The cup you are holding is not a transcendental idea, thus not a transcendental illusion.Noax wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:02 pmIn the Kantian sense, which I'm probably not getting correct, it would seem that the cup that I am holding is also a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion, and thus in the same category as God. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps a description of what sort of thing (idea or otherwise) the cup is would help me parse what you are stating here. Even those that believe in the reality of a god typically put the god in a category distinct from the cup, and those that disbelieve in the reality of a god typically believe in the reality of the cup.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:55 am There are various meaning of 'idea'.
In the Kantian sense, 'idea' refer to philosophical ideas [in contrast to concepts] which are very specific.
The claim 'God exists as real' is a philosophical idea.
In the most real sense this resulting claim is illusory, i.e. God is a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion [contrast empirical illusion].
The cup you are holding is an objective reality of a physical object supported by an empirical concept [contrast idea].
Anything that have empirical reality or possible empirical reality is a philosophical concept.
For example a unicorn is empirically possible because all its qualities and characteristics are empirical [can be tested and verified empirically].
Even a unicorn that can speak like humans existing somewhere in the universe is an empirical possibility [cannot be rejected] but albeit having a very low possibility say 0.00001% to be empirically real.
But the idea of a God as absolute perfect is a philosophical idea because its quality is beyond empirical possibility and can only be presented via pseudo reason.
Note this thread of mine;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704