So here we are as a week, and we come now to ask Congress to pass the much needed discipline of reason remember promised in the first article.
Is that reasonable becomes optional.
And it is by way of the parallel adjustments and base that constitute this tend to overstep its grounds and on the contrary,
first reason overstepping its legitimate grounds.
You want to take the political. It's overstepping on the grounds that a juridical proceeding.
Would find impermissible the overreaching or standard.
It is, as it were, unlawful. The parallelism to mention of these are developed late to the critique, but the groundwork is done and quite early.
In fact the groundwork for these instead of just a to prosthetic.
Recall that under the transcendental doctrine of the elements, part one is devoted to the translator.
This is followed immediately with what contents the transcendental logic of which is able to distinguish transcendental from general logic.
Remember the letter to mark a church where he says, I have a mania for system intercession?
I'm sorry, but can you these?
The subheadings of the substantive headings of common ground are very important to keep the books orderly on these subjects.
So he wants to make no distinction between transcendental logic and general logic.
And general logic is further divided into what he refers to as analytic.
And dialectic. And it's that second one that is the cause of logic.
Logic. It's just the formal logic bequeathed by Aristotle.
And it stands as what the country refers to as the cannon of judgement.
Dialectic is another matter entirely. The formal logic that is a canon of judgement is not used in canons but concerns as a more common.
It's a method. It's treated as if it were a method of discovery, which in the end becomes law, says Carter.
The sophisticated art of giving to ignorance.
The appearance of truth. So it's a dialectical logic that's going to be the culprit, as illustrated in the paroxysms, the generous.
Those who are guilty here fail to realise the utter dependence that college claims have of a proper assimilation of appearances to conflicts.
Thus, both the empiricists and the rationalists have wandered in darkness and confusion.
He says he's going to turn in something of a pathologist's report that there's a point where he refers to the euthanasia recently.
It is quite you know, you think of him as the front door.
Prussian scientist family background. He does a lot of research.
He's got these turns of phrase skeletons, characterisations of people.
And as I've told you, that supper, it was really a parallel case to some of the stories you'd have to.
Well, it is a paroxysm come competition.
Thus it is a syllogism which is fallacious in form b its content.
What it may. His specific target.
Here is the transcendental biologist. Here we have a transcendental grounding.
That is, we we're going to have a proposition that is grounded in what is recognised to be a necessary condition or enabling condition.
But it's a transcendental ground with them leads to a formerly invalid conclusion.
It's precisely because such syllogism are transcendental grounds that he says it is in the nature of
the human reason and gives rise to an illusion which cannot be avoided but may be rendered harmless.
Do you see, once you establish the ground as transcendental, it becomes a necessary part of our cognitive apparatus.
So it's not something that you good about. It isn't even something that that you would be aware of in a conscious way.
So it's by way of critical analysis that he will at least draw attention to this.
And although we can stop doing this sort of thing, we can at least aim and know when you say he's establishing the sense of reason.
And so once you know what the boundary conditions are, it doesn't mean you are not going to cross over into territory.
That's not really reasons to claim. But at least when you do it, you'll know you're doing it and you'll be ready for a score.
What's common to such a syllogism is a lack of empirical premises.
So although they are lacking in necessary and careful content, we nonetheless use them, says Khan,
to conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable illusion, we ascribe objective reality.
What the Terrell Owens isms have in common is an attempt to derive rationality from the transcendental unity of consciousness.
Some actual synthetic propositions about the soul or the self.
The basic mistake is confusing the transcendental necessity of how we must regard.
That's the translator part. How we must regard themselves with what we are as new to them.
So rational psychology strongly argues from a transcendental necessity to an empirical discovery of the thing in itself,
which in this case is the real self, as in itself, it really is.
That's the value of psychology and also the lifelong mission of rationalists to establish the true essence of the soul.
The source Spiritual says at a 340.
I conclude from the transcendental concept of the subject which contains nothing manifold, e.g. the absolute unity of this subject in itself.
That's the parallel to this. So the first images of the decor, arts,
culture and what come close to a rational doctrine of the soul is defeated by the very transcendental logic of the case.
Now rationalist, long sought to establish that the soul can be no, and we know to be at once a substance symbol and constructs.
But as rationalists have good arguments for the immortality.
Such good arguments as to claim that the immortality of the soul would be settled as a matter of knowledge itself.
But of course, all such knowledge actually were reached through reason alone.
CONSTANTIA Objects will be defeated. It will mount the claim that no mother directly given an experience.
The arguments for this contain no empirical premises.
Moreover, the pure categories are empty of the very objects that would be accessible to experience alone.
You will recall that famous maxim concepts without intuition are empty at age 52 b 76.
Concepts can be applied solely to appearances, as these are grounded in pure intuitions.
Well, knowledge, as you know, depends on the full cooperation of sensibility and understanding, not of them either alone.
Thus, what is beyond sensibility is beyond knowledge.
He made all this clear as early as being 147 where she writes, quote, For death, no intuition could be given corresponding to the concept.
The concept could still be solved so far as its form is concerned,
but would be without any logic and no knowledge of anything, would be possible by means of it.
So far as I could know, they would be nothing and could be nothing to which my thought could be applied based on thinking about nothing.
You know, in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, the old Macmillan dish, you might amuse yourselves by looking out of the article.
Nothing. Where? Political philosopher says part of the difficulty is analysing the concept of loss because there's no settled position.
On how to cultivate the verb to love. Thus, such transcendental views of the understanding, independent of sensibility, is simply a mistake.
Generally, one of the illusions of regional singing knowledge is things that are independent of experience is seeking over them,
and it's doomed to fail. You want to consult a.
246 3303 And this concludes the search for the new middle self includes the search that was conducted by Descartes and by Lawrence.
Rather than uncovering the dominant self. Descartes requirements confused a logic itself of propositions with an ontological discovery.
They say they can choose the transcendental necessity.
If there is to be a unification of the centuries manifold, the necessary condition for the thing itself.
Alas, this is capped at the 41 is where he's actually part of the discussion of O.J. Simpson.
Quote, From all this, it is inevitable that rational psychology owes its origin simply to misunderstand.
The unity of consciousness is only unity and sought by which alone no object is given,
unto which we have all the category of substance, which always presupposes that given intuition cannot be applied.
So arguments to the effect which have directed the sole substance as a rational proof of a sole substance is just again based on best state.
The second power, which turns to the putative simplicity of the soul so that we've seen that the argument
to the effect that rationality by itself can establish that there is a self substance.
That's just one of the misunderstandings of Russian psychology, I thought.
So it's a simple substance that's a second which refers to as the Achilles of all dialectical influences.
He says that it a361 the main argument for the so simplicity goes something like this.
Well, the total thought for one's total thought, the confirmation of the thoughts held by more than one soul.
There would be no unity and absolute unity.
No proposition could be expressed. That was Chinese nation.
So that everybody wants a separate piece of paper.
I don't know. There's no place to put all this together in one unified symbol.
Substance. A day 352 contemplation this as it's therefore possible only in a single substance,
which not being an aggregate of many, is absolutely so much the conclusion of the argument.
But the required conclusion says can't. It doesn't fall first.
The proposition that requires the unity of the thinking subject if multiple representations are to yield a single representation,
is certainly not a monolithic proposition. In other words,
the concept of the unity of a thinking subject is not synonymous with or included
in the concept of multiple representations condensed into a single representation.
Therefore, the proposition is not established by way of the principle of identity.
In other words, it's not a claim capable of vindication by reason alone.
Well, nor can it, as a synthetic proposition, be no priority for a single representation could be derived by the concerted action of a collective.
Nor is it empirically confirmed for nothing. And experience is generally a biological necessity that attaches to the proposition itself.
We see both the alleged sin and substance is not the content of an experience,
but merely a subjective condition of knowledge that such n350 for so challenged.
Here is the alleged reality of the show's simplicity.
You see, it is just knocking these bottles. Other.
He concludes his father's quote, It's all of us.
But in attaching to ourselves, we designate the subject of interference only once and without knowing it, inequality.
In fact, without knowing anything of it, either by direct acquaintance or otherwise simplicity of the representation
of the subject is not the knowledge of the simplicity of the subject itself.
And so the whole of rational psychology is involved in the collapse of its main supports.
What about the server power outages on. That's called enduring.
So. Of course, at your age, you are so much more concerned about sort of the power lunches of others.
Yesterday was president of the 74.7 K.
So you understand that I have very focussed attention on certain approaches which promises to give us nothing less than an enduring continuum.
So. Here's the paradigmatic argument.
That which is conscious of the numerical identity itself at different times is in so for a person.
Now the soul is conscious of it, some changing, etc. over time.
Therefore it is a person. Which is to say there something there that survives alteration makes a distinction between change.
Alteration, substance undergoes alteration on top.
Just change within the box of gold. It stays gold.
And lots of things happen to the self. But the essentials, substantial, etc., etc.
That's what endures or near alteration.
Well, is there an enduring, persistent, persisting self or soul that could be knowable by way of the loss of reason?
There is indeed a case for a self person,
transcendental self as a necessary concept to account for the unity of search through all of that, not as an object of knowledge.
As Councillors of 8366. We could never parade it as an extension of our self-knowledge through curiosity and as exhibiting
to us from a mere concept of the identity itself of a broken continuation of the subject.
Granting the unity and simplicity of a sole substance, there is still no guarantee of its continued existence, he says later at the four one floor.
Thus, the permanent so regarded merely as an object of innocence remains demonstrated and indeed in demonstrable close.
To which I replied. So what big challenges must make clear is that reason liberated from necessary or just
seeks to go beyond its transcendent on the ground to what is finally the transcendent.
And therein lies the evolution. If you want to get you will not do so by way of reason.
You will not do so by way of the understanding will that you do so by correctly subsuming
somatic sensuous manifold correctly under the pure concepts of the understanding.
So much up to you. This.
This. Let me move now to the end to this race.
It's a transcendental dialectic at 80, 39, 33, 97.
But count lists the three pseudo rational dialectical syllogism as productive of illusory knowledge.
The first of these, the first three being apologists.
Now, as we see these kind well-trod entrances from transcendental concepts to particular inferences,
that is from concepts lacking empirical context to some claimed known fact about the real world.
The second form of of.
Pseudo rational syllogism is fun to draw inferences from a series of appearances to the transcendental concept of the absolute totality of conditions.
And this is where activities set. The third, for which I do hope to have time to get to the third floor.
So the Russian entrance moves from this community of old.
One does so by way of the understanding to what one could not know.
I have the same concerns and influence to the ends and to an entrance to God.
And here we have come to close the ideal of tourism.
Whereas I have a logistics speech, conjectures without empirical conjecture.
The Antilles are rich in empirical content in which nonetheless yet another set of fallacies tends to cause the euthanasia of pure reason.
The parallel adjustments generate illusions regarding the subject of thought that is regarding the self.
So but now a different class should say no to a class of illusions that arises by reason as applied to the objective synthesis of appearances.
The parallel doesn't pretend to be a large and rich reason to our nominal self.
So the other challenges are exemplified by unwarranted, rational inferences toward the object to avoid counter calls.
The world, this being says at a war, to quote the absolute totality of all existing things.
Well, what about the world?
The world is to be understood as the ultimate source of all appearances, all options, all events, so understood in these terms.
The burning question is whether we can know the world through sure reason.
Greece and the Antilles are attempting to illustrate a country for to as a necessary
sceptical method when it comes to addressing the question of the protocol.
And he makes a very sharp distinction between scepticism and the sceptical method.
So let me read this passage very quickly.
I'm sorry it's so long, but it's particularly informing when it comes to this method of watching or rather provoking a conflict of assertions,
not for the purpose of deciding in favour of one or the other side,
but of investigating whether the object of controversy is not perhaps a deceptive appearance which each vainly strives to grasp,
and in regard to which, even if there were no opposition to be overcome, these are trying to arrive at any result.
This procedure I am making entitled The Sceptical Method.
It's altogether different from scepticism a principle of technical and scientific ignorance which undermines the foundations of all knowledge.
So sceptical method is the one that puts to the test competing claims.
It's not doubtful about our capacity for objective knowledge,
but it applies the sceptical method as a test of what is available to us by way of knowledge.
So the process of euthanasia begins with reason appropriating from the
understanding concepts whose valid function potentially just sensuous intuitions.
The proper deployment of the pure concept, to be honest,
is to social intuitions of them and thereby make the objective world thinkable to make possible nothing less than experience itself.
But although it is sensible, it's not for that reason thinkable?
No. To that, the pure, the transcendental concepts issue from the understanding,
not for the reason that such and this creates the possibility of metaphysical mischief.
Look reason contrived all sorts of makes the imagination spontaneity.
You can put together worlds that no one has ever experienced or ever will experience.
You can contrive possibilities that constitute, namely, the art and measure of science fiction.
These and other things. You know, these are not things that fall under the heading of understanding reason can produce a wide range of
possibilities that go beyond the reach of understanding the properly understood understanding that now.
Over the centuries. Intuitions or concepts?
Probably. Experience other concepts. Probably.
Reason is able to liberate concepts that we understanding from the limitations of all possible experience.
That's one reason we can do it phrase the understanding of the otherwise unnecessary
bondage that it should have to experience by way of this liberation reason.
Now, extend the concept beyond the indirect, the accessible and narrow we find but illusory.
But now reason would go beyond all this reaching for absolute totality.
It's not enough to subsume representations up to general concepts and thus possess a genuine experience of reason.
Now over extends itself to reach nothing less than the totality of the world.
And in so doing, reason converts the cost of otherwise empirically supplied into some sort of transcendental idea,
but is so liberated from what is given an intuition as to be beyond just.
Having established how the process works consciously,
the decision to examine is for journalism to reason and illustrate the illusions arising from each.
If you, as we all know, you do spend long hours engaged in what I sometimes call café metaphysics.
Ideally suited to a 3/6 cup of coffee.
Shame. Chairman looking at you sort of trooping I.
As you ask whether the world had a beginning, whether it has existed for all eternity.
Whether there really is freedom, etc., etc.
Well, you know, in the game of tournaments and if you actually believe I have one more cup of coffee, you know, to settle this part of the geography.
Three four Enter the bazaar divided into two categories.
Two of them come closest mathematically to this and to what he calls dynamic or dynamic terms.
What makes the first two mathematical things change?
Two, that the world of objects that exist in space and time so they have a scalar magnitude dimension.
Is the world finite? Limitless is everything divisible on their indivisible holds.
The dynamical and telomeres arise from very different questions.
Is the world to be understood as the outcome of strict and mechanical causation?
Must there be behind everything some one causal power itself?
Three constraints.
If there is such freedom, then that cost source must stand outside the order of spatial temporal causation is and absolutely necessary of beings.
I told you what is even time to spare is an absolutely necessary being standing.
Those things often caused originate. Intelligent design.
Barbara Starr on the physics of the art of shipbuilding.
We're in the water. We have ships by nature.
So this is a sensible question.
It's a sensible question. We get in trouble, but we think that's the level of knowledge we have to ask.
The first engineer made this country for us. To us the cosmological and.
And these are set up to follow the thesis and antithesis.
Here's the thesis. The world has a beginning in time and a limited space, and this world is infinite and temporal duration and spatial extent.
We're at a 26 B. The second part is the artillery pieces, substance and substances of the world are ultimately composed of simple parts.
Antithesis. Nothing is ever to be found in the world.
Thus, everything is infinitely divisible.
Trying to manage the agenda of causality. Here's the basis causality in accordance with the laws of nature.
It's not the only kind of causality.
There must be a causality of freedom, and the antithesis of everything in nature takes place in accord with deterministic loss.
Although. The fourth mentioned ambiguously theological thesis.
There must be a necessary thing as the cause of the whole sequence of contingent beings, either as its first member or underlying.
And the antithesis. No such thing exists inside or outside the world.
And the parallel presence of pure reason can't put rational psychology on notice,
offering a refutation of any proposition by which the soul self could be known.
Now by way of the itineraries, he will set the same limits on cosmology and theology and causality ratio must
learn to discipline itself and spare itself self-delusional conclusions.
Neither experience nor as now properly assessed by comfort by a sound method is can establish
any of this as knowledge and this that parole is to note the other limits of sense and reason.
Now on the question of is there any place for God here, I want to say this is a good place to be brief,
because the alternative to being brief is eight weeks of lectures.
It's at the end of the first 34 cards for setting the stage for the for critique of project.
For the small.
And they are totally regarding causality can't does take up the question the freedom of a new charge makes my wait a very interesting observation,
but from a moral point of view, it's not necessary to prove the freedom sufficient but would be of.
But as from the point of view, it is sufficient for the character to act on the supposition that the chosen course of action is authentically itself.
But that's. But these topics.
Melanie a lectures on psychology.
But conscious of it and referring to lost freedom sounds paradoxical, doesn't it?
A loss of freedom. This is all important. What do we mean by that?
On the assumption that at a choice point there really is a chance, which is to say it is within your power agency to go left or right.
At any point. The decision you make if it is a decision which is different from.
Living in poverty. There is a decision. There must be some reason for choosing left or right.
Which is to say there must be some principle that guides choice.
And the more consequential the choices, the more fundamental the principle faith.
You might think that when it comes to the most consequential choices, there would be a ruling principle that would cover all.
Also. Conscious of being more educated.
Of such nature that any and every consequential choice point.
The principle that governs the choice is an ideal principle, a flawless principle.
A principle applicable over all such places and always.
Calls that got. Though, what Carter's offering.
Remember, he had already been instructed by by the monarchy to write off religious subjects to 18.
[INAUDIBLE] be. This was not a good time to be drawn to rhinos of this nature.
Those are the decades of the 18th century witch hunts.
But come on, stop offering some sort of fig leaf for some sort of failed theology.
Can't reach the console to the golf.
By way of gravity. That is he. The steps will be primarily anthropological, a theologian.
It'll be something in human nature that triggers God's thoughts of a certain kind recognised towards the way.
But as far as people get that kind of. Will leverage knowledge and itself.
So yes, even in the first place,
ample room for the sorts of theological issues engaged by the issue of free will and determinism engaged by morality itself.
But neither experience nor pure reason how properly assessed by a sound metaphysical method will establish any of this knowledge.
And this, after all this to note yet again, just what the limits of science and race.
Our powers are knowing that real limits, even as they make nature itself possible.
And this, after all, was the very point of the first.