Talk:Condition of possibility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Kant first?

Didn't leibniz get to this first with "Possible worlds" grammar? Shaggorama 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

The contrast to 'causality' isn't clear to me. Is to be understood like: Causality: A cause B, B is fully explained, CoP: A condition for B, B might have additional unexplained aspects

I've always wondered whether "condition of possibility" isn't just French for "necessary condition" (as opposed to "sufficient condition") in logic. --To answer the previous question in this thread, I'd say that a "condition of possibility" or "necessary condition" is a condition that has to be fulfilled for the event to take place (roughly, wood and oxygen), while the sufficient condition is the one that will cause the event to actually take place if the necessary conditions are fulfilled (in this case, a struck match). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srendall (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be expressed as the "condition whereby something is possible", so from reading the article it seems you'd probably be right. I think it is supposed to however represent a list of known as well as unknown conditions, rather than just one. I don't know.24.210.250.17 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kant citations

Sorry for stating the rather obvious but it's a small problem here that this concept is primarily credited to Kant on the page and yet the page, despite its references to Deleuze and Foucault, has no Kant citation whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.211.208 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]