Philosophy Now Forum

You are still making noises without substantial arguments. Show me where [posts I have made] I am ignorant of What is Scientific Realism and Critical Realism? Rather it is you who is ignorant of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism proper. Do I really need to say this again?: For example, after ...

1. False, the OP is about dichotomies. Antirealism and Realism both result in the other. First you said there was a false dichotomy between "perceiving" and "gaining awareness", I responded that I didn't propose a dichotomy (mutually exclusive elements). Now you say the OP menti...

The folders in your computer? Yes, thank you, they have been a formidable evidence to support my point above. You have nothing left but to shout it is only noise. Desperate people react to unpleasing sounds that way. You are still making noises without presenting anything of substance. It is easy t...

There you go again making noises and strawman instead of presenting your argument. You are just speculating and in no position nor has authority to judge re what I have done with the files in my Philosophy Directory. My Kant folder itself has > 2000 files in >100 sub-folders, which I have no proble...

You are indeed very ignorant based on your shallow experience. The point is when one has mastered one aspect of a subject [in months or weeks, 3 years in the case of Kant's], the next 100 books and articles will be easy since they are all repetitive of the major principles, so what I look for are m...

Again, no arguments, lame excuses to avoid the issues and more intellectual dishonesty. This one has to be the top of them all: It is ridiculous and I don't want to waste time listing the whole Bibliography I have on all the realists' literature I have covered. Generally I have >9500 file in >600 fo...

No one is talking about dichotomies, but about distinct elements. And when referring to the whole process of humans gaining awareness of reality through perception, the issue over which the debate on realism/anti-realism stands, sensation, as the moment when the organism gets in touch with the envir...

You are speaking from a very ignorant vantage point. Re Kant it is very regular we hear of the following; What Alfred North Whitehead said about Plato (that all of Western philosophy was merely a footnote to Plato) could easily be said about Kant in regard to modern philosophy. a quickie search Thu...

1. False. An object being observed through the senses and interpreted through the central nervous system results in the central nervous system observing itself through a loop. This loop guides the act of awareness. Thus leading to a principle form which guides awareness but is not limited to it. Th...

What are you talking about and making all those irrelevant noises? Note this OP is centered on Kant's thing-in-itself. Therefore the focus on topic MUST be on Kant's CPR which is the typical anti-realist. The other texts I gave are supporting texts to the point. There you go. It can now be properly...

Whatever I claimed re the CPR, I always fall back on the CPR with direct references from the CPR based on what Kant intended. As anyone can see, you still claim you're a Kant expert. I don't believe it, I have good enough reasons for it and I explained my case. It would be irrelevant for this discu...

To bank on accreditations is ignorance. Formal accreditations are not necessary, UNLESS one wants to argue on the basis of intellectual authority and expertise in a discipline. That's the only way to substantiate such claims. You try to portray yourself as the Kant expert that owns the right to int...

To say an object is independent of the mind is to in fact observe it as part of the mind given the negative limits which defined it (ie what the object is not) are in fact observed as part of the mind given they are observed through the mind. Strictly speaking, an object is not observed through the...

Yes, dogmatism and treating philosophical works as if they were sacred texts is an intellectual atrocity. The problem is you're the big advocate of such atrocity in this thread, and I presume in all your threads. But allow me to clarify, since you always twist my statements to give them the interpre...

Also, as I explained at the beginning of this thread, there's a difference between the epistemological stance that commits to the view that we cannot now HOW things really are and the one that is committed to the view that we cannot know WHAT things really are, i.e. whether they truly exist outside...