* random kant *

Dogs
This is a Perl version of the Mac program Kant Generator Pro originally by Mark Pilgrim (here's Mark's Python version). It generates, um, random, um, Kant (based on the Critique of Pure Reason.). Like generative music, but with philosophy. Perl version is © 2000 Matt Webb.

Bees
The script is released under no particular license and the source can be found here.

Baboons
I can't think of anything, let alone anything funny, to do with random Kantian prose. Let me know (homepage|email) if you can, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to.

Fighting cocks
I wouldn't, if I were you -- they look dangerous. Read the random Kant instead.


It must not be supposed that metaphysics may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, so, the Transcendental Deduction, by means of analysis. By means of analysis, it is obvious that, so far as regards time and natural causes, the objects in space and time are just as necessary as time, but necessity can not take account of, even as this relates to the thing in itself, our knowledge. Natural reason is what first gives rise to natural causes, since all of the Categories are speculative. It is not at all certain that, in other words, the Antinomies, thus, abstract from all content of knowledge, but our knowledge exists in time. There can be no doubt that our judgements prove the validity of, then, space; as I have shown elsewhere, the objects in space and time are what first give rise to the things in themselves. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Antinomies (and Hume tells us that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict the things in themselves; on the other hand, the transcendental aesthetic may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the Ideal. But this is to be dismissed as random groping.

Metaphysics exists in our a priori concepts. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is just as necessary as the Ideal, and the empirical objects in space and time (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a priori, it must not be supposed that our faculties have lying before them natural causes; for these reasons, the noumena, irrespective of all empirical conditions, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a priori. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the objects in space and time are what first give rise to, in view of these considerations, reason. Since knowledge of the paralogisms is a posteriori, what we have alone been able to show is that our experience (and it is obvious that this is true) teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the things in themselves.

As we have already seen, our knowledge is the key to understanding the Ideal of natural reason. It is not at all certain that, that is to say, the employment of the phenomena can thereby determine in its totality time. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, natural causes have lying before them natural causes; thus, the intelligible objects in space and time prove the validity of our judgements. By means of metaphysics, let us suppose that space is a representation of reason. Therefore, general logic is the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies, since knowledge of our ideas is a posteriori. Our ampliative judgements can not take account of philosophy. The question of this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.

Space (and it is obvious that this is true) is the key to understanding our sense perceptions; in the case of time, the manifold, when thus treated as our a priori concepts, is the key to understanding the practical employment of our analytic judgements. Since some of the Antinomies are hypothetical, general logic is just as necessary as, on the other hand, the paralogisms. As will easily be shown in the next section, there can be no doubt that, when thus treated as the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, our knowledge can thereby determine in its totality our concepts. As is shown in the writings of Hume, the reader should be careful to observe that the Ideal is a representation of our a posteriori concepts. Our synthetic judgements can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the Transcendental Deduction, they are just as necessary as analytic principles. Time (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the objects in space and time.

The things in themselves, in accordance with the principles of the Ideal, are by their very nature contradictory. The employment of space, in view of these considerations, is by its very nature contradictory, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. I assert, as I have shown elsewhere, that, insomuch as time relies on our faculties, the architectonic of pure reason, in natural theology, should only be used as a canon for our faculties. The things in themselves exclude the possibility of, in the study of time, necessity. In the case of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, our faculties (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are a representation of the discipline of natural reason, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the reader should be careful to observe that, in particular, necessity (and let us suppose that this is true) is the clue to the discovery of the Categories. The Ideal of pure reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the phenomena.

Our faculties are the mere results of the power of the Ideal, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, yet our understanding is what first gives rise to, by means of metaphysics, the paralogisms of practical reason. As is evident upon close examination, the Ideal is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori. Let us suppose that the Categories, in view of these considerations, are the mere results of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; certainly, time teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the architectonic of practical reason. As we have already seen, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the transcendental unity of apperception (and it is not at all certain that this is true) excludes the possibility of the transcendental unity of apperception. Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, there can be no doubt that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, formal logic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the discipline of natural reason, it is a representation of inductive principles. This distinction must have some ground in the nature of the Ideal of pure reason.

By means of analytic unity, we can deduce that the noumena abstract from all content of knowledge. The things in themselves constitute the whole content for our ideas; in the case of transcendental logic, our inductive judgements would thereby be made to contradict, what we have alone been able to show is that, our a posteriori concepts. Philosophy is the clue to the discovery of the Ideal, because of the relation between philosophy and our sense perceptions. Consequently, the reader should be careful to observe that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions exists in our a priori knowledge. I assert, consequently, that the Antinomies, what we have alone been able to show is that, constitute the whole content for the discipline of pure reason; on the other hand, the Ideal (and let us suppose that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality our sense perceptions. In which of our cognitive faculties are the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and time connected together? By means of analytic unity, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions stands in need of our hypothetical judgements, but the discipline of pure reason stands in need of necessity. It is not at all certain that, as far as I know, the Antinomies, certainly, are the mere results of the power of the pure employment of our knowledge, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, yet the Ideal would thereby be made to contradict the discipline of pure reason. Let us suppose that the transcendental aesthetic, as I have shown elsewhere, exists in the Ideal.

Our understanding (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is true) constitutes the whole content for space. Natural causes are just as necessary as, therefore, necessity. By virtue of natural reason, we can deduce that, in respect of the intelligible character, our knowledge, as far as I know, exists in the Antinomies. Our experience, that is to say, is the mere result of the power of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the noumena can not take account of the Ideal of pure reason, yet our experience (and let us suppose that this is true) excludes the possibility of the Categories. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, there can be no doubt that the noumena, irrespective of all empirical conditions, should only be used as a canon for our faculties.


matt 24aug2000