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

I'm taking bollocks.
In failing to read the header I assumed that the quote concerned the
concept of infinity rather than free-will.
The phrase "infinite origination" threw me.
However  - the conclusion is the same (and oddly resonant with the
mistaken assumption.)
Kant merely goes on to reiforce the notion that "actual change" is
incomprehensible in the face of being and not being.

Maybe the "soft" NOT has thrown you. It is a manner of speaking which
is slightly ironic.



On Nov 12, 8:41 am, chazwin <chazwy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hey Scott
> To summarise he seems to be saying that infinity is incomprehensible.
> That there has to be a starting point (with a god?), an origin for
> change to be comprehensible. That is you ignore a start and accpet an
> infintite universe then you have also to reject change.
> infinte implies changeless.
>
> The second paragraph seems to suggest the same. It asked that, having
> ignored the puzzle and finding no change you would not be able to
> understand being and not being.
>
> I don't think there is a problem here between paragraphs. Two merely
> reasserts one.
> You might like to take issue with the viewpoint that infinite is
> incompatible with change, however.
>
> On Nov 9, 7:19 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In response to determinism, Kant explains how the antinomy of free
> > will arises from a misuse of reason:
>
> > "The possibility of an infinite origination, without a first member in
> > regard to which everything else is merely subsequent, cannot be made
> > comprehensible. But if you want to dismiss this puzzle of nature, then
> > you will find yourselves compelled to reject many basic synthetic
> > characteristics (basic forces) that you are just as little able to
> > comprehend, and even the possibility of a change as such must then
> > become objectionable to you."
>
> > Up to here, I followed him. But then he says,
>
> > "For if you did *not* find through experience that change is actual
> > [my emphasis on "not"], then you would never be able to excogitate a
> > priori how such an unceasing sequence of being and not-being is
> > possible."
>
> > If instead of "for" he had written "however," I wouldn't have
> > considered it unsound writing. But then I would need a definition of
> > "change as such."
>
> > I would have expected a proof by contradiction, i.e., "If you *did*
> > find through experience that change was actual, then..."- Hide quoted
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -