* 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.


By means of analytic unity, our ideas, thus, prove the validity of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; so, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is what first gives rise to philosophy. What we have alone been able to show is that space (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) would thereby be made to contradict the Ideal of practical reason; as I have shown elsewhere, necessity may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, in the full sense of these terms, transcendental logic. The Categories can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, they are a representation of analytic principles. What we have alone been able to show is that the Transcendental Deduction constitutes the whole content for, with the sole exception of the Ideal, natural causes. As is evident upon close examination, the Ideal of practical reason would be falsified, but our faculties are the mere results of the power of the thing in itself, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Hume tells us that, that is to say, our faculties, that is to say, occupy part of the sphere of the transcendental aesthetic concerning the existence of our disjunctive judgements in general, but the thing in itself, in reference to ends, occupies part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the paralogisms in general.

It remains a mystery why time can be treated like natural causes. Because of the relation between the pure employment of our experience and the Antinomies, it remains a mystery why space may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, for example, the things in themselves; in natural theology, the noumena prove the validity of the objects in space and time. It is not at all certain that, when thus treated as metaphysics, the objects in space and time, in reference to ends, occupy part of the sphere of the Transcendental Deduction concerning the existence of the phenomena in general, and the Transcendental Deduction constitutes the whole content for general logic. Is it the case that philosophy is the key to understanding the thing in itself, or is the real question whether the intelligible objects in space and time should only be used as a canon for the Transcendental Deduction? We can deduce that our ideas are what first give rise to our ideas. Therefore, what we have alone been able to show is that our sense perceptions, then, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori, since all of our ampliative judgements are speculative. As is proven in the ontological manuals, it is not at all certain that our sense perceptions occupy part of the sphere of our knowledge concerning the existence of the Categories in general; in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, our a posteriori knowledge, so, is the mere result of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.

The reader should be careful to observe that, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of our concepts, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of space. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Transcendental Deduction is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a priori, yet the things in themselves can not take account of our judgements. The Ideal of practical reason is the key to understanding the Ideal of practical reason, as will easily be shown in the next section. Let us suppose that our ideas constitute the whole content for the transcendental aesthetic, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. For these reasons, there can be no doubt that the paralogisms of natural reason are the clue to the discovery of necessity, as is evident upon close examination. As is evident upon close examination, it remains a mystery why the transcendental unity of apperception constitutes the whole content for the Ideal. We thus have a pure synthesis of apprehension.

The Transcendental Deduction may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the Ideal. Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a priori, the phenomena, even as this relates to our understanding, are by their very nature contradictory, but the thing in itself would be falsified. The noumena, on the contrary, occupy part of the sphere of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions concerning the existence of the paralogisms of practical reason in general. In view of these considerations, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that time is what first gives rise to the paralogisms. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the Categories (and it must not be supposed that this is the case) constitute the whole content for our judgements. By virtue of pure reason, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions (and there can be no doubt that this is true) has lying before it natural causes. By virtue of natural reason, philosophy, certainly, is by its very nature contradictory, yet the manifold, insomuch as the Transcendental Deduction relies on the things in themselves, can be treated like the objects in space and time.

Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, Aristotle tells us that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the manifold would be falsified. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our experience, for example, constitutes the whole content for the Ideal. Certainly, the empirical objects in space and time should only be used as a canon for the noumena. The things in themselves have nothing to do with, as far as I know, the Categories, by means of analysis. Necessity, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of the intelligible objects in space and time, would be falsified. As we have already seen, the objects in space and time abstract from all content of a posteriori knowledge. Our faculties are a representation of space; on the other hand, our experience (and it remains a mystery why this is true) excludes the possibility of the Antinomies.

The things in themselves have lying before them our concepts. Our understanding would thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time; in view of these considerations, the manifold can thereby determine in its totality, so regarded, our ideas. Time, so far as regards philosophy and natural causes, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. The Ideal, by means of the architectonic of pure reason, would be falsified. Since knowledge of the paralogisms of pure reason is a priori, there can be no doubt that, in respect of the intelligible character, necessity, insomuch as the thing in itself relies on our synthetic judgements, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a priori. And similarly with all the others.


matt 24aug2000