| Revision as of 06:12, 22 May 2008 editAsdfg12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:21, 20 February 2011 edit undoAsdfg12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 edits {{retired}} | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| {{Quotation|'''''Nothing which is intuited in space is a thing in itself, and space is not a form which belongs as a property to things; but objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose real correlated thing in itself is not known by means of these representations, nor ever can be, but respecting which, in experience, no inquiry is ever made.<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''''The things which we intuit are not in themselves the same as our representation of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time disappear, but even space and time themselves.<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''''What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us and which though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race.<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''''Supposing that we should carry our empirical intuition even to the very highest degree of clearness we should not thereby advance one step nearer to the constitution of objects as things in themselves.'''''|], '']''}} | |||
| ] | |||