Refute the transcendental ideality of space and time
>>23979628it is not incomprehensible that space can exist without time, if not physically then conceptually
>>23979630Perhaps a frozen state of space might exist, but in principle the movement within that space might be possible, even if it is disallowed for the purposes of illustration.I would suggest that time itself cannot exist without space, because in order for the concept of time to have any meaning, objects must move within some physical volume, or at least some other (non-physical) space where duration is relevant. If one accepts the model of the Big Bang, then I suspect that the thing that caused it to occur was that everything was condensed to a point, so that movement is impossible. If movement is impossible, then time is irrelevant, and perhaps this very fact is the mechanism which causes it all to explode again (a form of movement). Do not invoke god to explain this strange state of affairs.
>>23979630A timeless space would be an empty space. In any case, how does this refute the transcendental ideality of time?
>>23979628I'm yet to see a proper portrait drawing of this man
That's a word salad.
>>23979628Whitehead rejected it. Take it up with him, buddy.
>>23980286ok why? your move.
>>23979628I'm reading it now. What stuck out to me the most is the following in the metaphysical exposition of the concept of time:>"We cannot remove time itself from appearances in general, though we can quite well take away appearances from time."The only way I could concieve of removing time from appearance is to imagine it frozen in time. Is that wrong? If im right then I find it perfectly plausible that we can remove time from appearances.>>23979659>I would suggest that time itself cannot exist without space, because in order for the concept of time to have any meaning, objects must move within some physical volume, or at least some other (non-physical) space where duration is relevant.What causes time to have meaning is alteration, not movement. Yes the concept of physical movement requires an understanding of space, but you've put the cart before the horse. Did you read the Transcendental Aesthetic?>"Here I shall add that the conception of alteration, and with it the conception of motion, as alteration of place, is possible only through and in the representation of time..."this exhibits the difference. But importantly, Kant argues time is just the form of "inner sense">" Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense, that is, of the intuitions of self and of our internal state. For time cannot be any determination of outward phenomena. It has to do neither with shape nor position; on the contrary, it determines the relation of representations in our internal state. And precisely because this internal intuition presents to us no shape or form, we endeavour to supply this want by analogies, and represent the course of time by a line progressing to infinity, the content of which constitutes a series which is only of one dimension"So time is just how we inwardly arrange our representations. But if we represent the course of time by a one-dimensional line, doesn't that require an understanding of space? Honestly its all very confusing to think about.
>>23979628I love this topic !To bad the only answers yet are fucking dumb...So let me try to actually refute the transcendental ideality of space and time :Everything there is needs to be painted on the canvas of space and time... without space and time there would be no matter and no movement at all... that simply means with the assumption of space and time being idealistic you assume that this whole world is just happening in our minds... that somehow reminds me of Berkeley if I am correct... but whatever... the assumption that this whole world is just in our minds is just to wild to be true... it is counter intuitive and against the normal sane human understanding of things... it would be a fucking miracle if that would be true to be honest... you can't argue further than that... if you can accept that the whole world we experience is just in our minds there you go... but if you would reject that for obvious reasons as stated above... then you have at least rejected transcendental idealism...I wonder if someone can give even better and more arguments against the transcendental ideality of space and time to really refute it once and for all... to me it is the biggest scandal in philosophy and just annoying !
>>23980750>without space and time there would be no matter and no movement at allGeneral relativity says otherwise. Google the hole argument. In fact, it says the whole notion of a “canvas” is contradictory to the principles of GR.
>>23980750>To bad the only answers yet are fucking dumbincluding this yours. your refutation was: naw that's too crazy that's dumbDidn't address any of Kant's arguments.
>>23980897I know that the notion of space and time being a canvas is not exactly what Einstein said but more what newton thought... but really does it even matter ? Without space there can not be anything that is extended and without time there can be no motion at all... I dont think that contradicts general relativity as it is the most basic and profound thing there is... if it does tell me how
>>23980936you are right... but isn't that what makes the transcendental idealism so laughable ? that it is basically just to crazy ? you dont even have to adress Kants arguments as they are so weak it is laughable... even his take on geometry is just insane
>>23980982>you dont even have to adress Kants arguments as they are so weakif they are so weak disprove them. It should easy.
I'm more of a Indian name and form kind of guy.
>>23979628space and time are required for cognition to happentherefore they are prior to cognitiontherefore they are not ideal (cognitive) kunt btfo.
>>23981540If you can empirically verify this without having to use a representation of space time then you will have refuted Kant and Hume. Of course, your major would be refuted, does this mean you have no argument?
>>23981540>space and time are required for cognition to happen>therefore they are prior to cognition>therefore they are not ideallol you just proved transcendental idealism>It must, therefore, be considered as the condition of the possibility of phenomena, and by no means as a determination dependent on them, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily supplies the basis for external phenomena.
