0

I saw the following argument in Paul Guyer's text "Kant" (Routledge). I am trying to reconstruct it, yet am not sure the of the form of the argument. Can anyone provide help?

If whenever one experiences appearances, one does not gain knowledge of the noumenon, and yet (in) one’s awareness of one’s own individual will does gain knowledge of the noumenon, then one’s awareness of one’s own individual will could not be the experiencing of appearances.

A- one experiences appearances B- one gains knowledge of the noumenon C- awareness of one’s own individual will

Thus:

If A then not B If C then B C then not A

Yet the above is not a valid argument form (as far as I can determine).

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    The part "If whenever one experiences appearances, one does not gain knowledge of the noumenon" is "if A, then not-B". In the second part we have the contrapositive, with the additional clause: "one’s awareness of one’s own individual ". So, we may interpret it as an additional premise (and thus assume it True). The issue is: very few philosophical arguments are formally valid... otherwise philosophy will be mathematics.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Dec 13, 2022 at 9:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The argument you have presented is not in a standard logical form, so it is difficult to determine its validity without more information. However, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the argument is trying to make the following point:

If it is true that whenever one experiences appearances, one does not gain knowledge of the noumenon, and if it is also true that one's awareness of one's own individual will does gain knowledge of the noumenon, then it follows that one's awareness of one's own individual will could not be the experiencing of appearances.

This argument can be represented in the following form:

Premise 1: If A (one experiences appearances), then not B (one does not gain knowledge of the noumenon).

Premise 2: If C (awareness of one's own individual will), then B (one gains knowledge of the noumenon).

Conclusion: Therefore, C (awareness of one's own individual will) cannot be A (the experiencing of appearances).

As a logical argument, this form is valid, as the conclusion follows logically from the premises. However, the argument's soundness depends on the truth of its premises. In other words, the argument is only as strong as the evidence supporting its premises. If the premises are not well-supported or are false, the argument will be weak or unsound.

Improve this answer
1
  • Great answer! I agree with what you have hear stated. thanks so much! There must be a name for the form, but i just can't find it...
    – rux23
    Dec 17, 2022 at 10:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .