This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Kant insists on identifying necessity with the constraints of our concepts. Like Hume, he identifies impossibility with inconceivability. According to Kant, if this were not so, we would have no criterion (no effective test) of impossibility. Knowledge of impossibility would be thus be impossible. This position is self-defeating -- see my section on Kant in "A New Look. ..", section 8.7. We have to ask Hume and Kant, is the principle that all necessity is based on inconceivability supposed to be necessary or contingent? If it is contingent, where is the empirical evidence that it is true? If it is necessary, how can they explain the fact that the opposite view (one that distinguishes between impossibility and inconceivability) is itself conceivable?...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course PHI PHI2010 taught by Professor Jorgerigol during the Fall '09 term at Broward College.
- Fall '09