You present this (at least it seems) as if the purpose of Kant’s antinomies was to undermine transcendental realism (a contemporary philosophy as I understand it?); I find that a bit odd. But all in all interesting points for such a short essay! For the criticism to be truly devastating though I think you’ll need a longer essay (at least if you want to convince me).
Thanks for reading! This was the third essay I wrote in a three hour exam, I agree a proper treatment would be longer and more comprehensive. I’d be curious to hear why the criticism (see below: only of this argument for TI, and not of his other arguments for it and therefore TI itself, or anything else you think he wants to show via the Antinomies) doesn’t convince you?
Re “as if the purpose of Kant’s antinomies…” — as I indicate, he has broader ambitions here, not all of which I’m considering. But he certainly thinks they also serve the purpose of proving transcendental idealism. I present this as a proof by contradiction against its contrary (perhaps you disagree with this?)
Cf: “One can, on the contrary, draw from this antinomy a true utility, not dogmatic but critical and doctrinal utility, namely that of thereby proving indirectly the transcendental ideality of appearances, if perhaps someone did not have enough in the direct proof in the Transcendental Aesthetic.” (A 506/B 534)
Accidentally deleted a comment from Mathias Mas (https://substack.com/@mathiasmas), reposting:
You present this (at least it seems) as if the purpose of Kant’s antinomies was to undermine transcendental realism (a contemporary philosophy as I understand it?); I find that a bit odd. But all in all interesting points for such a short essay! For the criticism to be truly devastating though I think you’ll need a longer essay (at least if you want to convince me).
My response:
Thanks for reading! This was the third essay I wrote in a three hour exam, I agree a proper treatment would be longer and more comprehensive. I’d be curious to hear why the criticism (see below: only of this argument for TI, and not of his other arguments for it and therefore TI itself, or anything else you think he wants to show via the Antinomies) doesn’t convince you?
Re “as if the purpose of Kant’s antinomies…” — as I indicate, he has broader ambitions here, not all of which I’m considering. But he certainly thinks they also serve the purpose of proving transcendental idealism. I present this as a proof by contradiction against its contrary (perhaps you disagree with this?)
Cf: “One can, on the contrary, draw from this antinomy a true utility, not dogmatic but critical and doctrinal utility, namely that of thereby proving indirectly the transcendental ideality of appearances, if perhaps someone did not have enough in the direct proof in the Transcendental Aesthetic.” (A 506/B 534)