That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:32 pmWhat VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one.
Kant told him that the "naive" (direct) part is always a must, it can't be any other way. So that's what VA will insist on forever.
What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:28 pm That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.
Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
But why don't they refute indirect realism? (I should say, I don't think any of them 'refute' realism.)Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:48 pmThe distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:28 pm That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.
Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Refute it how? Science and psychology are consistent with indirect realism. Showing both Kant and direct realism wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:59 pmBut why don't they refute indirect realism?Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:48 pmThe distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:28 pm That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it.
Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?What I'm still not sure about is why indirect (non-naive?) realism gest off the hook that direct realism is supposed to be on. Do you know why?
Unless someone can show otherwise of course.
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:02 pmRefute it how?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:59 pmBut why don't they refute indirect realism?Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:48 pm
The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess. According to this guess, as a result, only "naive" philosophies are possible. So that's what VA will insist on forever, because Kant said so.
Well because direct realism was refuted by Kant, by science, by psychology, so like refuted in every way?
Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.
Re: What could make morality objective?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realismPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:11 pmThat's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.
Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.
There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying - you could have switched to indirect realism many years ago, the question is why do you reject it.
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:14 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realismPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:11 pmThat's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.
Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.
There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying
'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'
That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.
Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:
'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'
There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:30 pmI beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:14 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realismPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:11 pm
That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused.
Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up.
There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying
'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'
That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.
Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:
'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'
There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:59 pmCrumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:30 pmI beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:14 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism
There's nothing confusing about what I'm saying
'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'
That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.
Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:
'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'
There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?
Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.
Come to think of it, you could be moron dick-for-brains in one of its troll disguises. That may explain the explosion of abuse. More fool me.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Still more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:06 pmWhat? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:59 pmCrumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:30 pm
I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest:
'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...'
That's pure Kant. It's got 'the external world' - meaning subjects have an internal world - and wtf is that? - and it's got 'the subject' - as though that's dichotomous with 'the object' - and it's got the always completely unexplained 'lens of a conceptual framework' - which is pure VA. And it's got 'the world as it really is' - which is Kant's noumenon, invoked.
Sorry - but this is claptrap. And btw you wrote this earlier:
'The distinction [noumenon/phenomenon] by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable.'
There's the rub. The distinction is the very heart of the issue: there is a thing-in-itself in the first place. And what on earth does it mean to say it's only less than 100% knowable? Which bit of it is knowable, and why? It's a stupid idea, that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?
Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.
This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?
What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yep. Dick-for-brains, for sure. Note to everyone: don't bother with Atla any more.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:10 pmStill more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:06 pmWhat? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:59 pm
Crumbles under what slightest scrutiny? It's entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology, it's direct realism that has crumbled long ago.
Let's skip your usual pathological liar routine and get to the point. What is the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?
Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.
This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?
What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Why should people listen to you when you don't even exist?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:19 pmYep. Dick-for-brains, for sure. Note to everyone: don't bother with Atla any more.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:10 pmStill more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:06 pm
What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.
Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.
This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?
What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?
-
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yeah yeah but what's the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:32 pm Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?
-
- Posts: 12847
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Strawman as usual.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 12:56 pm Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.
Nonsense.
You should counter my full argument instead of merely the conclusion.
You are relying on your premise which is illusory to distort my b]human-based FSERC[/b] premises.
My argument proper is this;
If there were no humans, there would have been and be no human-based FSERC universe.
You need to have intellectual integrity.
At least repeat or paraphrase my intended premise before you critique and condemned it.