Re: Is a set object exhaustive?

On Oct 29, 2:51?pm, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:29 am, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of thing(s) that cannot be in a set and,
also, say why they cannot be in a set?

A sound, a headache, and any other object of external or internal
senses. Because sets are are 'intelligible', not 'sensible' objects,
in the knowledge-theoretic sense of the terms.

Regards

(oops. forgot that this was my post-starter)

That's an interesting Kantian slant on sets. Let me think about it. An
'intelligible' object is an object as it would be perceived
independent of, or, outside the conditions of sensibility or
conditions for, the appearance of objects. One can get rusty quickly.

Set is an intelligible object? Yes. But where did you formulate this?
It seems correct but I have one objection. Set is employed in
mathematics, but didn't Kant stress the intuitive conditions for
mathematics? that is, the a priori, conditions in advance, for
mathematics? Intuition is one of the conditions for the appearance of
sensible objects.


.