Kant's Categories Reconsidered

Kant's category rethinks the summary: I used quince's ontological commitment standard, and I thought to oppose Kant's ontological commitment to previous knowledge theory. Kant's general knowledge theory ontology is directly related to the habitual view that it must be based on a priori conditions or expressions of space, time, and categories, whether a priori or empirical. doing. Therefore, this view is accompanied by an ontological habitual interpretation consisting of cant style 'appearance' or 'experience object'. I oppose this view and explanation.

How are those possible? Kant said: Like a priori understanding, quantity, quality, relationship and form, through a perceptual of a priori form, through space and time. The latter category does not require our long-term detention. I can say that they are straight jackets in Kant's mind, I think that the world can be combined and divided to make it understandable. But the former form is very interesting. Space and time are said to be a priori perceptual forms. That is, each potential perceptual object can be placed against other temporal and spatial objects somewhere in space and time (and therefore not implied, not sacred from the same).

I agree with the definition of my colleague 's algorithm, but I do not know if this represents Cant' s category. In my opinion, categories are not algorithms, but a series of deductive concepts that constitute our perception and provide us with a series of things that define human perception and recognition. I do not use "algorithm" in the context of Kant's intuition and category epistemology because that algorithm is a procedure to solve the problem after or after experience. Kant 's comprehensive priority categories such as unity, pluralism, and totalism precede any perception and are not procedures as it is transparent and transcendent with respect to perception.