Transcendental Doubt

Transcendence is a funny thing. Somewhere between the dogmatic laws and Kant’s respectfully titled doctrine the idea arose. In respect to the honorable words of Kant, his idea carries with it an arrogance that by definition is the downfall to human nature. The idea suggests that our knowledge can exceed the physical and metaphysical limits set upon by common evolution. Many times I have read and reread his writing to fully understand this questionable idea, and each time leaves me with the same hypothesis: the boundary of our knowledge contains any boundary thinkable to our minds, or better known as an imagination. Despite whether we can make real these virtual impossibilities I do not know, but just as a child can use his imagination to paint a story over the world cast before him we can set unthinkable limits upon ourselves. My main difference with Kant lies therein. He believes we have the possibility of transcending out of our current state of mind and limitations into one rivaling that of a greater being, whereas I believe we simply raise the bar for ourself each time. How can there be a limit to our knowledge if we have no set point in our mind that tells us an amount of knowledge is ever unimaginable. Kant, I’m sure, would go on to say that the unthinkable is the limit, one that will never be achieved without transcendence. Although, what is a limit except a thought in your mind set in to put a humanly physical probability upon something?

Transcendence is paradoxical when considering the transition out of one’s mind. The limits of our minds are set by our mind itself, or better known as imagination. As a revision to the idea of transcendence, an antonymous idea must be placed within to reassure the idea. Imagination is the perfect example of an antonym to transcendence, as it has no limits except those perceived by the mind, and justly should be treated as the counterpart in the dueling of both words: Transcendence and Imagination.