No.64 Referenced from ~ Part2 - Chapter 4 - Section 12

"Separation of phenomena and things-in-themselves" and "Critique of Pure Reason" are different thoughts

Even if "Critique of Pure Reason" is denied, the "separation of phenomena and things-in-themselves" survives, but even if "Critique of Pure Reason" is affirmed, the "separation of phenomena and things-in-themselves" is not actually derived. Taking this into consideration, the transcendental thought of ​​"Critique of Pure Reason" and the dualistic idea of ​​"separation of phenomena and things-in-themselves" seem to be separate ideas with different origins.

Originally, modern people widely held a common idea of ​​"this world and the next world" and a classically logically divided worldview in modern academia, such as "natural science and metaphysics." When "Critique of Pure Reason" appeared in this context, it was received as a philosophy that gave academic justification to this ideological dualistic worldview.

Therefore, strictly speaking, the divisive dualism of "the separation of phenomena and the things-in-themselves" cannot be resolved no matter how much one studies "Critique of Pure Reason." In order to resolve "the separation of phenomena and the things-in-themselves," it is necessary to consider the modern world view based on the dualistic approach by the knowledge of contemporary logic, rather than "Critique of Pure Reason." This was obviously difficult in Kant's time, when not only intuitionistic logic, but even De Morgan's laws of classical logic, which are now taught in high school mathematics, were unknown.