Kant argues that space and time are preconditions of experience,

Reason doesn't really exist and Kant was a filthy universalist.

>One can never forge a representation of the absence of space

This is demonstrably wrong using modern mathematics desu

>>8663217
then animals don't have experiences? this is absurd

>>8663217
> bunch of incoherence
op, stop being a pseud

>>8663244

>Reason doesn't really exist

Why?

>>8663279

>This is demonstrably wrong using modern mathematics desu

Elaborate?

>>8663291

>then animals don't have experiences?

Or, we might conclude that animals are possessed of Reason to a degree or in a form different from our own. (Tends towards idealism, but then Kant was an idealist.)

>>8663294

Don't be crazy.

>>8663294

for real. i hate arguing semantics. but in this case you fucking have to define what you mean by reason because you can't make an argument either way without doing so.

so what the fuck do you mean by reason? first-order logic? the ability to take in sensory input? (that's not reason)

the ability to interpret sensory input? if so, then fuck no reason is not a precondition of experience. this doesn't even need explaining.

>>8663279

Well, for Kant this would be an 'analytic a priori' judgement. To be a representation (of an external object) is to be spatial. A non-spatial representation, of an 'external' object, at least, is internally contradictory--'where' could the representation be? How is it even conceived?

I am unsure what you mean when you say 'this is demonstrably untrue using modern mathematics'. Could you demonstrate?

>>8663309

I don't know what OP has in mind, but reason (Vernunft) is a capacity and a function, namely if principles. If the understanding concepts to intuition or to each other, reason determines the ground for those judgements.

>>8663322

>‘The understanding may be a faculty for the production of unity of phenomena by virtue of rules; the reason is a faculty for the production of unity of rules (of the understanding) under principles.

>>8663217
By reason, do you mean anything other than 'causality'?

>>8663322
so it seems like reason is analogous to a mathematical function. then what is the input if reason precludes experience ? you can't make any judgements if there's nothing to judge. you don't have intuition if there's nothing to intuit. i don't really see any meaningful argument to this.

>>8663350

>so it seems like reason is analogous to a mathematical function

Not really, I'm sorry to have given that impression. I meant function as 'purpose'. Reason, in its proper 'function', provides a unity of rules under a regulation idea. It haseems no empirical content, but takes as its object the understanding (the actual faculty of judgement).

>i don't really see any meaningful argument to this.

What is the argument? I understood you to be in need of clarification.

>>8663359

>regulative idea

>>8663359
the argument thing was directed towards op. i'm curious to hear your thoughts on this though

>>8663381

I'm not sure I understand what OP is really in about, so I should refrain from judgement. However, the are some glaring misunderstandings of Kant in the OP such as

>'Reason is what leads us to perceive the meaning/interrelation of objects in the world'

Which lead me to believe OP didn't fully grasp his own meaning, either.

>>8663395

i see. thanks for the clarification from before buddy!

>>8663309
>you fucking have to define what you mean

This isn't a freshman philosophy class anon. The reason I want to avoid a definition at the moment is because I don't intend to study 'Reason' by starting with an axiomatic representation. I am more interested in studying the "conditions of the possibility" of meaning; I have chosen "Reason" as that condition, analogous to Kant's description of time and space, but also superseding his categorization (time and space might be species of the faculty of reason).

>>8663325

Thank you anon this is more or less what I had in mind, and why I chose "Reason" to stand in for this concept.

>>8663345

I'm not sure. When I consider arguments like Hume's against the possibility of knowing cause empirically, I'm led to believe that our "interpretation" of the world as being causally ordered is one of these preconditions. Reason is that universal framework.

>>8663395

It's off the cuff, so I understand my exposition may not have been the clearest. The problem I'm seeing is that we are not able to know through empirical observation that anything we observe is causally connected. As space and time have dimension, so too does meaning - what might otherwise be called "causal order" (something topologous), but their interchangeability depends on your own metaphysical commitments so.

>>8663307
>Why?
Presumes a 'force' is mostly universal and correct.

>>8664245

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? This seems like an eliminativism - which I have no problem with, just unsure about your reasoning.

>>8663542
>The problem I'm seeing is that we are not able to know through empirical observation that anything we observe is causally connected.

Kant's answer is we know this a priori, causality being one of the pure categories of the understanding, absent which experience (of, say, an 'event') would not be possible.

>time and space might be species of the faculty of reason

No, they are the pure forms of intuition, i.e. the necessary 'configurations' an object must take in order to be an object 'for us'.

>>8663542

Reason doesn't hassle with 'meaning'; that's the understanding's job. Reason is concerned with the syllogistic relation of ideas to one another, and of establishing the unconditioned, the ground of knowledge.

>>8665217
>'for us'.

>tfw not knowing your true, noumenal form

>>8665225
>Reason doesn't hassle with 'meaning'; that's the understanding's job.

What is reasons relationship to understanding?

File: absolutely disgusting.jpg (1MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x5000px

>>8663217
>Reason - which we'll leave undefined for now

You stopped doing philosophy the second you wrote this

File: 1476324331048.jpg (23KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x350px

>>8663217
You've literally just put the categories under the umbrella of "reason" and dubbed it novel.

Read more, post less.

>>8665217

Yes, that's what Kant says, but I'm not necessarily sticking to Kant, just using him as a starting point.

If I were to argue that space and time are categories of Reason, I would point to the way that our senses are themselves composed of discrete categories. For instance, sight is composed of sensitivity to light and sensitivity of color; when we hear, we are sensing pitch, volume, and the direction of the sound. Each of the senses we usually pick out are actually themselves composite.

Finally, from the recognition that a sense is a composite of "sub"-senses, these composite senses are then composed into thought. (Tangentially, this seems to tend towards reliabilism.)

>>8665225

This is the division of sign and sense that Wittgenstein uses, also comparable to Frege and Russell's division of meaning and logical form.

Why could it not be that each of those are only aspects of a single thing? Can "logical relation" make sense without something about which those logical relations are meant? Can meaning be constructed without necessarily implying some possible logical relation?

>>8666153

Sophomore.

>>8666168

You're hallucinating anon. I never called my theory novel.

This says something about you, I think.

>>8663217
NONSENSE
the problem with the notion that we could "go even further than Kant, and argue that Reason - which we'll leave undefined for now - is another precondition of experience" is that the argument is a logical contradiction:

That is to say, let us suppose that we buy the argument that reason is merely something the mind imposes on reality and does not have any sort of relation to the truth, but is merely some sort of pattern recognition.
That argument CANNOT be true, because, as an argument it relies upon reason—reason itself cannot be denied by means of any sort of logical argument, because to do so one must utilize some sort of reasoning.

>>8666255
You're using an undefined axiom as a pillar for your entire theory

You are the definition of a sophist and a pseud

>>8663217
Professor Kluge was right, you are a pleb

>>8666255

>If I were to argue that space and time are categories of Reason

>For instance, sight is composed of sensitivity to light and sensitivity of color; when we hear, we are sensing pitch, volume, and the direction of the sound.

These are not categories, but different means of perception. 'Sound' is an empirical category, under which we bring our variable perceptions of vibration frequencies.

That these are 'composites' is irrelevant.

>This is the division of sign and sense that Wittgenstein uses, also comparable to Frege and Russell's division of meaning and logical form.

As I said before, the understanding is the faculty of judgement, i.e. of forming propositions. I form a judgment (proposition) such as 'the ball is red', which brings an object (ball) under a 'category' [more correctly a representation] (red). I can then verify the 'meaningfulness' of this judgment by refereeing to the ball in front of me and confirming, with my perceptions of it and my understanding of the colorwheel, if it is indeed red.

>Why could it not be that each of those are only aspects of a single thing?

Because the analysis of two discreet faculties is useful.

>Can "logical relation" make sense without something about which those logical relations are meant

Yes. The syllogism pvq, p therefore ~q is not about any 'thing' but the relation of p to q.

>>8666255
So you understand that you've just put the categories under another superfluous bracket which you've labelled as the hilariously undefined "Reason"

My point stands, read more
post less

>>8666393

>pvq, p therefore ~q

I must be high. Oy.

If p then ~q
p
therefore ~q

This is so bad even for /lit/

you haven't 'gone even further than kant', nice try though smartass, stop posting and pick up a good introduction to kant so you might understand a little

File: 1458583681384.jpg (90KB, 383x500px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 383x500px

Rationalists have always been trying to bastardize empiricism, because they know that their mental proliferation is pathetic

>>8666356

I see you're trying to make an Argument from Reason (Victor Reppert, huh?). I don't think your argument works tho.

You say "merely some sort of pattern recognition" as if there is more to truth than this. The correspondence theory of truth suggests that it will be a lot of pattern-matching.

>>8666384

What's the undefined axiom?

>>8666393

>These are not categories, but different means of perception

Then I'll take back talk of categories, that doesn't seem so relevant. However, what I am saying is that Reason would be just perception, i.e. the unity of composite senses.

>The syllogism

I'm not sure I buy this. How would we make any logical relation-talk make sense without concrete examples? We can abstract away logical structure, but the abstraction still depends on the concrete substance, e.g. such as how 'green' depends on a concrete object to be actually manifest. Without being able to reference a possible concrete object, how are we to make sense of abstractions? (I have in mind verificationism as pointing towards the solution to this.)

>>8666423

I know, it's a tragedy this isn't just another DFW or Pinecone thread.

>>8666467
>What's the undefined axiom?

>Reason - which we'll leave undefined for now

>>8666423
This

>Kant has these thoughts on time and space
>Lets apply these same thoughts to "reason" (but fuck defining what reason is), because that happened to be the random idea that popped into my head when reading Kant's thought
>now watch me pretend to ask a question while I'm really just masturbating my own ego by pretending that I'm saying something of substance when really I'm just rambling incoherently about things that only make sense to me, as if they will make sense to anyone else (sign of autism)

To be fair though, this is what half the "philosophical" posts on /lit/ end up resembling

>>8663217
>So question: would it be reasonable to go even further than Kant,
Stopped reading there. Why are pseuds shitting up /lit/? Just because you watched some pop philosophy video on Kant doesn't mean you will meaningfully expand on his thought, something that has already been done. Now GTFO pleb.

>>8666506
easy on the autism, at least autistics can be intelligent in their interests; op just has teenager syndrome: exaggerated sense of understanding, too eager to "challenge" kant to read quietly past the beginning of CPR...

What is the relationship between reason and the understanding?

Can they exist without each other?

>>8666472

Again, what's the undefined *axiom*?

The rest aren't worth replying to.

All this bitching is why people only post the same three threads every day. It isn't like this is a serious dissertation, it's a fucking shitpost ffs. There's a few people here that are actually fun to talk to, but the rest of you are simply unbearable pseuds. Abandoning thread.