Liebniz vs Kant- part 1

My A.I informs me that a bloke named Emannuel Cunt, in his Appendix to the Analytic of Principles, gave this

Definition of Amphiboly: "An amphiboly is a confounding of an object of pure understanding with appearance" (A270/B326).

Either an amphiboly is an object of pure understanding or it is an appearance merely or else it is a word with a certain history which has been used to solve certain coordination or dis-coordination problems. 

Suppose it is an object of pure understanding. Then, according to Kant, amphiboly is a 'phenomenon (appearance) ordered by a priori concepts (categories) and sensible forms (space and time)'.

But this doesn't change the fact that it is a phenomenon- albeit of a special (perhaps incompossible) sort. Thus Amphiboly is a confounding of appearance with appearance. But only apparently. This is like saying 'a cat is a confounding of a cat with a cat by the guy who says 'that's a cat'. 

Sadly, amphiboly doesn't mean anything quite so stupid & useless. It means ambiguity or, more precisely, a logical fallacy where a sentence or phrase has multiple meanings due to ambiguous syntax or poor structure, rather than a single ambiguous word. It occurs when the grammar allows for two or more interpretations, often leading to faulty reasoning or misunderstandings. It is commonly known as syntactic or structural ambiguity.' This may be intentional.

Is there amphiboly in Kant's definition of amphiboly (assuming it isn't just an appearance but also qualifies as an object of pure understanding) ? No. There is a stipulation that is informative- viz. that the appearance is ordered by a priori concepts & sensible forms. Sadly, we know of no a priori concepts or sensible forms. Thus, though informative, Kant's definition isn't- to our knowledge- alethic. It may be imperative- i.e. if only things were the ought to be, amphiboly would be as Kant would have it. 

But this is like a defence of Dr. Pangloss which says 'This really ought to be the best of all possible worlds. Thus Candide is wrong to reject that cunt'. 

Kant summarises what he calls 'The Error of Leibniz' thus- "In a word, Leibniz intellectualized appearances, 

Kant certainly did so by saying (at least, some) appearances are ordered according to 'a priori concepts' & some supposed 'sensible forms'. 

What about Leibniz? For him 'Bodies (material objects) are not real substances. Instead, they are considered "phenomena" or "well-founded appearances" (phenomena bene fundata).' Monads are substances but inaccessible. Maybe there is a pre-established harmony. Even otherwise, there is a pure relationism without a priori concepts or 'sensible forms' (e.g. absolute Space & Time) .

just as Locke... sensualised all concepts of the understanding, 

No. He says they have no independent existence. They may arise by experience or by reflection or by getting very drunk or going completely mad. 

i.e., interpreted them as nothing more than empirical or abstracted concepts" (A271/B327).

Again with the fucking circularity!  Locke interpreted concepts as concepts because that's all they were to him. Liebniz interpreted appearances as appearance because that's all they were to him.

Kant thinks concepts are super-special because they are linked to appearances by some stupid shite concocted by his own brain. 

On the Nature of Objects: "The transcendental object, 

i.e. 'the unknown, non-spatiotemporal ground of appearances'. It isn't an object because it is an intension without an extension. Also, it begs the question- isn't 'ground' just an appearance? How do you show there is a 'ground' which is absolute & self-subsistent- like Newtonian Space & Time (which, Physicists now know not to fucking exist?) 

Relationism is okay though we don't have to buy into an Occassionalist theodicy or Panglossian 'least action principle' such that this is the best of possible worlds. Just wave your hands, say 'Yoneda lemma' (if you are as stupid & ignorant as me) and leave it at that. 

however, which might be the ground of this appearance

only apparently

 that we call matter,

we call you a cunt, if not a Kraut. 

is a mere something, about which we would not understand what it is even if someone could tell us. 

QMT has done so to good effect. What is useful- i.e. raises productivity- is worth understanding if not by drunken scum like me, then by guys who want to make life easier even for worthless senile shitheads. 

For we cannot understand any thing except that which has something corresponding to our words in intuition" (A277/B333).

Stupid, useless, people like me got replaced in class-rooms & work-places by those whose intuition was that their fucking intuition didn't fucking matter. What was important was to do stuff from which humanity as a whole might benefit. This meant quitting 'lower faculties'- like Philosophy or Poetry or Socioproctology- for higher faculties- the Law, Medicine, Math & Natural Science etc. Better yet, get a fucking job at which you don't actively suck. Sadly, the one time I was productively employed, I quit so as to pursue my dream of becoming a Cost & Management Accountant- like Julia Roberts in  'Pretty Woman'. This directly led to my sexual abuse & degradation at the hands of my ex-wife. After she ran away, I tried to get my old job back- cleaning the public toilet- but, because during my absence, all the flies had died, my application was refused.