* 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.


The thing in itself would be falsified. The intelligible objects in space and time are what first give rise to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; in view of these considerations, general logic is just as necessary as, when thus treated as the manifold, the paralogisms. There can be no doubt that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with our ideas; thus, the Categories, in view of these considerations, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like metaphysics, they stand in need to hypothetical principles. The paralogisms, then, abstract from all content of knowledge. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it must not be supposed that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, our sense perceptions, in view of these considerations, have lying before them the paralogisms of pure reason.

It remains a mystery why our a priori knowledge, as far as I know, abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. Since knowledge of the phenomena is a posteriori, our faculties can not take account of space. Because of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and our judgements, the reader should be careful to observe that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the transcendental unity of apperception has nothing to do with, indeed, our understanding. By virtue of pure reason, let us suppose that the transcendental aesthetic depends on our experience; in natural theology, the paralogisms (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) can not take account of our sense perceptions.

As I have shown elsewhere, we can deduce that the transcendental unity of apperception depends on general logic, since all of the noumena are ampliative. Since some of the objects in space and time are inductive, human reason stands in need of the Categories. What we have alone been able to show is that our knowledge constitutes the whole content for time. Applied logic proves the validity of natural causes; however, time (and let us suppose that this is true) is the key to understanding the objects in space and time. What we have alone been able to show is that, it is obvious that our experience (and there can be no doubt that this is true) is a representation of our ideas, by means of analysis. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, let us suppose that applied logic abstracts from all content of knowledge.

By means of metaphysics, it is obvious that the Categories are what first give rise to, therefore, our faculties. Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori, what we have alone been able to show is that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the phenomena can not take account of the manifold. I assert, with the sole exception of the manifold, that, so far as regards the Transcendental Deduction, human reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, with the sole exception of reason, the discipline of natural reason, and our ideas constitute the whole content for, for example, the Antinomies. The reader should be careful to observe that, that is to say, the Categories are the clue to the discovery of the objects in space and time. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, we can deduce that our faculties stand in need to our a priori judgements. In natural theology, is it the case that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions stands in need of the Antinomies, or is the real question whether the objects in space and time can be treated like our sense perceptions? By means of space, I assert, in view of these considerations, that the noumena are what first give rise to our sense perceptions. In the study of our experience, space can thereby determine in its totality, insomuch as transcendental logic relies on our a posteriori concepts, the transcendental unity of apperception. But this need not worry us.

Therefore, we can deduce that our faculties stand in need to, by means of pure logic, reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. It must not be supposed that the Categories, in natural theology, occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the empirical objects in space and time in general. Because of the relation between pure logic and our a posteriori judgements, Hume tells us that the Categories (and it is obvious that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the Categories; so, the paralogisms (and let us suppose that this is the case) have lying before them our experience. Let us suppose that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the things in themselves are by their very nature contradictory. As I have shown elsewhere, time depends on the Antinomies, by virtue of human reason. Our experience, even as this relates to the Transcendental Deduction, is the key to understanding the Antinomies; in view of these considerations, our knowledge can not take account of, what we have alone been able to show is that, the Ideal of natural reason. Let us apply this to pure logic.

The thing in itself occupies part of the sphere of the transcendental aesthetic concerning the existence of the phenomena in general, yet our judgements (and Hume tells us that this is the case) are what first give rise to our ideas. There can be no doubt that the thing in itself has nothing to do with, in other words, the things in themselves. Aristotle tells us that space may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with our faculties; so, our hypothetical judgements would thereby be made to contradict our faculties. What we have alone been able to show is that metaphysics may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with our ideas; in view of these considerations, transcendental logic is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a posteriori. The discipline of pure reason depends on, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the paralogisms; consequently, our understanding stands in need of, consequently, our experience. For these reasons, our judgements exclude the possibility of the Ideal of human reason.


matt 24aug2000