The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Specific question re: Critique of Pure Reason
UnknownSaint
KasynRegistered User regular
KasynRegistered User regular
Notably, the synthetic unity of apperception. This is my general understanding of it here and I'd like some confirmation of corrections. I know I'm not entirely off base, but anyone that's really solid on Kant please let me know if I'm missing something or am wrong.
Every object has a logical identity that admits of all its potential subjective perceptions. The apperception that is involved is an awareness that these potential representations have been combined within an individual conscioussness. (Which doesn't necessarily have to be ours specifically, as the important bit is that it's a single consciousness unifying these elements) This awareness if the synthetic unityof apperception.
And the synthetic unity is what allows for all possible experience and thought, because without it we would only have empty concepts? And conversely, our understanding would be empty without the objects and general context that are the objects of our perceptions?
And the numerically identical part of it refers to the would-be conceivers of these objects and concepts?
(Note, if you are about to come into this thread and say 'lawldoyourownhomework' I will rip your god damned head off, because all of these are formulated in a way to where very short answers and corrections are all I'm looking for.)
Every object has a logical identity that admits of all its potential subjective perceptions. The apperception that is involved is an awareness that these potential representations have been combined within an individual conscioussness. (Which doesn't necessarily have to be ours specifically, as the important bit is that it's a single consciousness unifying these elements) This awareness if the synthetic unityof apperception.
And the synthetic unity is what allows for all possible experience and thought, because without it we would only have empty concepts? And conversely, our understanding would be empty without the objects and general context that are the objects of our perceptions?
And the numerically identical part of it refers to the would-be conceivers of these objects and concepts?
(Note, if you are about to come into this thread and say 'lawldoyourownhomework' I will rip your god damned head off, because all of these are formulated in a way to where very short answers and corrections are all I'm looking for.)
UnknownSaint on
0
Posts