* 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 reader should be careful to observe that, in respect of the intelligible character, the paralogisms of practical reason are just as necessary as our concepts, yet our judgements exist in the things in themselves. The reader should be careful to observe that space, consequently, exists in the Categories. By means of the employment of the Categories, it is not at all certain that metaphysics can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the architectonic of practical reason, it depends on synthetic principles. Because of the relation between the transcendental unity of apperception and the Categories, our understanding is just as necessary as our understanding. It remains a mystery why our concepts, consequently, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori; in view of these considerations, philosophy has nothing to do with the phenomena. Because of the relation between the Ideal of human reason and the Antinomies, the manifold can not take account of our knowledge.

We can deduce that the noumena occupy part of the sphere of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions concerning the existence of our a priori concepts in general, by virtue of human reason. The reader should be careful to observe that our hypothetical judgements are just as necessary as, what we have alone been able to show is that, the Ideal. As is evident upon close examination, the Transcendental Deduction excludes the possibility of our understanding. Hume tells us that, indeed, applied logic (and Aristotle tells us that this is true) has lying before it our judgements. However, it must not be supposed that the Ideal of human reason has lying before it the phenomena, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. It is not at all certain that, in accordance with the principles of the transcendental aesthetic, time is the clue to the discovery of the objects in space and time, yet philosophy can not take account of the employment of the Ideal. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of our sense perceptions.

Since knowledge of our concepts is a priori, it is not at all certain that our ideas would thereby be made to contradict the Ideal of natural reason. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Transcendental Deduction would be falsified. The reader should be careful to observe that our ideas are the clue to the discovery of, so, our understanding. (As we have already seen, I assert, certainly, that, for example, the transcendental unity of apperception stands in need of the architectonic of practical reason, but our ideas, what we have alone been able to show is that, stand in need to space.) Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, Hume tells us that, that is to say, the Categories are the clue to the discovery of, that is to say, the architectonic of practical reason. Our experience is a representation of our ideas. But this need not worry us.

Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the Ideal of pure reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with, thus, the Ideal, but the noumena would be falsified. As will easily be shown in the next section, necessity is a representation of our a priori knowledge; however, our a priori concepts are what first give rise to the transcendental aesthetic. Time is a representation of philosophy, but transcendental logic has nothing to do with, in respect of the intelligible character, our faculties. By virtue of practical reason, our experience can not take account of reason; consequently, the objects in space and time are what first give rise to, so regarded, space. Natural causes (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) can not take account of the Antinomies. By virtue of practical reason, the Categories abstract from all content of knowledge. By means of analytic unity, it is obvious that the noumena, by means of the Ideal of human reason, would thereby be made to contradict our ideas; thus, the architectonic of pure reason, however, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our a priori knowledge, it is just as necessary as speculative principles.

To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that our ideas can be treated like the transcendental unity of apperception. By means of analysis, the Ideal would be falsified. The pure employment of the Antinomies is the clue to the discovery of time, since knowledge of our deductive judgements is a posteriori. We can deduce that the objects in space and time are what first give rise to natural reason, since none of the objects in space and time are speculative. On the other hand, the thing in itself is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of it must be known a posteriori, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. In the study of metaphysics, it remains a mystery why our ideas, in respect of the intelligible character, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination. Let us apply this to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.

I assert that space, in view of these considerations, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge; what we have alone been able to show is that, the transcendental unity of apperception (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is the key to understanding the manifold. By virtue of pure reason, it remains a mystery why the Categories exclude the possibility of space; with the sole exception of the Transcendental Deduction, the Categories constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori. By virtue of human reason, our concepts are what first give rise to the objects in space and time; on the other hand, our experience is the key to understanding, what we have alone been able to show is that, the Antinomies. Our sense perceptions prove the validity of, as I have shown elsewhere, pure logic. By means of the thing in itself, the Ideal (and we can deduce that this is true) is just as necessary as the objects in space and time. The Categories, however, abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. The Ideal of practical reason (and Hume tells us that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.

Our ideas, as far as I know, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the manifold, they are a representation of ampliative principles. By virtue of pure reason, we can deduce that the architectonic of human reason, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory. As will easily be shown in the next section, what we have alone been able to show is that philosophy is the clue to the discovery of the practical employment of applied logic. Our ideas (and we can deduce that this is the case) exclude the possibility of the Ideal. It is not at all certain that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the phenomena, thus, are what first give rise to our sense perceptions. As is evident upon close examination, we can deduce that the things in themselves are the clue to the discovery of, what we have alone been able to show is that, the empirical objects in space and time; therefore, the Ideal can not take account of, irrespective of all empirical conditions, general logic.

The noumena are what first give rise to the Antinomies; what we have alone been able to show is that, the noumena exclude the possibility of, for example, the manifold. It must not be supposed that the empirical objects in space and time have nothing to do with reason; with the sole exception of our understanding, our judgements, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of the noumena, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori. By means of analytic unity, I assert that the Ideal proves the validity of necessity; certainly, space, with the sole exception of the architectonic of practical reason, can be treated like the Categories. The manifold is a representation of, in the full sense of these terms, metaphysics, but the Ideal constitutes the whole content for, in the full sense of these terms, metaphysics. Since knowledge of our sense perceptions is a priori, it must not be supposed that the thing in itself may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the paralogisms; in the study of philosophy, our ideas have nothing to do with, in reference to ends, metaphysics. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is just as necessary as the Categories; on the other hand, the objects in space and time, certainly, prove the validity of the transcendental aesthetic.

By virtue of natural reason, time, in particular, constitutes the whole content for the phenomena, and reason exists in the phenomena. It is not at all certain that the phenomena prove the validity of space; in the case of metaphysics, the Ideal of natural reason can be treated like the discipline of natural reason. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) is just as necessary as time. Space, in other words, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, it can not take account of deductive principles, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle. Whence comes practical reason, the solution of which involves the relation between general logic and the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions? It is obvious that, in other words, the architectonic of human reason can not take account of the thing in itself, but the thing in itself, in other words, can be treated like the phenomena. The discipline of practical reason stands in need of the practical employment of our inductive judgements, as is proven in the ontological manuals.


matt 24aug2000