Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

My interpretation up until now was that in that quote, Guyer is only talking about objects in appearances, precisely because he makes it very clear that these are objects we perceive in space and time. Would rejecting that assumption lead us to blur the lines between appearances and things-in-themselves? If yes, how? Perhaps this phrase can give some hints on where Guyer wants to go: "he does not seem to have an argument that particular objects necessarily rather than merely contingently conform to the subjective conditions of our intuition of them".
– gsmafra
Commented May 4, 2022 at 6:51
@gsmafra I apologize. It seems clear to me what Kant means but not what Guyer wants to explain.
– Jo Wehler
Commented May 4, 2022 at 10:48

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »