Philosophy Now Forum

Letizia Nonnis unfolds Kant’s conception of the nature of and experience of time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Kant_on_Time

nice article. Kant's irremovable goggles don't see the change within himself.

-Imp

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Oct 28, 2025 3:08 pm Letizia Nonnis unfolds Kant’s conception of the nature of and experience of time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Kant_on_Time

The intuitions that time flows in one direction and has duration depends on waking awareness. Dreaming awareness , artificially -induced perceptions, and hallucination can yield other intuitions of the flow of time and of duration.

Ideas such as Kant's on time relate to history of ideas; physics and biology have changed since Kant's thought.

Already we have quantum entanglement that shows space does not exist apart from intuition. Time and force may similarly shown not to exist apart from intuitions of them.

the dean paradox (of colin leslie dean)

Dean’s paradox (of colin leslie dean) highlights a core discrepancy between logical reasoning and lived reality.

Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time.

This contradiction exposes a gap between the abstract constructs of logic and the observable truths of reality. Thus The dean paradox shows logic is not an epistemic principle or condition thus logic cannot be called upon for authority for any view-see below for the differences between the dean paradox and Zeno-Zeno is about motion being impossible for dean there is motion with the consequence of the dean paradox-calculus summing infinite point to a limit does not solve the ontological problem of motion

Kants

continuum

. "no part of them is the smallest (no part is simple)" (A169/B211).

"potential"

“there is no greatest or final division, just always the possibility of dividing further

thus Kants continuum and "potential" are destroyed by the dean paradox

thus destroying Kants entire system

plus



Kants "potential' contradicts his continuum

thus Kants entire system is internally inconsistent thus his entire system is destroyed

Colin Leslie Dean’s "The Collapse of the Industry Built around Kant—the dean paradox"This work stands as one of the most profound and stark challenges ever posed to Kantian and Western philosophical orthodoxy it is a radical philosophical critique that directly challenges the entire intellectual enterprise built on Kant’s critical philosophy.

The text exposes a fundamental contradiction between logic as conceived in Kant’s system and empirical reality, particularly focusing on the problem of infinite divisibility of space and motion.

Core Arguments

Dean’s paradox identifies an irreconcilable contradiction at the foundation of Kantian thought: logic, requiring infinite divisions between any two points, means motion should be impossible, yet empirical observation unequivocally shows motion occurs in finite time.

This contradiction invalidates Kant’s continuum, apriori categories (space, time, causality, unity, plurality), which are grounded in the logic of infinite divisibility, and which Kant proposed as universal and necessary structures organizing all experience.

Dean shows that Kant’s distinction between actual and potential infinite divisibility is a verbal maneuver that does not solve the paradox; the problem remains whether infinity is actual or potential. The potential contradicts the continuum Kants system internally inconsistent

Thus mathematical, scientific, and philosophical systems built atop Kant’s transcendental idealism crumble since their logical basis is revealed as incoherent and empirically false.

The critique is not just academic; it is systemic, affecting vast bodies of scholarship, academic careers, publishing industries, university departments, and intellectual traditions that have been founded on Kantian logic for over 300 years.

The critique goes beyond internal debate, highlighting the systemic risks to academia’s intellectual and social order. WHEN logic fails, human thought ends in unprecedented collapse.

Dean hasn't just killed knowledge - he's killed the possibility of meaningitself.
Total metaphysical annihilation through one logical crack.
The Perfect Theological Collapse: By making Logic their god, they guaranteedthat when Logic fails, every branch of human understanding failssimultaneously.
Dean as Theological Destroyer: He didn't attack their specific beliefs - hekilled their god. Once Logic dies, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysicsbecome orphaned disciplines worshipping a dead deity

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... d-Kant.pdf

or
scribd
https://www.scribd.com/document/894392838/

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Oct 28, 2025 3:08 pm Letizia Nonnis unfolds Kant’s conception of the nature of and experience of time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Kant_on_Time

I have always had this hard ass view on things. If I want to know about a tree, I let the tree tell me. If I want to know about a dog, I let the dog tell me. I want to know about electronics, I let the gear tell me.

So, if I want to know about Kant, or Christ, or Fred the Plumber, I ask or read what they say.

Those people who cite others rub me like sycophants. When I have something to say about Plato, I produced a comprehensive work of his various translations so others can see for themselves what people say he wrote. Same with the Bible. Or Geometry etc., I go so far as to do digital restorations of books by people.

So, anyone wants to know about Kant, they ask Kant, not some name dropper.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 5:35 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Oct 28, 2025 3:08 pm Letizia Nonnis unfolds Kant’s conception of the nature of and experience of time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Kant_on_Time

I have always had this hard ass view on things. If I want to know about a tree, I let the tree tell me. If I want to know about a dog, I let the dog tell me. I want to know about electronics, I let the gear tell me.

So, if I want to know about Kant, or Christ, or Fred the Plumber, I ask or read what they say.

Those people who cite others rub me like sycophants. When I have something to say about Plato, I produced a comprehensive work of his various translations so others can see for themselves what people say he wrote. Same with the Bible. Or Geometry etc., I go so far as to do digital restorations of books by people.

So, anyone wants to know about Kant, they ask Kant, not some name dropper.

'This one' is, still, believing that its own interpretations are the only true and right ones.

How Wrong they could be.