I've been reading up on the Critique of pure reason and regarding space and time the reference I'm using makes a lot out of them being objectively valid, subjectively conditioned but not transcendentally valid. What the hell is the difference between transcendentally valid and objectively valid? If there is one surely its quite miniscule??
2007-11-11 07:21:47 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Kant is really difficult. Rather than explaining anything here (since I know I'd do a bad job anyway, lol) I'll send you to the best online reference available. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is really well respected and you should be able to find references there to help you out.
2007-11-11 07:31:59 · answer #1 · answered by Sadie 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
"Transcendentally valid" means its an ok idea for you to apply in understanding the world you observe. "Objectively valid" means a feature of the world that's actually in the world regardless of people thinking about it
2007-11-12 15:51:07 · answer #2 · answered by KGB 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Objectively valid: pretentious questions.
Transcendentally valid: vigorous opposition to said questions.
New accounts for the same old saw!
2007-11-11 16:02:37 · answer #3 · answered by Baron VonHiggins 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You have to "BE" transcended for transcendental validity!
2007-11-11 15:36:06 · answer #4 · answered by Premaholic 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋