Off-topic.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 11:48 amThe context here is you asking him to demonstrate that there is something real that is beyond the empirical-rational.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 2:08 am Why the fuss with 'empirical-rational'?
When I merely used the term 'empirical' [i.e. to imply not mind-independent] I am accused as being an empiricist when I am not, thus I use the term 'empirical-rational' to prevent me being accused as an empiricist.
This is what you say you mean by the term. So, you were asking him to demonstrate that something is real that is beyond the best of the empirical and the highest level of critical thinking.The term "empirical-rational" implies I am applying the optimality of the best of empirical and the highest level critical thinking.
It's a bit like asking someone to make a strong argument that is neither rational nor based on solid empirical evidence.
Again, you asked for something that was beyond this category. It's a kind of set up.
It's also a category confusion. Things are non-rational.
- In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological view that holds that true knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
In this case, whatever I propose as real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is a complementarity of the empirical and the rational.
This is the main reason why I introduced the 'empirical-rational' term.
This is like YIN must always exists with YANG in complementarity.
Set-up?
When a philosophical realist makes the positive claim the noumenon, thing-in-itself, fact-in-itself exists as an absolute mind-independent thing, the onus is on the philosophical realist to justify his claim.
There is no set-up; if one make a positive claim, then, justify that claim.
IWP: Things are non-rational.
You claim so because you are ignorant and is dogmatic with a philosophical stance.
Note this common philosophical statement by Kant;
Kant famously wrote,
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."
Re Kantian Philosophy;Kant in CPR wrote:Thoughts without Content are empty, Intuitions without Concepts are blind.
It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our Concepts Sensible, that is, to add the Object to them in Intuition,
as to make our Intuitions Intelligible, that is, to bring them under Concepts.
B75
Intuitions, Sensible are empirical elements.
Intelligible, thoughts, concepts are rational elements.
Thus for any thing to be real, the empirical must be complemented with the rational, i.e. empirical-rational [as defined in the above context].
For Kant, to postulate a positive noumenon or thing-in-itself as real [CONSTITUTIONALLY] is claiming it as a purely rational object without the thing grounded on the empirical, i.e. absolutely mind-independent. This is illusory, albeit could be a useful illusion in some context.
