Kant: a Transcendental Idealist & Empirical Realist

[Veritas Aequitas]

I often encounter the question on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

The central point is the evolutionary default of metaphysical realism or philosophical realism:

Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

...... realism [p] is contrasted with idealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Those who oppose the above are anti-p-realists.

Kant is ultimately an antirealist, i.e. anti-p-realist.

From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
CPR-A370

While being a transcendental Idealist i.e. anti-p-realist, Kant is an empirical realist;

The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist CPR-A370

Being an Empirical Realist means the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense.
For example the apple on the tree out there exists independent of humans in one sense.
The oncoming train on the rail one is stepping on is not existing in the mind but external to the person's body, brain and mind.

However, Kant's empirical realism is subsumed within his ultimate transcendental Idealism [anti-p-realist].


Kant identify p-realists as Transcendental Realists which implied they are delusional in believing reality is absolute mind-independent.
Transcendental Realists believe what is reality is transcendental i.e. beyond the reach of human minds, exist regardless of humans i.e. absolutely mind-independent.


So, Kant is a Transcendental Idealist i.e. anti-p-realist while being an Empirical Realist at the same time in different contexts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

I often encounter the question on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

The central point is the evolutionary default of metaphysical realism or philosophical realism:

Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

...... realism [p] is contrasted with idealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Those who oppose the above are anti-p-realists.

Kant is ultimately an antirealist, i.e. anti-p-realist.

From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
CPR-A370

While being a transcendental Idealist i.e. anti-p-realist, Kant is an empirical realist;

The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist CPR-A370

Being an Empirical Realist means the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense.
For example the apple on the tree out there exists independent of humans in one sense.
The oncoming train on the rail one is stepping on is not existing in the mind but external to the person's body, brain and mind.

However, Kant's empirical realism is subsumed within his ultimate transcendental Idealism [anti-p-realist].


Kant identify p-realists as Transcendental Realists which implied they are delusional in believing reality is absolute mind-independent.
Transcendental Realists believe what is reality is transcendental i.e. beyond the reach of human minds, exist regardless of humans i.e. absolutely mind-independent.


So, Kant is a Transcendental Idealist i.e. anti-p-realist while being an Empirical Realist at the same time in different contexts.

One has to wonder how this guy spent 10 years on this topic, and still doesn't know that philosophical realism and transcendental realism aren't synonymous. Nor did Kant say that.

Nor is transcendental idealism necessarily anti-realist. VA gets even the most basic issues of his philosophy wrong. Maybe deliberately.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One has to wonder how this guy spent 10 years on this topic, and still doesn't know that philosophical realism and transcendental realism aren't synonymous. Nor did Kant say that.

Nor is transcendental idealism necessarily anti-realist. VA gets even the most basic issues of his philosophy wrong. Maybe deliberately.

You [gnat] are so arrogant with your ignorance of Kant's CPR.

Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism,
in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
On such a view [Transcendental Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
CPR A371

Philosophical realism is Transcendental Realism

• Transcendental Realism is Empirical Idealism [A371]
  Philosophical realism is Empirical Idealism
  Therefore, philosophical realism is Transcendental Realism

Transcendental Idealist is antirealist[p]

• Idealist oppose p-realist
  Antirealist[p] oppose p-realist
  Thus, Idealist is antirealist[p]
  Therefore, Transcendental Idealist is antirealist[p].

I have already exposed your gnat ignorance a '1000' times.
Read up thoroughly what you are trying to critique.

[Atla]

One has to wonder how this guy spent 10 years on this topic, and still doesn't know that philosophical realism and transcendental realism aren't synonymous. Nor did Kant say that.

Nor is transcendental idealism necessarily anti-realist. VA gets even the most basic issues of his philosophy wrong. Maybe deliberately.

You [gnat] are so arrogant with your ignorance of Kant's CPR.

Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism,
in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
On such a view [Transcendental Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
CPR A371

Philosophical realism is Transcendental Realism

• Transcendental Realism is Empirical Idealism [A371]
  Philosophical realism is Empirical Idealism
  Therefore, philosophical realism is Transcendental Realism

Transcendental Idealist is antirealist[p]

• Idealist oppose p-realist
  Antirealist[p] oppose p-realist
  Thus, Idealist is antirealist[p]
  Therefore, Transcendental Idealist is antirealist[p].

I have already exposed your gnat ignorance a '1000' times.
Read up thoroughly what you are trying to critique.

I don't think you ever actually "read" the CPR. Speed-reading it is not the same.

Kant didn't claim that transcendental realism is the same as philosophical realism. In his philosophy, transcendental realism refers to the view that objects exist independently of our perception, but we can never know them as they are in themselves. This differs from philosophical realism, which typically asserts that objects exist independently and we can have knowledge of them as they are.

Transcendental idealism, as proposed by philosophers like Immanuel Kant, posits that reality as we perceive it is shaped by our cognitive faculties. It asserts that we can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. While transcendental idealism challenges certain aspects of realism by emphasizing the role of the mind in constructing reality, it doesn't necessarily entail philosophical anti-realism outright. Some interpretations of transcendental idealism still allow for a form of realism, albeit one that acknowledges the limitations of human perception and cognition in accessing ultimate reality. However, it's important to note that interpretations of Kant's transcendental idealism can vary, and different philosophers may draw different conclusions regarding its implications for realism.

[attofishpi]

So much overlap of 'ism' renders "philosophy" a pile of wank.

Sad that you all spent so much time studying various forms of it (ism) && (ist)

[Dubious]

So much overlap of 'ism' renders "philosophy" a pile of wank.

Sad that you all spent so much time studying various forms of it (ism) && (ist)

So many forms of ism, aren't or, should I say isn't!

...more gobbledygook from yours truly!

[Atla]

I didn't study philosophy, I have a general picture built from science and psychology and well, everything, and judge all of philosophy from there. Why would I waste time studying isms when 95%+ of them are wrong or useless.

[attofishpi]

So much overlap of 'ism' renders "philosophy" a pile of wank.

Sad that you all spent so much time studying various forms of it (ism) && (ist)

So many forms of ism, aren't or, should I say isn't!

...more gobbledygook from yours truly!

..ah yes, gobbledygook indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7sa6WFhxg

[Dubious]

So much overlap of 'ism' renders "philosophy" a pile of wank.

Sad that you all spent so much time studying various forms of it (ism) && (ist)

So many forms of ism, aren't or, should I say isn't!

...more gobbledygook from yours truly!

..ah yes, gobbledygook indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7sa6WFhxg

It's this extremely practical philosophy called realism which has transformed the Brits into a superior species which they themselves will attest to!

[attofishpi]

So many forms of ism, aren't or, should I say isn't!

...more gobbledygook from yours truly!

..ah yes, gobbledygook indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7sa6WFhxg

It's this extremely practical philosophy called realism which has transformed the Brits into a superior species which they themselves will attest to!

Ah shit. Does that make me a realist? Can a Christian be a realist (even one that nose reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth) ?

[Dubious]

..ah yes, gobbledygook indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7sa6WFhxg

It's this extremely practical philosophy called realism which has transformed the Brits into a superior species which they themselves will attest to!

Ah shit. Does that make me a realist? Can a Christian be a realist (even one that nose reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth) ?

There are some noses that are indeed convoluted the owners of which can only hope it's an apparition!

[attofishpi]

..nonsensical, typical poor English from a spawn of England.

[Iwannaplato]

Being an Empirical Realist means the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense.
For example the apple on the tree out there exists independent of humans in one sense.
The oncoming train on the rail one is stepping on is not existing in the mind but external to the person's body, brain and mind.

So, tell us about the two senses (or more if there are more). In what sense are these things independent. In what sense are they dependent.
Presumably even in a coma the person still can get run over by the train. We could use the coma situation as one limit of one kind of independence.
The unaware person still affected. But however you want to illustrate the dependence and independence.
I suggest you try to avoid the word absolute since it has no descriptive value.