Kant on space

[raw_thought]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically. However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them. Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that. However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically. However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them. Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that. However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?

Yes, it can be sound.
What is subjective [one subject] can be objectified via intersubjectivity [collective of subjects].
The question is how credible and reliable is that objectivity [intersubjectivity].

What exists and is real, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific-FSR-FSK the most objective.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Kant did not deny space exists objectively.
Kant accept space can exists objectively but it is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
Because it is conditioned upon what is human-based [subjects], whatever is FSK-ed space, it is ultimately "subjective" [intersubjective].

Space is objective within the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian, Einsteinian human-based FSK. But space is ultimately 'subjective' i.e. intersubjective.

Kant argued against philosophical realism which insist reality [including space and time] is absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.
Kant deny the above and refute it with his CPR and Copernican Revolution.

[Agent Smith]

Kant's interests as indicated by his claims on space, assuming the OP didn't get it wrong, is dull & drab. Did he perchance read the works of ancient wisdom lovers? I hope he did because then dull & drab become thrilling & exciting. It isn't all obvious why he would accentuate those features of x, such that x is a subject of his, that feel so natural and so in-yer-face. I suggest we look at the post-Kantian epoch to get an idea of where we're headed.

[Atla]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically. However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them. Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that. However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?

Yes, Kant proposed a pinciple that seems to be flat out wrong. That's where I stopped reading the Critique heh.

The natural world seems to behave according to Einsteinian relative spacetime. And the psychological, subjective, "absolute" space and time that Kant was talking about, in which humans are bound to experience everything, seems to be a good representation, approximation of Einsteinian spacetime at low velocities. Evolution seems to have cut corners and equipped us with thinking in terms of absolute space and time, it's much simpler.

[raw_thought]

If we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us... Not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, is nothing in itself,...

(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

According to Democritus, atoms had lost the qualities like color, taste, etc., they only occupied space, but geometrical assertions [location, size, shape etc.] about atoms were admissible and required no further analysis. In modern physics, atoms lose this last property, they possess geometrical qualities in no higher degree than color, taste, etc.

Heisenberg

[Age]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically.

But we CAN understand 'space'. AND, understand 'it' for what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. That is; AFTER 'that word'' is defined in a way, which FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

See, what 'space' IS, EXACTLY, empirically AND, analytically, is ALREADY WELL UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them.

AND, perhaps it is possible to prove them.

Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that.

If you live long enough, then yes you do.

However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know

Is there, REALLY, ANY 'thing' that would be impossible TO KNOW?

Is 'this', itself, for example, impossible TO KNOW?

does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?

That would all depend on what you, EXACTLY, mean by 'subjective' AND 'objective'.

[Age]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically. However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them. Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that. However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?

Yes, it can be sound.
What is subjective [one subject] can be objectified via intersubjectivity [collective of subjects].

BUT in ONLY One WAY. Which you have YET to UNDERSTAND and DESCRIBE here. Well from what I have gathered in what I have OBSERVED you write and say here so far anyway.

The question is how credible and reliable is that objectivity [intersubjectivity].

AGAIN, it can ONLY be, absolutely, credible in ONLY one WAY.

What exists and is real, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific-FSR-FSK the most objective.

LOL

Here we have ANOTHER example.of ADDING absolutely UNNECESSARY LAYERS, of absolutely UNNECESSARY STUFF, ONTO what is ESSENTIALLY and Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY INDEED.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Kant did not deny space exists objectively.
Kant accept space can exists objectively but it is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
Because it is conditioned upon what is human-based [subjects], whatever is FSK-ed space, it is ultimately "subjective" [intersubjective].

Space is objective within the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian, Einsteinian human-based FSK. But space is ultimately 'subjective' i.e. intersubjective.

Kant argued against philosophical realism which insist reality [including space and time] is absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.
Kant deny the above and refute it with his CPR and Copernican Revolution.

WHO even CARES what these human beings thought and said?

Obviously NONE of 'them' have got ANY of 'you' TO the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' YET.

Although ALL of 'you' WRITE and SPEAK here as though ’you' ALREADY KNOW what 'the TRUTH' IS, EXACTLY.

Now I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that 'you' people concentrate on LEARNING HOW TO FIND and SEE what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, BEFORE 'you' even BEGIN ' trying to' express ANY 'truth'. That way 'you' people will NEVER BE AS wrong AS OFTEN as 'you' ALL HAVE BEEN here.

[Age]

Kant's interests as indicated by his claims on space, assuming the OP didn't get it wrong, is dull & drab. Did he perchance read the works of ancient wisdom lovers? I hope he did because then dull & drab become thrilling & exciting. It isn't all obvious why he would accentuate those features of x, such that x is a subject of his, that feel so natural and so in-yer-face. I suggest we look at the post-Kantian epoch to get an idea of where we're headed.

I suggest even looking FURTHER BACK, as well.

[Age]

If we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general,

But senses, themselves, do NOT have ANY 'subjective constitution' to them AT ALL.

Senses FEEL/EXPERIENCE 'things' EXACTLY how 'they' ARE.

It is ONLY 'in thought' where a 'subjective' 'interpretation' is MADE.

then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us...

What do you mean by 'they, themselves, disappear'?

WHERE could 'they' possibly go?

Not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, is nothing in itself,...

So, are you here saying that to 'your subjective' experience there is NOTHING AT ALL?

If no, then WHAT are you saying, and meaning, here, EXACTLY?

(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

According to Democritus, atoms had lost the qualities like color, taste, etc., they only occupied space,

But, to you, 'space', itself, is NOTHING 'in itself' anyway, right?

but geometrical assertions [location, size, shape etc.] about atoms were admissible and required no further analysis. In modern physics, atoms lose this last property, they possess geometrical qualities in no higher degree than color, taste, etc.

Heisenberg
[/quote]

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you would like to CONVEY here?

[Agent Smith]

Kant's interests as indicated by his claims on space, assuming the OP didn't get it wrong, is dull & drab. Did he perchance read the works of ancient wisdom lovers? I hope he did because then dull & drab become thrilling & exciting. It isn't all obvious why he would accentuate those features of x, such that x is a subject of his, that feel so natural and so in-yer-face. I suggest we look at the post-Kantian epoch to get an idea of where we're headed.

I suggest even looking FURTHER BACK, as well.

Aye! Where be we?

[river]

Space is both objective and real . Without space no thing nor the Universe would exist .

[Advocate]

[quote=raw_thought post_id=650231 time=1687391953 user_id=10786]
Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

I agree with Kant that we cannot understand space either empirically and/ or analytically. However, in my opinion that does not mean that space is not objective. Just because something is beyond my understanding doesn't mean that it is not an objective reality! Perhaps the concepts; location, separation... are impossible to prove. Perhaps we are just lucky, that we understand them. Suppose I think I know that there is granite on a particular planet light years from here. I have no way of knowing that. However, there is!!! Just because something is impossible to know does not mean that it is not possible for that thing to exist. Similarly, even though I accept Kant's idea that space is subjective, that does not mean that it cannot also be objective! Is my point sound?
[/quote]

Nothing in a mind is subjective, even if it refers to something externally objective, because there are three filters to get it in there and how it comes out (is communicated) may or may not represent either it's internal or external precision.

[godelian]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

Kant's word salad has been superseded by theory of relativity:

https://philarchive.org/archive/DORKGA

Since the onset of logical positivism, the general wisdom of the philosophy of science has it that the kantian philosophy of (space and) time has been superseded by the theory of relativity, in the same sense in which the latter has replaced Newton’s theory of absolute space and time.

You see, in critique of pure reason, Kant rarely commits to saying anything actionable -- in scientific terms "falsifiable" -- but whenever he does, what he says always turns out to be wrong.

I still have to discover one thing that Kant truly commits to and that is actually correct. In my opinion, a thing like that does not exist.

[Atla]

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective..."
Immanuel Kant, Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, p 65

Kant's word salad has been superseded by theory of relativity:

https://philarchive.org/archive/DORKGA

Since the onset of logical positivism, the general wisdom of the philosophy of science has it that the kantian philosophy of (space and) time has been superseded by the theory of relativity, in the same sense in which the latter has replaced Newton’s theory of absolute space and time.

You see, in critique of pure reason, Kant rarely commits to saying anything actionable -- in scientific terms "falsifiable" -- but whenever he does, what he says always turns out to be wrong.

I still have to discover one thing that Kant truly commits to and that is actually correct. In my opinion, a thing like that does not exist.

Kant was correct that empiricism and rationalism needed to be combined into a unified whole, but he horribly messed up the unification process and created an abomination. I think overall, he didn't really think through what he was doing, he just wanted to get his critique done so he could gloat.