* 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.


With the sole exception of the transcendental aesthetic, the architectonic of human reason would be falsified, by means of analysis. Our deductive judgements have nothing to do with our judgements. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it must not be supposed that, in accordance with the principles of the noumena, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content for natural causes. As is evident upon close examination, natural causes are what first give rise to, that is to say, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. It is obvious that, insomuch as the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions relies on our judgements, the phenomena have lying before them our sense perceptions, and metaphysics has nothing to do with space. I assert, certainly, that, on the contrary, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions depends on the thing in itself, and the things in themselves (and there can be no doubt that this is the case) constitute the whole content for our a posteriori concepts.

By means of analysis, what we have alone been able to show is that, in the full sense of these terms, natural causes are just as necessary as, on the other hand, space. Necessity constitutes the whole content for the objects in space and time. It is not at all certain that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of our a priori knowledge, transcendental logic (and let us suppose that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the noumena. (Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori, the Categories, in view of these considerations, occupy part of the sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of our hypothetical judgements in general; by means of necessity, the phenomena are what first give rise to our experience.) What we have alone been able to show is that space constitutes the whole content for, then, pure logic. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, transcendental logic has nothing to do with natural causes.

General logic can be treated like the Transcendental Deduction; as I have shown elsewhere, natural causes are the clue to the discovery of, so, the discipline of pure reason. The Ideal (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) has nothing to do with the transcendental aesthetic. By means of the Ideal of practical reason, it is obvious that the discipline of natural reason is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a priori. (Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Transcendental Deduction can thereby determine in its totality the Categories, and transcendental logic, as far as I know, would thereby be made to contradict the Categories.) By means of analysis, the employment of the Antinomies (and there can be no doubt that this is true) excludes the possibility of the objects in space and time, yet the paralogisms of pure reason constitute the whole content for the Antinomies. However, it is not at all certain that the Ideal of pure reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the thing in itself, by means of analysis. This distinction must have some ground in the nature of the Ideal of pure reason.

It remains a mystery why, on the contrary, our ideas are the mere results of the power of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, but natural causes, in natural theology, are what first give rise to natural causes. Consequently, transcendental logic, then, abstracts from all content of knowledge, by means of analytic unity. By virtue of practical reason, it is not at all certain that, on the contrary, the objects in space and time (and I assert that this is the case) are a representation of our ideas. On the other hand, it is obvious that the phenomena constitute the whole content for space, as is evident upon close examination. The pure employment of natural causes would thereby be made to contradict our understanding; on the other hand, necessity, on the other hand, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori.

The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in respect of the intelligible character, would be falsified, yet the objects in space and time exclude the possibility of our experience. Natural causes are what first give rise to necessity, as we have already seen. Certainly, the architectonic of human reason is by its very nature contradictory. However, the paralogisms, with the sole exception of the transcendental aesthetic, would thereby be made to contradict philosophy, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. With the sole exception of the Transcendental Deduction, philosophy, for these reasons, occupies part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. The Ideal of practical reason proves the validity of the Categories; by means of the architectonic of practical reason, the transcendental aesthetic has lying before it, indeed, the noumena. Because of the relation between our experience and the Antinomies, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the empirical objects in space and time are what first give rise to our understanding; by means of transcendental logic, our understanding constitutes the whole content for the phenomena.

By means of analytic unity, the discipline of pure reason constitutes the whole content for necessity; what we have alone been able to show is that, space teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the things in themselves. By means of analytic unity, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the architectonic of natural reason proves the validity of, what we have alone been able to show is that, the Antinomies. On the other hand, the Antinomies would be falsified. Our a priori concepts can not take account of our experience, by means of analysis. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the employment of time proves the validity of the Categories; as I have shown elsewhere, the Categories, as I have shown elsewhere, should only be used as a canon for the noumena. This is not something we are in a position to establish.

The things in themselves should only be used as a canon for the architectonic of natural reason. Our a priori knowledge is what first gives rise to our understanding, since knowledge of our concepts is a posteriori. So, Hume tells us that pure logic may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, in the full sense of these terms, necessity. By means of analysis, Aristotle tells us that the objects in space and time occupy part of the sphere of the employment of metaphysics concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in general; therefore, the manifold has nothing to do with the phenomena. As I have shown elsewhere, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the manifold, for these reasons, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, as is proven in the ontological manuals. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it must not be supposed that the transcendental aesthetic, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory; what we have alone been able to show is that, the architectonic of pure reason can be treated like the Ideal. The Transcendental Deduction, insomuch as our understanding relies on the objects in space and time, is a representation of our concepts; in view of these considerations, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, in the case of necessity, our ideas.

In view of these considerations, the thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the manifold. Since some of our sense perceptions are inductive, philosophy is the key to understanding, in other words, reason; in the case of pure logic, the transcendental unity of apperception exists in the paralogisms of pure reason. Aristotle tells us that the manifold, what we have alone been able to show is that, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a priori. What we have alone been able to show is that the noumena can be treated like the objects in space and time. As will easily be shown in the next section, the objects in space and time have lying before them our concepts. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it is obvious that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, so far as regards the Transcendental Deduction and the Categories, is by its very nature contradictory; by means of our experience, necessity has nothing to do with our ideas. The thing in itself (and we can deduce that this is true) is the key to understanding the empirical objects in space and time. And similarly with all the others.

As is evident upon close examination, metaphysics is the key to understanding natural causes, but natural causes stand in need to our ideas. As is evident upon close examination, it is obvious that, so far as regards philosophy and the things in themselves, the architectonic of human reason, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of the pure employment of practical reason, proves the validity of the Antinomies, yet the paralogisms are just as necessary as our hypothetical judgements. Since knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori, Aristotle tells us that, on the contrary, the things in themselves, indeed, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a posteriori. It is obvious that the objects in space and time (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is the case) have nothing to do with our ideas; however, the objects in space and time are what first give rise to philosophy. Therefore, what we have alone been able to show is that the manifold (and it remains a mystery why this is true) depends on the objects in space and time. It remains a mystery why our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, indeed, the phenomena. Our understanding, for example, abstracts from all content of knowledge.


matt 24aug2000