Talk:Transcendental idealism

message: This page needs some heavy editing, and I will be up to the task in a few months time. If anyone else is more capable than I, some suggestions:
* "Via priori" is misphrased. The author is clearly drawing from the Kantian (and general philosophical) term a priori, defined as such (by Wikipedia): "A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience"." The same goes for the use of "Priori" capitalized. "Priori" isn't an independent entity, it just means "before" or "former," and a priori knowledge is just knowledge we have _before_ we know anything else.
* "All of these forms are within our minds from the first moment, meaning we do not have to experience the object to know its form." I'll have to freshen up my Kant before I make any definitive statements about this, but at the very least it's unclear _which_ forms are being discussed here. Even a cursory reader of Kant knows that he postulates a synthetic a priori, or kind of knowledge that is in some way prior to experience, and in some way contingent upon it. Specifically, I don't think Kant believed we could properly _know_ space/time until we had experienced things through those a priori forms, but I could easily be mistaken.
:::The forms are there from birth as dormant possibilities. They are activated by sensation from the sense organs. Lestrade 17:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've moved the material that was at Transcendental Idealism here, without editing it. I figure the article is in such bad shape that doing so will make a minimal difference. Nor do I have either the knowledge or the interest to fix the article up. Perhaps it might encourage someone else to fix the mess. Banno 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: A fundamental concept of Kant's philosophy needs some references from veridical translations of Kant and philosophical commentary by other philosophers.  The paucity of refs is holding it back, especially in terms of veracity.--Knucmo2 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What concept in particular?Lestrade 21:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of this article (namely transcendental idealism) --Knucmo2 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs references 

message: * A proper explication of Kant's transcendental idealism (given no explanation at present) in the article as all their is is scope for critics.  Considering that this is viewed as an integral part of Kant's "copernican revolution" it needs writing by those in the know about it too, but to make it intelligible to others without any substitution (e. g. feminist) of ideological purpose for real content.  I shall find my Critique and some of the best writings (secondary) on the critique before proceeding. --Knucmo2 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... vs Transcendental Realism 

message: I like how the dogmatic idealism section doesn't actually say what dogmatic idealism is. 162.83.151.108 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that dogmatic idealism is the judgment that things-in-themselves do not exist. It is different from transcendental idealism, which is the judgment that things-in-themselves exist but cannot be known.Lestrade 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogmatic Idealism

message: Kant's transcendental idealism may be based on a tautologous or analytic judgement. It may merely be saying, "everything that you see is an appearance." Also, "an appearance appears only in the way that it appears." Such statements would have nothing to do with the existence of the world in a way different from how it appears to some observer. This has always been the main misunderstanding of idealism.Lestrade 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Objectivism clinged more to the doctrine of A is A. --Knucmo2 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A is A

message: Until someone makes a page for Henry E. Allison, don't link this page to that name.
There should also be some mention here that Allison was a student of Aron Gurwitsch, who was in turn a student of Husserl.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.133.70 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allison 

message: The second paragraph of the section on dogmatic idealism is so full of terms that are undefined for the average well-informed reader, and so lacking in meaning for the reader who neither remembers the texts mentioned nor has any basis for understanding the Wikipedia author's interpretation of those texts that there is no possible way that anyone but the specialist (and likely equally dogmatic) reader could disagree.
It is one thing to write something that may be correct and that certainly can be defended as being true, and another thing to write something that has a meaning that is clear and informative to the readers in the intended audience. P0M (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A passage that may be true but is fairly sure to be invulnerable 

message: Currently the text says:
In Kant's Transcendental Idealism, Henry Allison proposes a reading that opposes Strawson's interpretation. Allison argues that Strawson and others misrepresent Kant by emphasising what has become known as the two-worlds reading. This —- according to Allison false —- reading of Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction suggests that phenomena and noumena are ontologically distinct from each other. It concludes on that basis that we somehow fall short of knowing the noumena due to the nature of the very means by which we comprehend them.
The passage quoted says that Allison disagrees with what Strawson says, and then claims to give a correct rendering of Strawson's position. It is sketchy enough that the reader would have to guess what difference there may be between the ontological status of phenomena and the ontological status of noumena.  
The last sentence quoted above is very unclear.  Which "it" is being characterized?  Strawson's positon?  The sentence sounds like a fairly accurate recap of Kant's position. But is that Allison's position?  It doesn't sound like it should be. If it is, the text should indicate that fact clearly. If it is not, then the passage has failed to say anything instructive about Allison's position. P0M (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A passage that needs to be rethought and more clearly expressed 

message: In deleting reference to Ayn Rand on April 12, 2010, User 72.130.188.19 claimed that Rand "has no credentials as a philosopher. She has no philosophy degrees. She has no publications in philosophy journals. Her books are not published by an academic press." Lack of such credentials would disqualify almost every philosopher who lived prior to the nineteenth century and several subsequent major philosophers such as Mill, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, and others.Lestrade (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials

message: There ought to be sections on Fichte, the early Schelling, and Husserl (post Ideas I) in this article.  It is good that the article mentions these figures as transcendental idealists, but more needs to be said about their specific contributions and points of difference with respect to Kant and to each other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.133.70 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fichte, early Schelling, and Husserl 

message: This section could be very useful, but it currently contains very little useful information.  The Dharmakirti reference is not effectively accessible and what comes afterwards is (to me) incomprehensibleI'm tempted to remove most of it. Errantios (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical parallels"