Early in the B Deduction, Kant says:

"The I think must be able to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or at least would be nothing for me. "

so how can we explain the role of the transcendental unity of apperception for the possibility of the perception of objects on the basis of the B version of the transcendental deduction.

  • Twofold: Guaranteeing that the manifold represented in different representations can be understood as one and the same (otherwise objects couldn't be intuited out of it) and at the same time, deducing (legal sense, i.e. providing strong arguments for) the reality of the categories (who were said to be necessary for the perception of objects before), see e.g. Allison: Kant's Transcendental Deduction. An Analytical-historical Commentary. – Philip Klöcking Nov 9 '17 at 16:56
  • SEP has pages long article explaining it, could you be a bit more specific? – Conifold Nov 10 '17 at 0:54

Concrete entities are the specification of mathematical objects. If the mathematical objects are abstract, then the concrete objects are robbed. In this case, there is no difference between abstract and concrete. The logical basis is on concreteness. The teleological mechanism works by associating concretenesses with each other, which is an indicator of the operator. Something is the result of a kind of energy that is turned on by the sensing operator. This energy is causality.

  • 2
    Erm...yeah. Or better: No. This does not make any sense in the context of this question (or outside of it, frankly). If you want to talk about your own philosophical conception, this is not the right place to do this. Sounds like a weird kind of constructivism. But whatever: Please read the help center and take the tour in order to figure out how this site works. Welcome to Philosophy.SE, btw. – Philip Klöcking Nov 9 '17 at 18:34
  • Not all representations can be accompanied; it must already exist. If it does not exist it means that it exists. Otherwise, the fine balance means that it will not be completely distorted or distorted. – Azad İrven Nov 11 '17 at 7:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.