Comments on: Maddy’s Second Philosophy: I.4 Kant’s transcendentalism http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/03/maddys-second-philosophy-i-4-kants-transcendentalism/ Logic, enthusiasms, sceptical thoughts, and a little LaTeX geekery Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:23:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Blue Devil Knight http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/03/maddys-second-philosophy-i-4-kants-transcendentalism/comment-page-1/#comment-490 Blue Devil Knight Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:05:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=428#comment-490 Wonderful stuff. I love your opening on how you view Kant. Wonderful stuff. I love your opening on how you view Kant.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.logicmatters.net/2009/03/maddys-second-philosophy-i-4-kants-transcendentalism/comment-page-1/#comment-489 Anonymous Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:26:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=428#comment-489 "<i>The object as appearance is subject to our human forms and categories; it is non-mental, spatiotemporal, subject to causal laws. Thus Kant is an empirical realist, as opposed to Berkeley’s empirical idealist ...</i>"<br/><br/>How is that significantly different from Berkeley, I'm wondering. Wouldn't Berkeley say that objects appear to be non-mental, spatiotemporal, subject to causal laws?<br/><br/>Perhaps I simply haven't penetrated far enough into the various mires to “The object as appearance is subject to our human forms and categories; it is non-mental, spatiotemporal, subject to causal laws. Thus Kant is an empirical realist, as opposed to Berkeley’s empirical idealist …“

How is that significantly different from Berkeley, I’m wondering. Wouldn’t Berkeley say that objects appear to be non-mental, spatiotemporal, subject to causal laws?

Perhaps I simply haven’t penetrated far enough into the various mires to

]]>