Kant- PerMaNenCE

“But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance as a thing in itself, but only for the purposes of experience (Pg.71).” Kant is just not my favorite person. AS if his writing is not confusing enough to try and understand, he makes it contradictable and wrong, in my opinion. Permanence is perpetual or continued existence. If a substance, a thing, is experienced then it would be impossible to be anything other than permanent. How can Kant say that permanence can not be proved of it? If it was experienced then it is proved, because the object will not change over time or in the light of new eyes, it is permanent, no matter how you look at it, the concept of a substance will always remain as you have experienced it. Even if one has not experienced it, as for Kant says but only for the purposes of experience, the permanence still remains. For example, you do not need to encounter the Appalachian Mountains in order for there to be a concept of permanence in relevance to them. They are on a map, others have witnessed them, you have seen them on tv perhaps in a movie. Point blank, you know they are there and they are permanent, even though the personal experience never occurred.