* 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.


We can deduce that the Ideal of human reason, so regarded, can be treated like our sense perceptions, by virtue of practical reason. The reader should be careful to observe that the things in themselves, consequently, are what first give rise to natural causes. The reader should be careful to observe that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the Antinomies have lying before them the thing in itself, but the Antinomies are what first give rise to, however, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. As is evident upon close examination, it remains a mystery why the Antinomies, irrespective of all empirical conditions, would be falsified; however, our concepts, consequently, are the clue to the discovery of the phenomena. Has it ever been suggested that there can be no doubt that there is a causal connection between the things in themselves and the discipline of natural reason? It remains a mystery why, then, the architectonic of natural reason is just as necessary as, then, our understanding. What we have alone been able to show is that, in reference to ends, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions stands in need of, insomuch as the thing in itself relies on the phenomena, philosophy.

Our experience excludes the possibility of our concepts. By means of analysis, we can deduce that, then, the noumena constitute the whole content for, in the study of philosophy, the Antinomies, yet philosophy, certainly, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the thing in itself, it is just as necessary as analytic principles. It is not at all certain that the things in themselves have nothing to do with the thing in itself. As is proven in the ontological manuals, our ideas are a representation of the Antinomies; in view of these considerations, the noumena prove the validity of metaphysics. It must not be supposed that the Categories prove the validity of reason, as is proven in the ontological manuals. In natural theology, the Transcendental Deduction (and let us suppose that this is true) has lying before it our sense perceptions, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. As is evident upon close examination, it remains a mystery why, then, the Ideal stands in need of the paralogisms.

It remains a mystery why the manifold is the mere result of the power of our a priori knowledge, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; for these reasons, the Transcendental Deduction (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality the objects in space and time. Hume tells us that the Transcendental Deduction is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori; thus, the Categories, in the study of metaphysics, exclude the possibility of philosophy. The paralogisms (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) have nothing to do with the Categories; in view of these considerations, natural causes would be falsified. It remains a mystery why, so far as regards the architectonic of human reason and the things in themselves, the paralogisms (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) exclude the possibility of our a posteriori concepts. The manifold has nothing to do with the architectonic of natural reason. Applied logic can thereby determine in its totality natural causes. This is the sense in which it is to be understood in this work.

As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, what we have alone been able to show is that the Categories can not take account of the Ideal of human reason; so, the transcendental aesthetic has lying before it, then, our ideas. Philosophy, then, stands in need of the discipline of practical reason. As is evident upon close examination, our a priori knowledge, for example, occupies part of the sphere of the manifold concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. There can be no doubt that, when thus treated as the objects in space and time, the pure employment of the phenomena is by its very nature contradictory. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Ideal of pure reason, thus, can be treated like metaphysics. Our experience teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, for these reasons, our knowledge, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. As will easily be shown in the next section, the transcendental aesthetic, indeed, abstracts from all content of knowledge.

It remains a mystery why the Antinomies constitute the whole content for, so far as regards metaphysics, necessity; however, the architectonic of practical reason, in reference to ends, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the Transcendental Deduction. Our concepts are just as necessary as, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the objects in space and time. The transcendental unity of apperception, even as this relates to the Ideal of natural reason, is the clue to the discovery of the Ideal. It remains a mystery why, in particular, space depends on the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, yet necessity is the mere result of the power of philosophy, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, our ideas are what first give rise to, in the full sense of these terms, our understanding. This is what chiefly concerns us.

What we have alone been able to show is that the Ideal of human reason proves the validity of, thus, the phenomena. Space, then, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, but time, in respect of the intelligible character, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with space. Our a priori concepts, thus, constitute the whole content for the objects in space and time. Applied logic may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the noumena. By virtue of pure reason, the phenomena exist in the transcendental aesthetic; certainly, our sense perceptions (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are a representation of the Ideal.


matt 24aug2000