Re: Unusual line of reasoning in Kant's response to the antinomy of free will

On Nov 10, 2:27 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:16 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > it doesn't seem possible that someone could survive well
> > being a complete skeptic;
>
> Which is of course self-contradicting which is why its not possible.
>
> MG

Sorry, his is not a deductive argument where it is impossible for
premises to be otherwise. This is an inductive argument since to claim
that the possibility of being a complete skeptic necessarily entails
that you have checked all humans in the past and future to conclude
with such certainty that it is impossible. But then time would go
forwards and your inductive probabilities would change since you would
have to show that it is impossible that a complete skeptic would arise.