Guess you didn’t think about the empty bucket, huh? I was kinda looking forward to your account of what kind of sensation you got from its apparent emptiness. — Mww

If you see empty bucket, then the bucket and space in and outside of it are all outside of you. But if you imagine or visualise empty bucket, then the bucket and space in and outside of it are all in your mind.

Sorry, but I cannot find a justification that it isn’t exactly that. In other words, I find that is precisely what he’s saying. And not only that with respect to perception, but indeed, because the space in which the extension of things occurs cannot be thought away as can all its properties, it absolutely must reside in the subject himself. — Mww

Well, there are clear quotes from CPR what Kant is clearly saying, which are contradicting what you are saying. I suppose you have read them. And I have explained about them too with the example of tree and triangle.

the bucket and space in and outside of it are all outside of you — Corvus

Wasn’t what I asked.

What is it with people, who can’t maintain dialectical consistency. If a guy asks about a certain thing, but gets a response that doesn’t contain anything about that thing…..what a farging waste of the guy’s time, I would think.

Wasn’t what I asked.

What is it with people, who can’t maintain dialectical consistency. If a guy asks about a certain thing, but gets a response that doesn’t contain anything about that thing…..what a farging waste of the guy’s time, I would think. — Mww

You insist that this is a thread for Kant's CPR reading, but you are not even accepting what Kant was saying in CPR in plain English (translated of course).

Wrong. I’m not accepting what you think Kant is saying.

You probably want to say I’m not understanding what Kant is saying, and thereby I’m complicating the general discussion by not accepting your corrections.

Now, you may actually have a better understanding than I, but if you can’t convince me of it, trusting that I’d concur given sufficient reason, I’m at liberty to make the same attempt at convincing you.

All of which is absolutely impossible without dialectical consistency, in which each of our arguments relate to each other specifically.

Wrong. I’m not accepting what you think Kant is saying. — Mww

What Kant was saying is not that obscure in the quotes of CPR on this issue. It is very clear for everyone. I was just giving examples of perception how it maps to what Kant was saying.

Yet again, the relative obscurity has nothing to do with individual understandings. While it may be true there is no obscurity in the quotes, it remains, insofar as the quotes are minor extracts from a whole…..

“…. A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.…”

….by thinking Kant tributes to space as you’ve indicated, as one of those particular passages, the entire transcendental thesis self-destructs. It is the case Kant does not want it understood that space is external to the mind, that space has properties as do real objects, and foremost, that space has any meaning whatsoever beyond the human cognitive system, according to this particular speculative metaphysical theory.

THAT should be clear to everyone. Well, actually, everyone who “….rises to the height of speculation….”. Which leaves aside, as you say, the so-called “vulgar”, who do not.

Yet again, the relative obscurity has nothing to do with individual understandings. While it may be true there is no obscurity in the quotes, it remains, insofar as the quotes are minor extracts from a whole…. — Mww

Kant had been clear about this point in the quotes. He "asserts space as Empirical Reality " for perceptions via sensibility. He then goes on making points on space as internal a priori necessary condition in the case of Transcendental Ideality. How much else could he have been clearer? I don't think the quotes are minor extracts. If you are reading CPR word by word, nothing is minor.

THAT should be clear to everyone. Well, actually, everyone who “….rises to the height of speculation….”. Which leaves aside, as you say, the so-called “vulgar”, who do not. — Mww

You seem to be disregarding the other side of his points only seeing the one side.

“…. We maintain, therefore, the empirical reality of space in regard to all possible external experience, although we must admit its transcendental ideality; in other words, that it is nothing, so soon as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends and look upon space as something that belongs to things in themselves…..”

Break it down, and see if you find, as I did: We maintain the empirical reality of space…..if we look upon space as something that belongs to things in themselves. Which, of course, we don’t, insofar as how can we know space belongs to things-in-themselves when our knowledge is not and cannot be of them.

Another way to break it down: it is nothing as soon as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends. Which is the same as saying, it is only something iff IT IS the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends, from which follows the whole reason for the transcendental aesthetic, re: to prove that’s exactly what it is….the necessary condition for the possibility of all experience. Withdrawing it as that condition makes it nothing, and if it is nothing, to then declare it an empirical reality, is self-contradictory, and if it is self-contradictory it is immediately false, and the whole aesthetic argument falls apart.

And that’s not even the hard part. What is this alleged transcendental ideality anyway, and where in the bloody hell does it come from, and why MUST I have to admit to it. (Sigh)

Some quotes are clear, others…..not so much.

Break it down, and see if you find, as I did: We maintain the empirical reality of space…..if we look upon space as something that belongs to things in themselves. Which, of course, we don’t, insofar as how can we know space belongs to things-in-themselves when our knowledge is not and cannot be of them. — Mww

I am not sure why we are now looking into space for thing-in-itself, when we have been talking about space for the objects in the empirical reality.

it is nothing as soon as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends. — Mww

Withdrawing it as that condition makes it nothing, and if it is nothing, to then declare it an empirical reality, is self-contradictory, and if it is self-contradictory it is immediately false, and the whole aesthetic argument falls apart. — Mww

I wonder if we are allowed to withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends. Kant would say, the condition is a necessary a priori condition, which is given as innate nature of human mind.

What is this alleged transcendental ideality anyway, and where in the bloody hell does it come from, and why MUST I have to admit to it. (Sigh) — Mww

It is in CPR, and Kant is propounding for the legitimacy of its operation when we work on Geometry or imagining a postoffice on the street contrasted to seeing an empty bucket.

Some quotes are clear, others…..not so much. — Mww

He is also known to be inconsistent, hence requires the reading clubs suppose. :nerd:
Well, I was quite happy to see the quote in CPR, because from the quote, Kant sounded very much in line with what I was thinking on his concept of Space. It was the most clear part in CPR I have come across.

He "asserts space as Empirical Reality " for perception via sensibility….. — Corvus

That doesn’t relate to his maintaining the empirical reality of space? I couldn’t locate the exact wording he “asserts space as Empirical Reality” and highly doubt he would have capitalized it anyway, so I just figured it was your wording.

…..space for the objects in the empirical reality. — Corvus

You mean, like, space for this object, space for that object? Are you wanting the space an object is in to be as real as the object itself? How would that work?

That doesn’t relate to his maintaining the empirical reality of space? I couldn’t locate the exact wording he “asserts space as Empirical Reality” and highly doubt he would have capitalized it anyway, so I just figured it was your wording. — Mww

In NKS version he makes it in italics, "We assert, then, the empirical reality of space, as regards all possible outer experience;" He was not just saying, but he was asserting.

You mean, like, space for this object, space for that object? Are you wanting the space an object is in to be as real as the object itself? How would that work? — Mww

Space for the objects would be one, which applies to all the objects for the perceptual instances universally, I would think. The bottom line is, you cannot see empty bucket without space around it.

He was not just saying, but he was asserting. — Corvus

Yes, he was, but to make the point that is not what it supposed to happen. Think of it as a minor antinomy. Something reason lets us do (think the empirical reality of space), before making us see that’s not the right way of doing it (space is not an empirical reality) but something else (space is a transcendental ideality in the form of a pure intuition) is better suited to explain what we want to know.

The bottom line is, you cannot see empty bucket without space around it. — Corvus

Nope, not the bottom line. I wasn’t talking about either of those things, yet you want to qualify something I was talking about, with something I wasn’t.

What is it with people…….

Yes, he was, but to make the point that is not what it supposed to happen. Think of it as a minor antinomy. Something reason lets us do (think the empirical reality of space), before making us see that’s not the right way of doing it (space is not an empirical reality) but something else (space is a transcendental ideality in the form of a pure intuition) is better suited to explain what we want to know. — Mww

Space in Transcendental Ideality case is for doing Geometry, and visualising a postbox in mind. In that case, it is in the form of a pure intuition. But seeing a tree in the garden is via your sensibility. You will always see a tree with space.

Nope, not the bottom line. I wasn’t talking about either of those things, yet you want to qualify something I was talking about, with something I wasn’t. — Mww

Here I am seeing an empty cup in front of me. There is space in the cup, and also around it. Without space, the cup wouldn't even exist, let alone be visible. If I was visualising the cup, not seeing it, then the space in the cup and around it would be a priori pure condition which made the visualisation possible.

What is it with people……. — Mww

I find strange that anyone would insist that you see a cup in front of you, but the space is in your mind as a pure intuition. Space is what contains the universe and all the objects outside of you. :grin:
The triangle you visualise in your mind would be in space of your intuition of course.

Yes, he was, but to make the point that is not what it supposed to happen. Think of it as a minor antinomy. — Mww

Here is another quote from CPR in JMDM version.

"For example, the proposition, 'All objects are beside each other in space,' is valid only under the limitation that these things are taken as objects of our sensuous intuition. But if I join the condition to the conception, and say 'All things, as external phenomena, are beside each other in space', then the rule is valid universally, and without limitation." -pp.46

"With the exception of Space, there is no other subjective representation referring to something external that would be called a priori objective." - CPR Max Muller Version pp.66

But seeing a tree in the garden is via your sensibility. You will always see a tree with space. — Corvus

A tree….with space. A tree with bark, a tree with leaves. A tree with branches, roots, cones/nuts. A tree with space? What does space do for the tree as those other properties do?

If I was visualising the cup, not seeing it….. — Corvus

Man, are you gonna have fun wading through the schematism of the pure understanding, wherein visualizing takes precedence over seeing.
————-

Here is another quote from CPR in JMDM version. — Corvus

Good quote. What…or who….is JMDM?

You do understand, right? That phenomena cannot be external? They’ve already been defined as representations, all of which are internal in the subject. By external phenomena, he means those external things which become those kinds of representations. Hence, because phenomena are internal, and space is the condition for phenomena, then space is internal.

A tree….with space. A tree with bark, a tree with leaves. A tree with branches, roots, cones/nuts. A tree with space? What does space do for the tree as those other properties do? — Mww

We are talking Kant's CPR here. You cannot perceive a tree without space around it.

Man, are you gonna have fun wading through the schematism of the pure understanding, wherein visualizing takes precedence over seeing. — Mww

It is not about precedence, but it is about different type of perceptions.

Good quote. What’s JMDM? — Mww

J M D Meiklejohn

You do understand, right? That phenomena cannot be external? — Mww

Not necessarily. Phenomena is external. You seem to have forgotten, that Kant said in the preface, all internal mental sense content comes from empirical experience.

By external phenomena, he means those external things which become phenomena according to their sensations. Hence, because phenomena are internal, and space is the condition for phenomena, then space is internal — Mww

If your space is internal to your mind, you would be saying, you are sitting in your mind.

By "approximation", do you mean that the "soul" can be understood as a figure of speech such as "gravity" can be understood as a figure of speech? — RussellA

I guess i'm making a bit of a woo-woo claim here, but couching it merely in experience, not truth. It is possible, in those states of consciousness, to fully conceive, with no apparent metaphysical discomfort, the concept of a 'soul' beyond the human imagination - but these states purport to take you to that 'beyond' space. Again, the actuality of that experience, imo, is up for debate. But hte point is that, i think the claim that those concepts are beyond human cognition, is a placeholder for 'beyond normal, waking cognition'.

We are talking Kant's CPR here. You cannot perceive a tree without space around it. — Corvus

Yes, we are talking CPR, and in which we find….we don’t perceive a tree in the first place. We perceive “an undetermined object” by its appearance to our sensibility. The undetermined object doesn’t obtain its name, which represents how understanding thinks it, until further along in its systemic process. So not perceiving a tree without space around it is just nonsense, from the perspective of strict CPR textual reference.

It is not about precedence, but it is about different type of perceptions — Corvus

There is only one type of perception. What your intermingling with it, are apprehension, contained in sensibility when considered transcendentally, and apperception, also much further along in the systemic process. And there must be precedence somewhere along the line, in order for an “undetermined object of external intuition” to obtain a representation of its conception, from which follows the name for how that object is to be known.

Probably best that I grant you’re defining terms in nonconformity with CPR, in which case your seeing and visualizing means different things than that which is derivable from the text itself. In CPR, however, seeing is a perception for which the sensation is an image, the matter of which is given a posteriori. A visualization, on the other hand, is the mere thought of some possible object, its content, which would be its matter if it were perceived, is given as the schema of the conception understanding thinks belongs to it.

So it is that we do not see (perceive with eyes) with understanding but we visualize, and, we do not visualize (think with conceptions) with sensibility but we see. In CPR, then, insofar as the exposition on seeing and sensibility in general is ~90 pages, and the exposition on visualizing and understanding in general is ~200 pages, suggests the one has rather a greater precedence over the other. At ~400 pages of course, pure reason has the greatest precedence of all te members of the tripartite transcendental system.

Crap. I forgot Meiklejohn had two middle initials.

Yes, we are talking CPR, and in which we find….we don’t perceive a tree in the first place. We perceive “an undetermined object” by its appearance to our sensibility. The undetermined object doesn’t obtain its name, which represents how understanding thinks it, until further along in its systemic process. So not perceiving a tree without space around it is just nonsense, from the perspective of strict CPR textual reference. — Mww

I am not getting your point why you cannot see space when seeing a tree. Tree is occupying the space it is standing. Without space, existence is impossible. All the quotes from CPR I brought in were mostly about this point. Space is empirical reality's precondition for all the existence in the universe.

There is only one type of perception. What your intermingling with it, are apprehension, contained in sensibility when considered transcendentally, and apperception, also much further along in the systemic process. — Mww

Visualising is active perception which is closer to imagination.  You conjure up the non existing image into your intuition by imagining them.  Seeing is visual perception with physical objects in front of you usually, and it implies passive perception.  You perceive the objects without having to try to perceive them. They are different types of perception in terms of the availability and type of objects, and also the way of perception too.

Crap. I forgot Meiklejohn had two middle initials. — Mww

My JMD Meiklejohn CPR is an old battered copy printed in 1959, and it is around 500 pages (well less than any other translated versions), but it seems written more clearly than the other translation versions.  I like the Max Muller version too.  I am not a fan of NK Smith version, but it seems to be the most widely used CPR.  I am not sure what the GUYER version from Cambridge (the most recently published version) would be like.

I use JMDM for its searchable text. Guyer/Wood has C & P but isn’t searchable. Plus, it has an outstanding editor’s synoptic introduction. Quite academic without appearing opinionated. When I’m given the Berlin Academy pagination, I have to use my hard copy Kemp Smith….a first edition 1929 red leather/ gold inlay, ex libris Cambridge University Library (he said, gloating like that was a big deal). Guyer /Wood has the pagination in the margin, but has to be scrolled, and higher A/B’s take forever.

I am not getting your point why you cannot see space when seeing a tree — Corvus

The very idea of seeing space is logically contradictory, re: impossibility of receiving a sensation from the inside of an empty bucket other than its bottom, and just plain silly otherwise. WTF would space even look like when I see it? If what I see can be described and thereby conforms to what you see, that makes sense. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how to describe to you what space would look like when I see a tree.

Referencing an object to a space, like….over there, up there, next to, and so on, which is the relation of an object to something else, is not to see a space. All space was ever meant to do, was be that by which objects relate either to the consciousness of a perceiver, or to each other as determined by the consciousness of a perceiver.

That and of course, there must be that in which an object can be said to exist, as far as the consciousness of a perceiver is concerned, without which none of this even happens.

I have a plain 1950s HB copy of NKSmith CPR. It feels nice, and vintage. But I am not sure if the translation is best compared to the others.

The very idea of seeing space is logically contradictory, re: impossibility of receiving a sensation from the inside of an empty bucket, and just plain silly otherwise. WTF would space even look like when I see it? — Mww

I see space all the time. The primary property of space is invisibility and emptiness. So space is substance which is invisible and empty. You are seeing an invisible object when you are seeing space. That is why you are mistaken to think that you see nothing, or you are not seeing it. But you are seeing a substance which is invisible and empty.

Because of the emptiness of space, you can have existence in it. Yes, the only way to see space is through the material objects i.e. you look into an empty bottle, and you see the invisible substance called space, and through the space you are seeing the bottom of the bottle.

You look into your bookshelf. Without space, you cannot place books in it. When you take out your copy of CPR, you see the space between the other books where the CPR was sitting, as invisible and empty substance.

Space perception is the precondition for your sense of reality. Without that, you don't have the sense of reality at all. Because in all other instances of your perception i.e. dreams, imaginations and visualisations, your space perception appears conceptually as a pure intuition.

You are seeing an invisible object when you are seeing space. — Corvus

OK. So can I hear space? If I close my eyes I can’t see bacon frying, but I can still smell it. Space isn’t then, perceivable to all the senses? Or actually, it is only perceivable by one sense? But many objects are perceivable simultaneously by more than one sense. I can only see the moon right now, but I’m telling you I could stomp on it if only I could get to it. As well, am I to think the part of the moon I can’t see during some one of its phases, leaves the space of that part still perceivable, even though it isn’t really empty?

I’m beginning to think you’re pullin’ my leg here.

OK. So can I hear space? — Mww

If you are in space where it is not purely empty, then there would be all the molecules and dusts of tiny sizes will be floating in the space. If you had highly sensitive hearing, then you can hear them moving floating in the space. But because your naked eyes wouldn't be able to see them, the space will appear still empty, but the sounds of the molecules and dusts floating would be audible to you. But have you got highly sensitive hearing which can hear the super sonic noise? Guess not.

Space is visual object, so you cannot perceive it via the other sense organs apart from with your eyes primarily and perhaps with your body such as leg, when you lift your leg, it travels from a point of location where it was, to the new location, and you pull it back, and when it returns - you shall feel the space from your leg as it travels through it.

I’m beginning to think you’re pullin’ my leg here. — Mww

No no, just letting you know that you have been perceiving physical space all your life without knowing it. :)

Oh. Good to know. But, seeing as how none of that’s in CPR, and that’s my only interest here, guess I’ll mosey along, leave you to it.

Was just responding to your questions and objections. :D
If you want to know further on how to see physical space, here is a video.

True story. I missed most of the 60’s and all the 70’s, being as stoned as that person seems to be.

I missed most of the 60’s and all the 70’s, being as stoned as that person seems to be. — Mww

The 2010s for me.

True story. I missed most of the 60’s and all the 70’s, being as stoned as that person seems to be. — Mww

Wow cool ~ :cool:
It might be the case that the state of altered consciousness might see space better actually.

Balboa Park, San Diego, 1971, windowpane. You know, laying in the grass, you can’t tell the difference between imagining the grass is growing or your head is shrinking?

But hte point is that, i think the claim that those concepts are beyond human cognition, is a placeholder for 'beyond normal, waking cognition'. — AmadeusD

If you've experienced an altered state of consciousness, that conclusion (that a 'soul' is beyond comprehension) is perhaps best thought off as an approximation — AmadeusD

In my terms, in my normal waking state when looking at a wavelength of 700nm, my seeing the colour red is not a conscious decision, in that I cannot consciously decide to see the colour red rather than the colour green for example. My seeing the colour red is beyond my normal waking cognition to alter.

There are some things that are comprehensible to me not because of any conscious active deliberation on my part about them during my normal waking life, such as the colour red, but because of the pre-determined, a priori, innate and inborn state of my brain that is beyond my conscious ability to subsequently alter. I can only work within the limitations set by the physical structure of my brain.

I interpret this innate and inborn state of my brain with Kant's concept of the a priori.
Introduction to CPR: Kant attempts to distinguish the contribution to cognition made by our receptive faculty of sensibility from that made solely by the objects that affect us (A 2 1-2 /B 36), and argues that space and time are pure forms of all intuition contributed by our own faculty of sensibility, and therefore forms of which we can have a priori knowledge.

Though, that being said, if I did change my normal waking consciousness by some means, whether chemical or meditation, then I agree that this would change my normal waking consciousness into an altered waking consciousness, possibly allowing me to comprehend things that were not comprehensible to me before.

IE, altering the physical state of the brain would automatically alter what that brain comprehends.