>>14695835emmanuel kant talked about how we can never know the thing-in-itself so it is pointless to speculate on it
presumably he was just doing us a service by spending his life speculating about stuff like that and leave it there
do you think that's true? it kind of reminds me of a lot of the socratic dialogues where socrates asks what things really are, like when he asks euthyphro what justice really is, or when he talks with hippias about what specifically beauty is
i know when kant refers to the thing-in-itself he's referring to the difference between our perceptions of things, usually physical, in opposition to them excepting our perceptions of them, but we will take that in stride for now
euthyphro doesn't really come up with an answer that satisfies socrates and gives up in frustration and while we don't have time to discuss it in the socratic method given your proposed time limit i am inclined to suggest that - to keep it brief - justice is that which protects the innocent
i guess i dont really have time to answer the begg'ed question: what is innocence but hopefully you will have enough time to post a suitable response
