Please explain the argument Kant is presenting in the passage above. Does this constitute a successful argument against the “restriction view”

Please explain the argument Kant is presenting in the passage above. Does this constitute a successful argument against the “restriction view”

On page 86 of the Kemp-Smith translation (A 48/ B 65 ), Kant says: “If there did not exist in you a power of a priori intuition; and if that subjective condition were not also at the same time, as regards its form, the universal a priori condition under which alone the object of this outer intuition is itself possible; if the object (the triangle) were something in itself, apart from any relation to you, the subject, how could you say that what necessarily exist in you as subjective conditions for the construction of a triangle, must of necessity belong to the triangle itself? You could not then add anything new (the figure) to your concepts (of three lines) as something which must necessarily be met with in the object, since this object is [on that view] given antecedently to your knowledge, and not by means of it.

If, therefore, space (and the same is true of time) were not merely a form of your intuition, containing conditions a priori, under which alone things can be outer objects to you, and without which subjective conditions outer objects are in themselves nothing, you could not in regard to outer objects determine anything whatsoever in an a priori and synthetic manner.” Please explain the argument Kant is presenting in the passage above. Does this constitute a successful argument against the “restriction view” (which was discussed in class)? Why or why not? Does this constitute a successful argument against the “neglected alternative” more generally (which was also discussed in class)? Why or why not?

Post Your Comment Here