Anonymous
7/18/2025, 2:59:11 AM No.24559915
Can the soul exist independent of its relation to the empirical foreground. Kant proves we cannot have knowledge of this because the categories which together synthesize unified apperception have no objective validity without content with which to work with, i.e., sensation. Without that content they are purely formal empty concepts without reality. In other words, the unity of apperception as existing in some disembodied state is a mere abstraction of thought lacking objective reality, i.e., spatio-temporal sensation. The claim that such a state is real is an appeal to divine revelation, but revelation has no place in rational dialogue since it presumes itself above it. At that point, I could just claim a contradictory revelation confirming my position and there's literally no way to refute me according to that standard of knowledge.
In other words, Kant demonstrates at least this much: the categories, as purely formal synthetic acts of the mind, cannot produce, by means of that synthesis, unity of apperception, without a material which is actually synthesized. Kant's dogma, I admit, is that this material is ONLY given by bodily sensation. BUT, if you disagree with this, it is up to you to prove that purely formal synthetic activity can occur without anything being synthesized, OR admit that the supposed soul is NOT a purely formal synthetic unity of apperception, but is simply that synthesis applied to some as yet undetermined material distinct from bodily sensation. In either case, the impetus is to demonstrate its reality apart from any appeal to divine revelation, since that defeats the point of rational debate. To defend this view, against someone who does not accept revelation as authority you can only appeal to reason.
In other words, Kant demonstrates at least this much: the categories, as purely formal synthetic acts of the mind, cannot produce, by means of that synthesis, unity of apperception, without a material which is actually synthesized. Kant's dogma, I admit, is that this material is ONLY given by bodily sensation. BUT, if you disagree with this, it is up to you to prove that purely formal synthetic activity can occur without anything being synthesized, OR admit that the supposed soul is NOT a purely formal synthetic unity of apperception, but is simply that synthesis applied to some as yet undetermined material distinct from bodily sensation. In either case, the impetus is to demonstrate its reality apart from any appeal to divine revelation, since that defeats the point of rational debate. To defend this view, against someone who does not accept revelation as authority you can only appeal to reason.
