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

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:12:00 -0500, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
<philrob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:55:38 -0800, John Jones <jonescardiff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>A question for you and knucmo,
>>>What is the 'unconditioned'? Can a definition be given that is not
>>>dependent on a spatial or tem****al framework?
>>  
>> Off-hand, I would define it as "that which in itself has no
>> precedent."
>> 
>
>Perhaps it might be a little less ambiguous to think about
>this, not in terms of a distinction between the conditioned
>and the unconditioned, but rather in terms of a distinction
>between the rationality of means and the rationality of
>ends.

In other words, relating to an end-in-itself. Although I see
rationality itself as only a means to an ultimate end, so it's best,
when discussing Kant, not to conflate reason and understanding.


--
fantasybedtimehour.com