Topic: What is so wrong with "What if" questions?
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #17,880
Using this thread as an example. I rephrase my question. What is wrong with "What if" questions when they help us evaluate such possibilities?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #299,908
What if OP***
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #299,910
what if they had lasers at the Alamo?Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #299,911
@OP
But how can we know that they possess objective reality, that is to say, the objective form of experience, contains all the kinds of synthesis which are requisite for the cognition of things as phenomena, as also the restriction of these principles, namely, that they cannot be obtained by abstraction from any empirical, and therefore merely contingent, knowledge; that it is just as impossible for the subtlest philosophy as for the commonest reason of men to argue away freedom. There are even some qualities which are of service to this good will itself and may facilitate its action, yet which have no intrinsic unconditional value, but always presuppose a good will, and this qualifies the esteem that we justly have for them and does not permit us to create for ourselves a new field of objects beyond those which are presented to us as an object is necessarily subject to rules, because without such rules we never could attain to cognition of an object. We are in no want of proofs of the great influence which the principle above developed exercises in the anticipation of perceptions, and even in supplying the want of them, so far as to know that the earth is a sphere, and that its surface is spherical, can cognize a priori and in a determinate manner fall short of assuring me of its existence; nay, the conditions of the possibility of each other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces, the limits of which are never determined in themselves, but always by some other space. But there is no difficulty in regard to the ground on which we apply the category of substance to the phenomenon; and we should have been obliged to prove that in all phenomena there is something permanent, of the existence of an absolutely necessary cause.
Now we may certainly give the name of object to everything, even to every representation, so far as we hold sacred the moral law which reason teaches us from the nature of the ideals of the imagination. As we are constantly employing this mode of thought and have thus become quite accustomed to it, we no longer remark the above distinction, and, as in the case above adduced, with regard to the unity of apperception. Now the question is whether there is in transcendental philosophy any question, relating to an object presented to pure reason, which is insoluble by this reason; and that the profession of unavoidable ignorance- the problem being alleged to be beyond the reach of our faculties- cannot free us from the obligation to present a complete and satisfactory answer. Consequently they will not possess that immediate evidence which is peculiar to us, and speak of things in general.
But how can we know that they possess objective reality, that is to say, the objective form of experience, contains all the kinds of synthesis which are requisite for the cognition of things as phenomena, as also the restriction of these principles, namely, that they cannot be obtained by abstraction from any empirical, and therefore merely contingent, knowledge; that it is just as impossible for the subtlest philosophy as for the commonest reason of men to argue away freedom. There are even some qualities which are of service to this good will itself and may facilitate its action, yet which have no intrinsic unconditional value, but always presuppose a good will, and this qualifies the esteem that we justly have for them and does not permit us to create for ourselves a new field of objects beyond those which are presented to us as an object is necessarily subject to rules, because without such rules we never could attain to cognition of an object. We are in no want of proofs of the great influence which the principle above developed exercises in the anticipation of perceptions, and even in supplying the want of them, so far as to know that the earth is a sphere, and that its surface is spherical, can cognize a priori and in a determinate manner fall short of assuring me of its existence; nay, the conditions of the possibility of each other; which, however, may be affirmed of spaces, the limits of which are never determined in themselves, but always by some other space. But there is no difficulty in regard to the ground on which we apply the category of substance to the phenomenon; and we should have been obliged to prove that in all phenomena there is something permanent, of the existence of an absolutely necessary cause.
Now we may certainly give the name of object to everything, even to every representation, so far as we hold sacred the moral law which reason teaches us from the nature of the ideals of the imagination. As we are constantly employing this mode of thought and have thus become quite accustomed to it, we no longer remark the above distinction, and, as in the case above adduced, with regard to the unity of apperception. Now the question is whether there is in transcendental philosophy any question, relating to an object presented to pure reason, which is insoluble by this reason; and that the profession of unavoidable ignorance- the problem being alleged to be beyond the reach of our faculties- cannot free us from the obligation to present a complete and satisfactory answer. Consequently they will not possess that immediate evidence which is peculiar to us, and speak of things in general.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #299,913
Because they're possibilities. What if is less important than what is.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #299,924
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,095
@299,911 (D)
I can't find out who wrote that but it sounds like Kant. Who is it and what is it from?
I can't find out who wrote that but it sounds like Kant. Who is it and what is it from?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,096
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,156
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,175
astromermaid joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,176
what if the world doubles in population
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,221
@300,095 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Very good! It's Markov-generated text produced from a corpus of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason.
Very good! It's Markov-generated text produced from a corpus of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,222
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,223
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
The only advantage of this admission is that it enables me to answer all other questions relating to the contingent, and to give reason the most complete satisfaction as regards the unity which it aims at attaining in the world of phenomena. Pursuing this track, and hypostatizing this idea, we shall find ourselves required to cogitate, in addition to the function of the understanding exercised by them may perhaps be of importance in the field of experience, that is, their relation to objects of empirical cognition or phenomena.
The only advantage of this admission is that it enables me to answer all other questions relating to the contingent, and to give reason the most complete satisfaction as regards the unity which it aims at attaining in the world of phenomena. Pursuing this track, and hypostatizing this idea, we shall find ourselves required to cogitate, in addition to the function of the understanding exercised by them may perhaps be of importance in the field of experience, that is, their relation to objects of empirical cognition or phenomena.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,225
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #300,226
@OP
What's a question?
What's a question?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #300,432
@299,910 (C)
> what if they had lasers at the Alamo?
Awesome!
Change the swords to light sabers for extra kickass.
> what if they had lasers at the Alamo?
Awesome!
Change the swords to light sabers for extra kickass.