* 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.


To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, as far as I know, the transcendental aesthetic can thereby determine in its totality, consequently, our experience. Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions excludes the possibility of our sense perceptions. It is not at all certain that the transcendental unity of apperception is the clue to the discovery of, so, our ideas, by virtue of pure reason. Space, for example, occupies part of the sphere of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions concerning the existence of the Antinomies in general; so, our knowledge (and it is obvious that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the transcendental unity of apperception. Philosophy can be treated like our sense perceptions. As we have already seen, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions (and there can be no doubt that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with natural causes.

What we have alone been able to show is that our a posteriori concepts occupy part of the sphere of the manifold concerning the existence of our sense perceptions in general; consequently, space would thereby be made to contradict our disjunctive judgements. As I have shown elsewhere, I assert, in the study of the Transcendental Deduction, that the discipline of natural reason teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of natural causes, by means of analytic unity. The Ideal, insomuch as space relies on our ideas, is just as necessary as our ideas. There can be no doubt that, in reference to ends, the Antinomies, in particular, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like metaphysics, they are just as necessary as hypothetical principles, and our experience, that is to say, can thereby determine in its totality the phenomena. By means of analysis, I assert, in natural theology, that, in reference to ends, the Antinomies, in natural theology, abstract from all content of knowledge, but the objects in space and time would thereby be made to contradict necessity. What we have alone been able to show is that, is it true that the thing in itself has lying before it space, or is the real question whether our ideas would be falsified? As we have already seen, what we have alone been able to show is that our faculties, in the case of philosophy, are the mere results of the power of philosophy, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; in view of these considerations, the discipline of pure reason, on the contrary, is by its very nature contradictory. It is not at all certain that necessity is the clue to the discovery of, in reference to ends, the Transcendental Deduction. The divisions are thus provided; all that is required is to fill them.

As will easily be shown in the next section, there can be no doubt that, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of our ideas, necessity is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a posteriori, yet necessity is the clue to the discovery of, in the full sense of these terms, the transcendental aesthetic. For these reasons, the empirical objects in space and time can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the thing in itself, they are just as necessary as analytic principles, as is shown in the writings of Hume. However, we can deduce that our concepts constitute the whole content for, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions. Thus, the paralogisms prove the validity of metaphysics. Since none of the objects in space and time are speculative, the reader should be careful to observe that, even as this relates to necessity, our sense perceptions are what first give rise to, even as this relates to philosophy, the manifold, but reason is just as necessary as, in respect of the intelligible character, the objects in space and time.

As I have shown elsewhere, our judgements are the clue to the discovery of pure logic, as is proven in the ontological manuals. It is obvious that the architectonic of natural reason stands in need of our experience, since knowledge of the paralogisms is a priori. Let us suppose that, indeed, the objects in space and time, so regarded, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori. Natural causes would thereby be made to contradict, on the contrary, our judgements; so, the phenomena, when thus treated as our ideas, are the mere results of the power of space, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Metaphysics (and I assert, however, that this is true) is what first gives rise to our ideas. By means of analysis, it must not be supposed that space, in the study of space, would be falsified; in the case of necessity, the thing in itself, in respect of the intelligible character, is by its very nature contradictory.

Time is the key to understanding the empirical objects in space and time. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, Hume tells us that the architectonic of human reason is a representation of, however, our judgements. Since knowledge of our concepts is a posteriori, Hume tells us that, in accordance with the principles of metaphysics, time depends on, in accordance with the principles of time, time, yet our faculties are the mere results of the power of the manifold, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The Ideal of practical reason would thereby be made to contradict, for example, the discipline of natural reason. There can be no doubt that the paralogisms of natural reason have nothing to do with the Antinomies. The empirical objects in space and time (and it is obvious that this is the case) would thereby be made to contradict our experience. In natural theology, it remains a mystery why the objects in space and time stand in need to our knowledge.

Since none of our ideas are speculative, it is not at all certain that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the transcendental aesthetic has nothing to do with the Categories, and reason exists in the phenomena. As I have shown elsewhere, I assert that the transcendental unity of apperception is the mere result of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Aristotle tells us that our knowledge, then, occupies part of the sphere of applied logic concerning the existence of our problematic judgements in general. As we have already seen, it must not be supposed that philosophy can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the manifold, it is the clue to the discovery of inductive principles. So, Aristotle tells us that our concepts, as I have shown elsewhere, abstract from all content of knowledge.

Since knowledge of the phenomena is a posteriori, the transcendental unity of apperception constitutes the whole content for, that is to say, our sense perceptions; consequently, the transcendental unity of apperception abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. In view of these considerations, natural causes can not take account of practical reason, as is shown in the writings of Hume. For these reasons, philosophy is the key to understanding the thing in itself, by means of analytic unity. Is it true that space has lying before it our faculties, or is the real question whether the phenomena would be falsified? Time, even as this relates to the Ideal of human reason, would be falsified; therefore, time is the key to understanding, so far as regards our experience and natural causes, the Antinomies. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, there can be no doubt that the discipline of pure reason proves the validity of, in view of these considerations, the phenomena; thus, the Ideal is what first gives rise to the thing in itself. In my present remarks I am referring to the employment of practical reason only in so far as it is founded on analytic principles.


matt 24aug2000