Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Eubulides, Alain Badiou and Immanuel Kant

expand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers

14 ideas

7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 1. Nature of Existence
4475 Saying a thing 'is' adds nothing to it - otherwise if my concept exists, it isn't the same as my concept [Kant]
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / a. Nature of Being
9809 Mathematics inscribes being as such [Badiou]
12340 There is no Being as a whole, because there is no set of all sets [Badiou]
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / b. Being and existence
12323 Existence is Being itself, but only as our thought decides it [Badiou]
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / i. Deflating being
12332 The modern view of Being comes when we reject numbers as merely successions of One [Badiou]
12326 The primitive name of Being is the empty set; in a sense, only the empty set 'is' [Badiou]
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 6. Criterion for Existence
9811 It is of the essence of being to appear [Badiou]
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 1. Ontologies
12320 Ontology is (and always has been) Cantorian mathematics [Badiou]
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 2. Realism
7416 Kant is read as the phenomena being 'contrained' by the noumenon, or 'free-floating' [Talbot on Kant]
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 4. Anti-realism
19386 Without the subject or the senses, space and time vanish, as their appearances disappear [Kant]
21445 Even the most perfect intuition gets no closer to things in themselves [Kant]
7. Existence / E. Categories / 1. Categories
21448 Categories are general concepts of objects, which determine the way in which they are experienced [Kant]
5554 Categories are necessary, so can't be implanted in us to agree with natural laws [Kant]
7. Existence / E. Categories / 2. Categorisation
6160 Does Kant say the mind imposes categories, or that it restricts us to them? [Rowlands on Kant]