We see in advance that multiplicities of the phenomenological epoche, naturally, become adjusted to cogitationes. Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a priori, the Categories, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of the objects in space and time, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like applied logic, they would thereby be made to contradict deductive principles. It is obvious that, in reference to ends, our sense perceptions have lying before them, that is to say, the Transcendental Deduction. It becomes evident that, by virtue of a synthesis in which what is meant coincides and agrees with philosophy, only in reflection do we “direct” ourselves to cognition and to its perceptual directedness to multiplicities of the stream of noematic descriptions. As we have already seen, the reader should be careful to observe that, in other words, necessity has nothing to do with our understanding, but our a priori concepts, in reference to ends, occupy part of the sphere of the architectonic of practical reason concerning the existence of the phenomena in general. The pure employment of time has lying before it the Categories, yet the Categories are what first give rise to the Antinomies. The fact is that multiplicities of philosophy inhibit my acceptance of the stream of noetic acts as existent. Since knowledge of the noumena is a priori, let us suppose that the discipline of human reason exists in pure reason. Noetic acts, in the broadest sense, are precisely what make critical decisions about noematic descriptions at all possible; we have not simply lost an object for phenomenology; we retain it, in an extremely broad sense, by the fundamental nature of noematic descriptions. Our understanding, in accordance with the principles of the phenomena, has lying before it our understanding. Our experience, on the contrary, constitutes the whole content for the noumena; therefore, the paralogisms constitute the whole content for the phenomena. The reader should be careful to observe that philosophy (and we can deduce that this is true) is a representation of natural causes, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. Our a priori knowledge, in the study of the transcendental aesthetic, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a posteriori. I now shift the weight of transcendental evidence of the whole of conscious life from the ego to experiences.
Yes, I could have posted this in Fun but it actually makes a serious point. I just saw in this thread (page 74) how (scar) posts such a passage, gets asked for clarification, post another gem and then have this discussed as if it makes sense! It would be even funnier if it wasn’t so damned sad…
