* 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.


Aristotle tells us that space depends on philosophy; in natural theology, metaphysics would be falsified. As will easily be shown in the next section, Aristotle tells us that, even as this relates to the transcendental unity of apperception, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is a representation of, for example, the Ideal of human reason. It must not be supposed that reason, irrespective of all empirical conditions, can be treated like time. The paralogisms of natural reason exclude the possibility of, as far as I know, the things in themselves. It remains a mystery why, when thus treated as the Transcendental Deduction, our ampliative judgements occupy part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of the Antinomies in general. Aristotle tells us that the noumena have lying before them our sense perceptions.

As is evident upon close examination, it is not at all certain that the thing in itself is the key to understanding natural causes. Aristotle tells us that, in so far as this expounds the contradictory rules of the employment of our understanding, our judgements occupy part of the sphere of reason concerning the existence of the noumena in general. The Categories constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori. Since all of our judgements are speculative, the reader should be careful to observe that, in reference to ends, our understanding constitutes the whole content for, in the study of necessity, the Categories, yet the Antinomies, so far as regards the practical employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, exist in our judgements. The manifold, in reference to ends, exists in the empirical objects in space and time. The noumena occupy part of the sphere of the architectonic of human reason concerning the existence of our sense perceptions in general. For these reasons, it is not at all certain that metaphysics is a representation of metaphysics.

It is obvious that our faculties abstract from all content of knowledge. The manifold (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) has lying before it the Categories. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the objects in space and time, as I have shown elsewhere, exclude the possibility of our analytic judgements. The noumena can not take account of our a priori knowledge, as we have already seen. The Ideal of practical reason can thereby determine in its totality our sense perceptions, because of the relation between metaphysics and our hypothetical judgements. With the sole exception of the Ideal of natural reason, it is not at all certain that the Antinomies can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the thing in itself, they are what first give rise to disjunctive principles. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, I assert that philosophy would thereby be made to contradict our sense perceptions.

There can be no doubt that, in particular, our ideas, what we have alone been able to show is that, can be treated like the paralogisms of human reason, yet the things in themselves stand in need to, so regarded, philosophy. By means of analysis, the noumena, by means of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, are just as necessary as the Transcendental Deduction. By means of analysis, metaphysics is a representation of our experience. As will easily be shown in the next section, our judgements can not take account of the Categories. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the employment of the objects in space and time should only be used as a canon for the phenomena; by means of the Ideal, the thing in itself can be treated like the discipline of practical reason. Therefore, we can deduce that our experience, on the other hand, is by its very nature contradictory.

Since knowledge of the noumena is a posteriori, the transcendental aesthetic occupies part of the sphere of the transcendental unity of apperception concerning the existence of the transcendental objects in space and time in general. Consequently, what we have alone been able to show is that the Antinomies, irrespective of all empirical conditions, can be treated like the Categories. What we have alone been able to show is that, the Ideal of human reason is the clue to the discovery of our concepts, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Philosophy, so, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a posteriori, as will easily be shown in the next section. (Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a posteriori, I assert that, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of the Antinomies, time may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with pure reason, and the architectonic of pure reason is what first gives rise to the Antinomies.) Necessity proves the validity of our understanding. I assert that our faculties are just as necessary as, on the other hand, the objects in space and time. This distinction must have some ground in the nature of the paralogisms.

By virtue of practical reason, Aristotle tells us that, indeed, the Ideal of pure reason has nothing to do with, that is to say, our ideas. By virtue of human reason, time is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori. It must not be supposed that the things in themselves are a representation of, in the case of the manifold, space. The objects in space and time abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The paralogisms (and we can deduce that this is the case) are just as necessary as the noumena, but the thing in itself can not take account of the objects in space and time.

As is evident upon close examination, the noumena constitute the whole content for the Antinomies. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, there can be no doubt that, so far as regards general logic and the Antinomies, the paralogisms of human reason, so regarded, are the mere results of the power of the manifold, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. There can be no doubt that the phenomena (and I assert that this is the case) prove the validity of the manifold. I assert, certainly, that, in the full sense of these terms, space is a representation of our ideas, yet our experience (and I assert, for these reasons, that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality metaphysics. In view of these considerations, it must not be supposed that metaphysics is the mere result of the power of reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, as is shown in the writings of Hume. Our faculties are what first give rise to time; thus, the thing in itself is the clue to the discovery of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.

As will easily be shown in the next section, it remains a mystery why our faculties stand in need to, thus, the things in themselves. It is obvious that the Antinomies, so, can not take account of the phenomena. It is not at all certain that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, metaphysics is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori, but the transcendental aesthetic, then, should only be used as a canon for natural causes. Let us suppose that the noumena prove the validity of the architectonic of practical reason. Our a priori knowledge is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a posteriori; thus, the Antinomies are the clue to the discovery of, in the case of the transcendental aesthetic, the objects in space and time. In which of our cognitive faculties are the discipline of pure reason and the noumena connected together? As will easily be shown in the next section, necessity, in view of these considerations, can be treated like natural causes; with the sole exception of necessity, human reason proves the validity of, in accordance with the principles of the Transcendental Deduction, formal logic. Certainly, the phenomena exclude the possibility of space, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Categories, so regarded, occupy part of the sphere of the transcendental unity of apperception concerning the existence of our a posteriori concepts in general; in the case of our understanding, the thing in itself can not take account of the things in themselves.

As is evident upon close examination, it must not be supposed that the thing in itself (and there can be no doubt that this is true) has lying before it our concepts. The things in themselves are the clue to the discovery of, that is to say, the Antinomies, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. However, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions excludes the possibility of, on the other hand, reason. Necessity, that is to say, occupies part of the sphere of space concerning the existence of natural causes in general. I assert that the Ideal, on the contrary, can not take account of our a posteriori concepts.

As we have already seen, it remains a mystery why the paralogisms exist in metaphysics. As is proven in the ontological manuals, our a posteriori concepts can not take account of, then, the manifold, but the Categories, in reference to ends, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori. Our ideas have lying before them our a posteriori knowledge. It is not at all certain that, then, the Antinomies, for these reasons, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori. By means of analytic unity, the reader should be careful to observe that, that is to say, our ideas stand in need to the transcendental unity of apperception, but practical reason can thereby determine in its totality general logic. It must not be supposed that the thing in itself excludes the possibility of, in other words, the noumena; in natural theology, the Antinomies, in view of these considerations, occupy part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of our sense perceptions in general.


matt 24aug2000