> On Jan 31, 9:26 pm, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:
>>> "we can therefore have no knowledge
>> of any object as thing in itself, but only in so far as it is an
>> object of sensible intuition, that is, an appearance -- all this is
>> proved in the analytical part of the Critique. Thus it does in-
>> deed follow that all possible speculative knowledge of reason
>> is limited to mere objects of experience .
>
> In my interjection above I see that I have a typo which in this
> instance is worth correcting, so that there is no possible
> misunderstanding.
>
> In referring to Kant's phrase "mere objects of experience" my
> interjection should read .
>
> Btw, the purpose of "mere" here an elsewhere in Kant is clear. It is
> to further characterize "appearances" or "representations" or "objects
> of experience", etc. (as he variously describes them) by way of
> *diminishing* them further epistemologically - otherwise the
> qualification is pointless. It is by way of him saying in effect,
> "these insignificant mental events - insignificant because they are
> not what "really is", i.e. things in themselves". They
> are...well..."mere"...
>
No "mere" means pure and unmixed. You are...well...wrong, again.
> Think by way of comparison to the expression, "we mere mortals", and
> what it conveys.
mere 1 [mIE] superlative merest adjective
being nothing more than something specified
she is a mere child
[C15: from Latin merus pure, unmixed]
>
> As I said, nothing further needs to be said about this - except
> perhaps to observe the spectacle of Kantians attempting to defend
> this, assuming one's morbid curiosity goes in that direction.
>
> Fred Weiss
As I said, you need to but a dictionary and introductory economics text
book, then you need to read them.
>
