Can anyone help with this argument reconstruction?

KantDane21 December 13, 2022 at 08:37 2150 views 6 comments
The following argument is in Paul Guyer's text "Kant" (Routledge). I am trying to reconstruct it, yet am not sure the of the form of the argument.

If whenever one experiences appearances, one does not gain knowledge of the noumenon, and yet (in) one’s awareness of one’s own individual will does gain knowledge of the noumenon, then one’s awareness of one’s own individual will could not be the experiencing of appearances.

A- one experiences appearances B- one gains knowledge of the noumenon C- awareness of one’s own individual will

Thus:

If A then not B If C then B C then not A

Yet the above is not a valid argument form (as far as I can determine).

Comments (6)

bongo fury December 13, 2022 at 11:51 #763391
Quoting KantDane21
If A then not B
If C then B
[If] C then not A


A, B, C ---> P, M, S

User image


KantDane21 December 13, 2022 at 12:05 #763393
Quoting bongo fury
A, B, C ---> P, M, S


that's great! did you use an app??
bongo fury December 13, 2022 at 12:10 #763394
Reply to KantDane21 No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism?wprov=sfla1 has a list
KantDane21 December 13, 2022 at 12:25 #763399
something like:
No experience of appearance results in knowledge of noumenon
All awareness of will is knowledge of noumenon
thus,
No awareness of will is experience of appearance.
bongo fury December 13, 2022 at 12:33 #763406
Yes, your parsing seemed right.
alan1000 July 23, 2023 at 10:54 #824059
bongo fury, please don't fall into the habit of relying on Wikipedia to support your arguments! Its contributors are, by and large, utterly unfamiliar with the philosophy of mathematics. Its article listing the arguments to prove that 0 is an even number is an intellectual fog from beginning to end.