>This schematism of our understanding in regard to phænomena and their mere form, is an art, hidden in the depths of the human soul, whose true modes of action we shall only with difficulty discover and unveil.
>I don't get it
>>24945182hwat?
>>24945033How is transcendental logic related to (formal) logic? Kant says that in logic, reason considers only its form and abstracts away the matter and denies that there could be a special logic for a certain matter. But later in the antinimoies he wants to show that the most basic form of proof (reductio ad absurdum) doesn't apply in the context of the questions there, for the negation of tha absurd is equally absurd there.so I am baffled.BTW, we have currently a thread on "informal logic" (textbooks). We should go over there and harass them there.
>>24945340>a science of pure understanding and rational[2] cognition, by means of which we may cogitate objects entirely à priori. A science of this kind, which should determine the origin, the extent, and the objective validity of such cognitions, must be called Transcendental Logic
>>24945497Yes this is one of the passages to which I was referring I wonder how he squares it with RAA not being valid in all contexts etc
