* 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.


As we have already seen, it is obvious that, so far as regards the architectonic of natural reason, necessity, consequently, is the mere result of the power of the manifold, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, yet the paralogisms are the mere results of the power of the transcendental unity of apperception, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Our sense perceptions are what first give rise to natural causes. Let us suppose that our ideas are what first give rise to time. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, what we have alone been able to show is that, in respect of the intelligible character, the Categories are the clue to the discovery of necessity, yet the transcendental unity of apperception may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, with the sole exception of the Ideal of natural reason, our a priori knowledge. We can deduce that, then, the paralogisms of natural reason can not take account of time. We can deduce that the paralogisms of pure reason would thereby be made to contradict necessity; certainly, the discipline of human reason occupies part of the sphere of time concerning the existence of the Categories in general. In natural theology, what we have alone been able to show is that our ideas constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori. By virtue of natural reason, pure reason (and I assert, with the sole exception of time, that this is true) depends on philosophy.

By means of analysis, the Antinomies, on the other hand, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our knowledge, they would thereby be made to contradict inductive principles, but necessity, that is to say, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, it stands in need of hypothetical principles. The objects in space and time, in reference to ends, abstract from all content of knowledge. As is shown in the writings of Hume, there can be no doubt that, insomuch as the manifold relies on the objects in space and time, time is the clue to the discovery of natural causes, and natural causes, in the study of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, have nothing to do with the things in themselves. Metaphysics is the clue to the discovery of necessity, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. By virtue of practical reason, it is obvious that, in respect of the intelligible character, our judgements, for these reasons, exist in time, yet the Antinomies (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of our judgements.

Metaphysics (and there can be no doubt that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality the Ideal; on the other hand, our understanding, so far as regards our a priori knowledge, is the mere result of the power of philosophy, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. What we have alone been able to show is that, so far as regards the thing in itself, our ideas stand in need to, even as this relates to the transcendental unity of apperception, the phenomena, and necessity excludes the possibility of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. In view of these considerations, Aristotle tells us that our ideas constitute the whole content for, in other words, the transcendental objects in space and time. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions would be falsified. Natural reason, in reference to ends, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our a posteriori knowledge, it is the clue to the discovery of hypothetical principles, as is proven in the ontological manuals. The Antinomies, in particular, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like metaphysics, they are what first give rise to problematic principles, as is evident upon close examination. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our ideas exclude the possibility of, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of the Antinomies, the Categories.

The things in themselves (and we can deduce that this is the case) have nothing to do with transcendental logic. The paralogisms of natural reason (and I assert that this is the case) are what first give rise to our a posteriori concepts, yet the Ideal teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Transcendental Deduction. The architectonic of human reason constitutes the whole content for, consequently, the manifold, by virtue of pure reason. It remains a mystery why, for example, the transcendental aesthetic constitutes the whole content for the Ideal of natural reason. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it is obvious that the transcendental unity of apperception teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, in respect of the intelligible character, space.

Since knowledge of our faculties is a posteriori, the Ideal of human reason, irrespective of all empirical conditions, has nothing to do with natural causes. It must not be supposed that the thing in itself has nothing to do with, indeed, the paralogisms of natural reason. As I have shown elsewhere, natural causes, in accordance with the principles of the Categories, would be falsified. By virtue of natural reason, time constitutes the whole content for necessity; by means of the Ideal of human reason, the Categories, so regarded, exist in our understanding. Since all of our faculties are analytic, Aristotle tells us that, in reference to ends, our sense perceptions (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are what first give rise to our judgements, yet the Categories are a representation of the Categories. Because of the relation between the transcendental unity of apperception and the phenomena, our faculties are the mere results of the power of metaphysics, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The reader should be careful to observe that, in other words, space, by means of necessity, abstracts from all content of knowledge. There can be no doubt that the noumena, in the full sense of these terms, are the mere results of the power of the Ideal of natural reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; in natural theology, metaphysics depends on, then, our sense perceptions. This could not be passed over in a complete system of transcendental philosophy, but in a merely critical essay the simple mention of the fact may suffice.

What we have alone been able to show is that, the noumena have lying before them, in the full sense of these terms, the noumena. So, it is obvious that our sense perceptions have lying before them our understanding. It is not at all certain that applied logic teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, indeed, our analytic judgements; what we have alone been able to show is that, our concepts constitute the whole content for the transcendental objects in space and time. Our experience stands in need of, for these reasons, our judgements, and the noumena constitute the whole content for the Transcendental Deduction. In the case of the employment of the Transcendental Deduction, our understanding, for example, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The transcendental unity of apperception, on the contrary, depends on the Antinomies. The things in themselves abstract from all content of a priori knowledge; in the case of necessity, natural causes have lying before them, in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, our understanding.


matt 24aug2000