is, mind dependent rather than real or mind independent.

On the question of the intuition of space and time, perhaps he means something along the lines of the following. He says of intuition:

In whatever way and through whatever means a cognition may related to objects, that through which it relates immediately to them, and at which all thought as a means is directed as an end, is intuition.

A cognition is a conscious representation (see the first chart in the article). An intuition of an object is the way in which the object is immediately present to consciousness (as opposed to mediated concepts). The representation of space and time although not the representation of physical objects are objects of consciousness, immediately present to it.

[Nick_A]

I am interested in whatever is true

Is your main interest in learning what others think or in developing your own thoughts?

Yours is an important, very old yet new question IMO. We want to know what is true but are we willing to suffer for this knowledge? In other words, we want to know what the thing is in itself but when we admit that we are a thing, are we willing to "know thyself"? Of course this is an ancient idea but how many are willing to suffer the truth of what we are. If we are unwilling, how can we grasp what a thing is in itself? You may appreciate this food for thought since you are interested in truth.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

.........................At this point, the whole issue gets really interesting. Now we see that in order to know the world behind external appearances, we have to get behind the appearances of our inner world. The only way to gain real knowledge of the outer world is by penetrating the appearances of the inner world. Thus, if I want to know the numinous, the thing­in­itself, I need to activate that instrument in myself that is capable of perceiving it. This is the very "instrument" that Kant proved, so he believed, did not exist.

Kant proclaimed that there is no instrument in the human psyche for perceiving things as they are in themselves; and he presented his argument with such logical and metaphysical brilliance that one must bow to his awesome mind. The Critique of Pure Reason, in which he developed this thesis within the framework of a detailed and comprehensive system, is so astonishing that few people dared say anything different, except in the most circuitous way possible. Hegel tried, but that wasn't what survived of his work. Hardly anybody, particularly in the Anglo­American philosophical tradition, ever seriously challenged Kant's insistent proclamation, his proof, that we can ever know the Ding an sich--the thing­in­itself. Nobody would take on the awesome logic of Kant; and for more than a century his critique of empiricism reigned supreme, a monumental pinnacle of philosophical achievement-except it was wrong...................................

[Necromancer]

I am a philosophy undergraduate and had Kant’s Critique and especially his concept of time and space been debunked? I read through for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/



They seem to only mention what Kant’s viewpoint is, Kant’s conception is this or that. It does not seem to state whether it has been debunked or wrong or what. I wonder how should I take the modern viewpoint of his theory

Please, take note that there are 2 Kantian notions of time of which one is the traditional A-theory of time. One has been presented in each of the editions of The Critique. However, I think it's fair to say that Kant also wonders about time in Heaven. Can we experience time in Heaven? What are the dimensions of "religious time", of Heaven?

[HexHammer]

I am a philosophy undergraduate and had Kant’s Critique and especially his concept of time and space been debunked? I read through for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/



They seem to only mention what Kant’s viewpoint is, Kant’s conception is this or that. It does not seem to state whether it has been debunked or wrong or what. I wonder how should I take the modern viewpoint of his theory

So far I know Kant has been debunked on time and space, read exclusively Einstein's relativity theory. Kant ONLY provides pure nonsense and babble in this area!

Most philosophy only contain completely irrelevant historical nostalgic nonsense and babble that you should avoid, as in 99% is completely irrelevant, and doesn't offer any clues how to implement the philosophy in modern jobs.

[HexHammer]

I am a philosophy undergraduate and had Kant’s Critique and especially his concept of time and space been debunked? I read through for instance https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/

They seem to only mention what Kant’s viewpoint is, Kant’s conception is this or that. It does not seem to state whether it has been debunked or wrong or what. I wonder how should I take the modern viewpoint of his theory

You can trash 99.99% of all philosophy, it's completely irrelevant, specially Kant, many falls flat on their faces for his beautiful babble, his nonsense about time and space are replaced by Einstein's SRT (special relativity theory), spending time on ..I mean, wasting time on Kant only proves how much waste of time philosophy classes are!