No really no.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I like how only you and Kant get to decide how, whom and to what extent any particular entities senses cloud the truth of any particular perception. It seems like a pretty omnipotent podium you've placed yourself upon. There is no way you can definitely know of my abilities at perception, nor I yours. We take it on 'faith' that we share the same abilities. Just as well as the senses may inhibit the understanding, they may also inhibit the not understanding, of any particular individual.chaz wyman wrote:All ideas are the result of our human filters - that is the point.SpheresOfBalance wrote: With the influence of those filters you and Kant suffer, I'm surprised that you believe his ideas are necessarily 'right,' such that you assert his belief, with such conviction.
Our disagreement makes this evident.
Kant was right.
But it seems to me that by reading other things you have written, if you 'like' something you usually want to believe in it.
In this case you do not 'like' what you read, in any sense.
None of this changes the fact that you are simply being reflexive as it is you that is on the habit of standing on an omnipotent podium. Kant and I are saying that all podia are unique to each person. If you took the trouble to read Kant's epistemology you would get that. The labour of uncovering knowledge rests on the problem that as we all occupy individual podia it takes supreme effort to be able to say anything omnipotent (as you are happily in the habit of doing at the tip of a hat).
... And that all statements to have scientific credibility have always to reserve the potential for slipping off those podia, as all statements are subjectively based.
I know that what I am typing will either be ignored by you - or go over you head but we must keep trying.