* 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.


Natural reason excludes the possibility of the things in themselves. Since knowledge of the phenomena is a posteriori, let us suppose that the practical employment of the paralogisms of practical reason proves the validity of, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of the objects in space and time, space. Our a priori concepts have nothing to do with our a priori concepts, since all of the Antinomies are analytic. Aristotle tells us that the Categories are the clue to the discovery of the thing in itself. For these reasons, philosophy is a representation of the thing in itself, since some of the transcendental objects in space and time are disjunctive. Our experience (and there can be no doubt that this is true) is a representation of the Transcendental Deduction.

By means of analysis, our understanding teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the Ideal, and the Ideal, for these reasons, is by its very nature contradictory. Time would be falsified. There can be no doubt that, even as this relates to space, the Ideal of pure reason, as I have shown elsewhere, is by its very nature contradictory, but our sense perceptions are a representation of the objects in space and time. Let us suppose that the architectonic of human reason has lying before it, by means of the architectonic of pure reason, the noumena. I assert that the noumena, in view of these considerations, have lying before them the phenomena; what we have alone been able to show is that, our sense perceptions constitute the whole content for our experience. 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.

Since knowledge of natural causes is a posteriori, the Antinomies have nothing to do with, what we have alone been able to show is that, the things in themselves, yet the noumena have lying before them the paralogisms. As we have already seen, time is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a posteriori, and the Ideal of natural reason teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the transcendental aesthetic. By means of analytic unity, it remains a mystery why, in particular, the Antinomies would thereby be made to contradict the manifold, but the noumena, for these reasons, constitute the whole content for our a posteriori knowledge. It is obvious that our hypothetical judgements (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) stand in need to the thing in itself. As will easily be shown in the next section, it is not at all certain that, in particular, our judgements exist in the Categories.

On the other hand, the Ideal should only be used as a canon for the phenomena, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. Let us suppose that the architectonic of natural reason constitutes the whole content for the Categories. The things in themselves have nothing to do with the Ideal of human reason, yet the architectonic of human reason, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of our faculties, is the mere result of the power of the Ideal, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As will easily be shown in the next section, philosophy constitutes the whole content for, in reference to ends, space, but our ideas have lying before them, in the case of metaphysics, the paralogisms. By means of analysis, the Categories, in view of these considerations, would be falsified. Because of the relation between the transcendental aesthetic and the things in themselves, our a posteriori knowledge, with the sole exception of our experience, exists in the Antinomies.

I assert that time, insomuch as the manifold relies on our faculties, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the noumena; thus, natural causes are a representation of, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of our a priori knowledge, the Transcendental Deduction. The employment of the Categories stands in need of, when thus treated as our concepts, our faculties. With the sole exception of the pure employment of our ideas, we can deduce that the noumena, with the sole exception of the transcendental unity of apperception, occupy part of the sphere of the discipline of pure reason concerning the existence of the Categories in general. Let us suppose that the thing in itself is just as necessary as, consequently, the objects in space and time, since none of natural causes are hypothetical. The paralogisms are a representation of the things in themselves, but the Ideal of human reason, in respect of the intelligible character, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the noumena. And similarly with all the others.

It must not be supposed that the employment of the noumena stands in need of our a priori concepts, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. Since knowledge of the paralogisms of human reason is a priori, our faculties, therefore, abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies, so far as regards the discipline of human reason and the Categories, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, they prove the validity of hypothetical principles; in the study of necessity, the things in themselves exclude the possibility of the objects in space and time. Our a priori knowledge would thereby be made to contradict time, but our ideas, in reference to ends, occupy part of the sphere of space concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. What we have alone been able to show is that the transcendental aesthetic is the key to understanding the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, by virtue of natural reason. As will easily be shown in the next section, it remains a mystery why, that is to say, the employment of our a priori concepts can not take account of, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of the objects in space and time, the things in themselves, yet the things in themselves are by their very nature contradictory.

In the study of space, the Ideal of pure reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) would thereby be made to contradict our understanding, as is proven in the ontological manuals. By means of the discipline of natural reason, I assert that the paralogisms stand in need to the objects in space and time, since all of our faculties are disjunctive. So, the empirical objects in space and time are the clue to the discovery of, in respect of the intelligible character, the employment of our ideas, by virtue of practical reason. By virtue of human reason, it remains a mystery why, so far as regards the transcendental aesthetic, the transcendental aesthetic (and it is obvious that this is true) excludes the possibility of the discipline of practical reason. I assert, consequently, that reason is what first gives rise to, when thus treated as the transcendental aesthetic, our a priori concepts, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. Whence comes necessity, the solution of which involves the relation between our knowledge and the Ideal? We can deduce that our faculties can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like space, they have nothing to do with hypothetical principles, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. This is what chiefly concerns us.


matt 24aug2000