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
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).