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.
>>23981102why even refute something that is against everything ? Seriously... space and time are not a priori that is the most profound thing... you are not moving in a spaceless and timeless thing in itself... isn't that as clear as it is clear that you are not just a brain in a tank ? ... that is the funny part about Kant... the critique of pure reason is a genius masterpiece overall because everything but the transcendental idealism actually makes a lot of sense... it doesn't only make sense, hell it is just the best argument until today... I adore Kant for that... ... ... but the transcendental idealism is in fact the biggest bullshit ever thought in any philosophy... it is a laughable joke... an insane thesis... one of philosophies biggest mistakes...
space and time are subdued by will and choice, divine gifts from the lord our god.
>>23979628Prove they exist outside of your biological consciousness
>>23982723>everything but the transcendental idealism actually makes a lot of sense...literally the core of his philosophy by his own admission. also saying it's absurd in no refutes it. if it's wrong feel free to refute his actual arguments.
>>23982749That's literally what this whole thread was for weebrain.
>>23982749what exactly do you mean by "biological" ?There can't be anything biological without space and time ma dood... so your consciousness can't be a biological thing if there is no space and time outside of it... unless you dont want to assume that everything is just mind and there is no matter at all, you will need space and time
>>23982749Because we have consciousness of things outside the self. If our thoughts and perceptions weren't correlating with exterior reality, they wouldn't be thoughts or perceptions of anything, which is absurd. No one thinks that a rose is 'red' in itself, obviously red is a sensation produced in the seeing animal. But you are seeing a red thing for all that - you are seeing a thing that can produce the sensation of redness, and this can tell you various things about the object ('it's blood' etc). When it comes to time - time is simply the dimension in which change is extended, just like the length of a magnitude. If there is no time, there's no change. So the things outside ourselves would be absolutely static - why wouldn't we too be absolutely static in ourselves if everything else is absolutely static? And how do we perceive time if nothing is actually changing?And I'd raise similar arguments in the case of place. Our experience of the world is certainly subjective but it is still truly experience of the world and alternative theories (including Kant's) don't make sense. BTW, if causality can't exist in the things in themselves because you could skeptically doubt that it would hold in the future, why couldn't I raise the same objection to causality as a transcendental category? lol
>>23983447How do you know extension and impenetrability in space are not in this respect like color?
>>23983447>Kant know things-in-themselves.>what does a clock actually measure?>causality requires experience. Kant addresses what transcends and what doesn't. If you want to stick with Hume that is fine, he said we had to do it and the only way to get past the blank state and even form a notion of space required the use of it, he relegated time to contiguity. For Kant there is a blending and this core product becomes a category, for all other purposes just invert Hume. The outcomes are virtually identical, only what can be objectively demonstrated counts. There is not garuntee it will work the next time you do it.
>>23983459Because a body has to occupy space in order to be a body but a body doesn't actually have to be 'red in itself'. "Oh well what if even the idea of body and space were all in your mind?" Then nothing would exist lol.
>>23983502>Kant know things-in-themselves.Do you have an argument or what?>what does a clock actually measure?Time, which I discussed above.>causality requires experience.No, it doesn't. Once again you're lazily repeating what Kant said thinking that it's an argument. If causality required experience then experience wouldn't exist because it could never be caused.>Hume relegating time to contiguityDid he really do this? That's pretty retarded even by his standards. Time is a continuity. Reducing time to 'events being next to each other' would be like defining a line as 'the limits of the divisions of the line'.
>>23983514You will never be able to know something outside of your own perceptions. If this is unacceptable then I'm sure you would likely grow tired of hearing this, stop inquiring.>then time is just the vibration of a quartz crystal to you? >how do you know it happens at all?>well I was using Humean lingo, technically that is the intent he used it with. Perhaps you should read Hume instead.
>>23983567I N T E L L E K T U E L L E A N S C H A U U N G
>>23983623Never goes out of reason.
>>23983503>Then nothing would exist lol.Or what "really exists" is fundamentally incomprehensible and unknowable.
