Yesterday’s incomplete sentence was the end-point for what-was. It read:
“I can prove that”
What? I’ll leave that as a prompt and introduction. A nebulous stepping-stone offering unknowns, and inconceivable benefits to what follows. Is this true? #This.
I’ve turned to Kant, whose Prolegomena occupies my table and thoughts. It’s a work in process. Which is to say that I’m sitting somewhere between intent and outcome. The first problem, underlined and featuring at chapters’ titles, is to say (If) How Metaphysics is possible. It is useful to turn to the one who had been responsible for breaking the status quo, and preventing philosophy from playing games without concern for the rules. Amongst all else, Hume showed that Causality cannot be rationally understood as much more than a convenience. He held it not to have any basis in reality. But (notes Kant) he could have identified mathematics as a similar phenomenon. They are both synthetic exercises (i.e. since they are not analytic – exposure of properties inherent in anything, and thus add some fact that otherwise would have no reason to be assumed). They are also both a priori. They are not a posteriori (they are not empirical, although they can be applied to empirical circumstances). Mathematics, and most clearly its geometry, is an exercise in intuition. Geometry is the rules of space, which is a form by which objects are sensed, but not something that exists in themselves. This much is clear enough.
<– Philosophy/Kant. –> Other things.
Included in other things is (1) an admission that these (which is epitomized by this) journal entries have somewhat deteriorated in “quality” (or whatnot), and along with a desire to alter that, is a recollection of some space-filling options for these journal entries, as instantiated by options, (2) which include (among others, but which I mention specifically) website review (on account of the fact that I’m interested in pursuing during these times).
