Philosophy Now Forum

There are 3 perspectives to the table; 1. The image of the table in the brain/mind - 2. The physical table out there - the table one see or take a picture of 3. The table-in-itself out there - unknowable What's the difference between 2 and 3? Remember we are talking about the 'real world' only now....

It would be idiotic to claim they are not the same. They are not the same empirically [phenomenon] and as thing-in-itself [noumenon] So they are basically not the same. but their supposed constitution and qualities has to be the same. If your brain is working properly, you can make the same abstrac...

Yes, poll do not necessary mean anything as we can see with Trump winning in 2016 which is an exception. Generally polls do not indicate some truths albeit we cannot take them as certainty. The difference in this case, as I stated, Kant CPR is an open book for anyone to read and assess the rational...

It is not insane but philosophy-proper as justified with arguments. Point here the CPR is an open book for you to critique and justify Kant is insane or not. If Kant is insane, he would not have polled regularly as one or THE greatest philosopher of all times. Note Kant re the Laws from the regular...

Yes, it is very uncomfortable for the ordinary lay person to accept there is no real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions. Most philosophers and the lay-person will insist on one position only, i.e. there is a real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions. Kant, howeve...

Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception. However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept; 2. the noumenon is the basis of ...

Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception. However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept; 2. the noumenon is the basis of ...

Note 'think' not conclude objects-in-themselves as real. Beside you should read context of the above statement within the chapter and whole book of the CPR. The above is from the 2nd preface (B xxvii) with a qualification note to things in themselves , *To know an Object I must be able to prove its...

I have spent 3 years reading and researching Kant's philosophy and have read 1000+!! of related books and articles on Kantian Philosophy. I have done a flowchart for each chapter of the Kant and overall flowchart for the CPR. So I am not merely opining what I think is Kant's thought, but at least t...

Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself. And how do you know that you got it right? And I'm not necessarily using Kant's usage of these concepts either, I can't even make sense of Kant's usage. Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thi...

You got it wrong. Science made point 2 as merely an assumption not claimed it as a ground nor truth. This is why Popper claimed scientific theories are at best polished conjectures grounded on various assumptions. Of course it's an assumption as I already said like a dozen times. And that doesn't m...

Point 2 is not a possibility to be real. Almost everything science does is based on point 2. Did you miss the last few hundred years? Appearance is grounded on sensibility, i.e. the human conditions. The thing-in-itself is not grounded on sensibility. Therefore the "thing-in-itself" cannot be co-de...

Explain how can you prove there is a real absolutely independent table-in-itself out there. At most you are merely assuming there is a independent table out there. Note Russell's dilemma I quoted above. Did you grasp the essence of the problem and dilemma he faced. https://forum.philosophynow.org/v...

Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that assumption. There is nothing wrong with speculating on empirical possibility within the unknown. I can predict there are stars, suns, and other empirical object is a universe one billion ...

Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly. Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that a...