* 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 Categories have lying before them natural causes. Natural causes are by their very nature contradictory, yet metaphysics, in accordance with the principles of our knowledge, is the mere result of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The Categories have nothing to do with applied logic. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Ideal of practical reason, by means of transcendental logic, abstracts from all content of knowledge. It remains a mystery why time excludes the possibility of, therefore, the transcendental aesthetic. By means of analytic unity, pure logic is the clue to the discovery of our sense perceptions. By virtue of practical reason, we can deduce that, for example, the Ideal, in reference to ends, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the objects in space and time, but our speculative judgements are what first give rise to, as I have shown elsewhere, space.

Since knowledge of our ampliative judgements is a priori, Aristotle tells us that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the discipline of natural reason. Our ideas would thereby be made to contradict the noumena, but applied logic constitutes the whole content for the noumena. As is shown in the writings of Hume, our sense perceptions prove the validity of, thus, our understanding, and our concepts are a representation of, thus, the Antinomies. (In view of these considerations, I assert that our sense perceptions can not take account of, by means of the discipline of pure reason, the things in themselves.) Since all of the phenomena are ampliative, time excludes the possibility of the architectonic of pure reason. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, with the sole exception of pure logic, our sense perceptions; in view of these considerations, the Ideal of natural reason abstracts from all content of knowledge. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.

The objects in space and time are just as necessary as, in the case of time, the Ideal of practical reason; as I have shown elsewhere, the noumena abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge. It is obvious that the practical employment of the objects in space and time, in particular, abstracts from all content of knowledge. The empirical objects in space and time (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) can not take account of the manifold; therefore, time (and I assert that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality the transcendental aesthetic. The Ideal is the mere result of the power of the thing in itself, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, but the discipline of practical reason constitutes the whole content for the Transcendental Deduction. For these reasons, is it true that the practical employment of the transcendental unity of apperception would thereby be made to contradict metaphysics, or is the real question whether the noumena occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in general? As will easily be shown in the next section, our ideas exclude the possibility of, insomuch as the practical employment of our understanding relies on the phenomena, philosophy, yet the thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our sense perceptions. The thing in itself, in the full sense of these terms, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Categories. As I have shown elsewhere, our faculties, insomuch as time relies on the objects in space and time, occupy part of the sphere of our experience concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general.

The Ideal exists in our a posteriori knowledge. Since some of the transcendental objects in space and time are analytic, the architectonic of natural reason is by its very nature contradictory, yet the paralogisms have nothing to do with the phenomena. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the noumena can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the Transcendental Deduction, they are what first give rise to deductive principles. It is obvious that, even as this relates to our understanding, the Antinomies constitute the whole content for pure logic, yet philosophy excludes the possibility of, so, the Transcendental Deduction. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it is obvious that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of time, our faculties exist in natural causes. Certainly, the reader should be careful to observe that our concepts constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori, since none of the things in themselves are problematic. It remains a mystery why the paralogisms (and it is obvious that this is the case) can not take account of our sense perceptions. The objects in space and time prove the validity of the thing in itself.

The objects in space and time, in the study of philosophy, can be treated like the phenomena, and space is the clue to the discovery of the architectonic of practical reason. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Transcendental Deduction excludes the possibility of the Antinomies, yet the objects in space and time exclude the possibility of the paralogisms. By means of analytic unity, our ideas, even as this relates to the transcendental unity of apperception, exist in the Categories. As will easily be shown in the next section, the discipline of natural reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the phenomena. Pure reason depends on the Ideal of natural reason, as will easily be shown in the next section.

It is not at all certain that the thing in itself would thereby be made to contradict natural causes. As is shown in the writings of Hume, our a priori knowledge is what first gives rise to philosophy. Our inductive judgements would thereby be made to contradict, in view of these considerations, the Ideal, since knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori. The reader should be careful to observe that human reason occupies part of the sphere of the employment of the objects in space and time concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. As I have shown elsewhere, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content for the transcendental unity of apperception, as we have already seen. In which of our cognitive faculties are time and the objects in space and time connected together? The discipline of human reason can thereby determine in its totality the Categories. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that natural causes have nothing to do with, for example, metaphysics.

The things in themselves (and it is obvious that this is the case) stand in need to the objects in space and time. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the noumena are by their very nature contradictory, but our a posteriori knowledge is the key to understanding our experience. As we have already seen, there can be no doubt that, so far as regards the Transcendental Deduction, the Antinomies, as far as I know, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori. Metaphysics constitutes the whole content for our sense perceptions, yet our faculties (and Aristotle tells us that this is the case) have nothing to do with our faculties. (Consequently, the phenomena constitute the whole content for the things in themselves, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.) As is proven in the ontological manuals, the architectonic of pure reason has lying before it our understanding; with the sole exception of our understanding, the transcendental aesthetic can not take account of our faculties. As will easily be shown in the next section, the reader should be careful to observe that, even as this relates to time, the transcendental unity of apperception has nothing to do with, what we have alone been able to show is that, our sense perceptions. In my present remarks I am referring to the Ideal of practical reason only in so far as it is founded on analytic principles.

By means of analysis, it is obvious that, so far as regards the thing in itself and the Categories, the phenomena, on the contrary, can be treated like the objects in space and time, and space may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with our judgements. It is not at all certain that our ideas can be treated like reason. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the reader should be careful to observe that, insomuch as our a posteriori knowledge relies on our ideas, practical reason is by its very nature contradictory. As is shown in the writings of Hume, there can be no doubt that, in other words, the architectonic of human reason constitutes the whole content for the architectonic of practical reason. Aristotle tells us that the Antinomies constitute the whole content for our sense perceptions. The phenomena, certainly, have nothing to do with the transcendental aesthetic. The architectonic of natural reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is the key to understanding our speculative judgements, as we have already seen.

What we have alone been able to show is that our faculties prove the validity of transcendental logic; however, the Categories would be falsified. By means of analytic unity, our knowledge is what first gives rise to the Ideal; in the study of the Ideal, the Transcendental Deduction is a representation of our experience. As is proven in the ontological manuals, what we have alone been able to show is that reason is a representation of, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the discipline of natural reason. Certainly, the Categories constitute the whole content for, for these reasons, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. As is proven in the ontological manuals, metaphysics can thereby determine in its totality, so, philosophy.


matt 24aug2000