Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[39]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[39]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-03 17:14:26.457
	1	+2017-02-03 17:14:26.0

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,5 @@
	1	+For the negative to prove a morally relevant distinction, it most come a priori.
	2	+Kant“Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant 1787 Translated and Edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood “The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant” re published 1998:
	3	+Now it is easy to show that in human cognition there actually are such necessary and in the strictest sense universal, thus pure a priori judgments. If one wants an example from the sciences, one need only look at all the propositions of mathematics; if one would have one from the commonest use of the understanding, the proposition that every alteration must have a cause will do; indeed in the latter the very concept of a cause so obviously contains the concept of a necessity of connection with an effect and a strict universality of rule that it would be entirely lost if one sought, as Hume did, to derive it from a frequent association of that which happens with that which precedes and a habit (thus a merely subjective necessity) of connecting representations arising from that association.13 Even without requiring such examples for the proof of the reality of pure a priori principles in our cognition, one could establish their indispensability for the possibility of experience itself, thus establish it II priori. For where would experience itself get its certainty if all rules in accordance with which it proceeds were themselves in turn always empirical, thus contingent hence one could hardly allow these to count as first principles. Yet here we can content ourselves with having displayed the pure use of our cognitive faculty as a fact together with its indication. Not merely in judgments, however, but even in concepts is an origin of some of them revealed a priori. Gradually remove from your experiential concept of a body everything that is empirical in it - the color, the hardness or softness, the weight, even the impenetrability - there still remains the space that was occupied by the body (which has now entirely disappeared), and you cannot leave that out. Likewise, if you remove from your empirical concept of every object,' whether corporeal or incorporeal, all those properties of which experience teaches you, you could still not take from it that by means of which you think of it as a substance or as dependent on a substance (even though this concept contains more determination than that of an object! in general). Thus, convinced by the necessity with which this concept presses itself on you, you must concede that it has its seat in your faculty of cognition a priori.
	4	+That affirms, there are no apriori relevant moral distinctions in out lives. Kant 2:
	5	+At issue here is a mark by means of which we can securely distinguish a pure cognition from an empirical one. Experience teaches us, to be sure, that something is constituted thus and so, but not that it could not be otherwise. First, then, if a proposition is thought along with its necessity, it is an a priori judgment; if it is, moreover, also not derived from any proposition except one that in turn is valid as a necessary proposition, then it is absolutely a priori. Second: Experience never gives its judgments true or strict but only assumed and comparative universality (through induction), so properly it must be said: as far as we have yet perceived, there is no exception to this or that rule. Thus if a judgment is thought in strict universality, i.e., in such a way that no exception at all is allowed to be possible, then it is not derived from experience, but is rather valid absolutely a priori. Empirical universality is therefore only an arbitrary increase in validity from that which holds in most cases to that which holds in all, as in, e.g., the proposition "All bodies are heavy," whereas strict universality belongs to a judgment essentially; this points to a special source of cognition for it, namely a faculty of a priori cognition. Necessity and strict universality are therefore secure indications of an a priori cognition, and also belong together inseparably. But since in their use it is sometimes easier to show the empirical limitation in judgments than the contingency in them, or is often more plausible to show the unrestricted universality that we ascribe to a judgment than its necessity, it is advisable to employ separately these two criteria, each of which is in itself infallible. 12

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-03 17:14:27.151

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Drew Burd

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cy-Woods CJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+36

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Doubles

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - 1AR - Kant Add-On

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT