Help explain Kant's space and time arguments in laymans

Can someone/more than one explain the 4 arguments of the aesthetic for me in laymans terms so I may understand it? I sort of get the exlanation of intuition and concepts/understanding etc at the begining of the aesthetic but soon get tangled up when he starts using the concepts wildly in the proceeding arguments.

Also the incongruent counterparts Im adding into my essay.

Perhaps once I have hopefully gotten a grasp of these four arguments I will do a seperate post on each so we can open each one to critical discussion of what was up with each one. I think that will be a good way to proceed.

1. Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived
from outer experiences.

2. Space is a necessary a priori representation, which (A24)
underlies all outer intuitions.

3. Space is not a discursive or, as we say, general concept
of relations of things in general, but a pure intuition.

4. Space is represented as an infinite given magnitude.

thanks

Laymans, okay… just like moe of the three stooges would say to curly … . spread ouuuuttt!!!

Space is not a construction of the senses, hence it is not an empirical concept.

A priori meaning a proposition that is not the result of experience, which is posteriori, a proposition made through experience. Thus he is saying that space is a construct of your mind that has not directly perceived it.

Once again, a priori proposition.

Space is infinite, it has no boundaries.

The answer is “no”. In layman’s terms kant is even more incoherent than in his own terms.

  1. Space is not the issue. Spatial relations is. The measurement of space. Kant got it wrong from the beginning. There is something outside our bodies, and our bodies exist in it. It’s called the Universe, which exists. It’s not a “concept”. But everything we say about it is. That’s Kant’s problem. We can’t talk about any thing-in-itself - we can only talk about our idea of it. But that is a limitation of language, and not of the universe itself. There is more to experience than language, but there is not more to philosophy than language.

  2. Space (the universe) is not an intuition - it actually exists. Kant is a moron.

  3. Same as 2. Kant is still a moron.

  4. Pure gibberish. I could give you saome layman’s gibberish, but I’m not sure how much that would help.

And yes, I am serious.

I think I can say I agree with that. I was just laying down what Kant said in layman terms.

Thanks for the ellucidation Aiden.