Synthesis bei Kant

Hoppe, Hansgeorg

doi:10.1515/9783110855746

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The age of A-type magmatism in North America ranges from about 1.8 to 1.0 Ga, although Anderson (1983) suggests that more than 70 percent (by volume) of A-type magmatism in this region occurred between 1.49 and 1.41 Ga. In the conterminous United States, ages of A-type granitoid rocks are restricted to the period between about 1.49 and 1.33 Ga (Anderson, 1983;Bauer and Pollock, 1993;Bickford and Mose, 1975;Bickford, Harrower, and others, 1981;Bickford and others, 1989;Hoppe and others, 1983;Van Schmus and Bickford, 1981; Van Schmus and others, 1975). Using these recognition criteria, we identified A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States; for those intrusions, we compiled available geochemical, modal, isotopic (Sr and Nd) and geochronologic data for inclusion in the databases described herein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for 1.4 Ga A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States

Bray¹,

Holm-Denoma²,

Juan³

et al. 2015

Data Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.Suggested citation: du Bray, E.A., Holm-Denoma, C.S., San Juan, C.A., Lund, Karen, Premo, W.R., and DeWitt, Ed, 2015, Geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for 1.4 Ga A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 942, 19 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds942. IntroductionThe purpose of this report is to present available geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for approximately 1.4 billion year (Ga) A-type granitoid intrusions of the United States and to make those data available to ongoing petrogenetic investigations of these rocks. A-type granites, as originally defined by Loiselle and Wones (1979), are iron-enriched granitoids (synonymous with the ferroan granitoids of Frost and Frost, 2011) that occur in an anorogenic, within-continent setting. Relative to other granitic rocks, A-type granites have high FeO*/(FeO*+MgO), high K 2 O and K 2 O/Na 2 O, are metaluminous to weakly peraluminous, and are enriched in incompatible trace elements. Loiselle and Wones (1979) further suggested that A-type granites are relatively anhydrous. Anderson (1983) provides an early compilation of data for the products of 1.4 Ga magmatism in North America and notes the spatial and temporal association of a trio of rock types, which includes gabbro to anorthosite, intermediate composition mangerite, and granitic rapakivi rocks. In North America, the majority of known A-type intrusions were emplaced between 1.5 and 1.3 Ga and are predominantly of the granitic variety (Anderson, 1983).This report addresses the broadly Mesoproterozoic-age granitic rocks of the conterminous United States. Constituents of this group of intrusive rocks were defined using a variety of spatial, compositional, and geochronologic metrics. Thomas and others (2012) provided an updated synthesis, largely based on new isotopic and geochronologic data (for example, Fisher and others, 2010), for the large-scale geologic and tectonic evolution of the eastern United States. Their findings suggest that the basement rocks of the central and southern Appalachian region are allochthonous relative to the remainder of Laurentia and were accreted along the Grenville front between 1.25 and 1.0 Ga. Accordingly, Mesoproterozoic rocks east of the Grenville front and south of the approximate latitude of New York City do not represent North American ma...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for 1.4 Ga A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States

Bray¹,

Holm-Denoma²,

Juan³

et al. 2015

Data Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not a novel thesis. See also Hoppe (1983) and my own account in Schulting (2012b:141ff.). 51.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Problems of Kantian Nonconceptualism and the Transcendental Deduction

Schulting¹

2017

Kant's Radical Subjectivism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To think an object and to know [erkennen] an object are thus not the same. For two components belong to knowledge [zum Erkenntnisse]: first, the concept, through which an object is thought at all (the category), 1 and second, the intuition, through which it is given; for if an intuition corresponding to the concept could not be given at all, then it would be a thought as far as its form is concerned, but without any object, and by its means no knowledge of anything at all [keine Erkenntnis von irgendeinem Dinge] would be possible, since, as far as I would know [wüßte], nothing would be given nor could be given to which my thought could be applied. (B146; trans. emended)Here, Kant indicates that there is still important work to be done after completing the so-called 'first step' of deducing the categories from the principle of apperception, 2 which concerned the necessary form of conceiving of an object in general, since that deduction is incomplete if it 5 Problems of Kantian Nonconceptualism and the Transcendental Deduction

show abstract

“…This point is reasonably obvious in the text: I am […] conscious of the self as identical, as regards the manifold of the representations given to me in an intuition, because I call them one and all my representations that make up one representation. 157 Further, ›synthesis‹ should not be thought of as a process or procedure for uniting representations, but as the (united) condition in which representations must stand to have an object. This synthesis is called the original synthetic unity of apperception.…”

Section: The One Faculty Thesis Defendedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing Apperception (Gewahrnehmen)

Kitcher¹

2014

Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthesis bei Kant

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for 1.4 Ga A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States

Geochemical, modal, and geochronologic data for 1.4 Ga A-type granitoid intrusions of the conterminous United States

Problems of Kantian Nonconceptualism and the Transcendental Deduction

Analyzing Apperception (Gewahrnehmen)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About