So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am It was addressed to you.

If you are thinking re "human construct" as if nature was/is constructed by humans like constructing things out of lego blocks or any human made physical systems, then note
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
As I tried to point out to you earlier, the only thing I was thinking was in the form of a question as to what Belinda was thinking when she asserted that nature is a human construct.

So I don't know why you are making assumptions about what I was thinking when I asked her to clarify what she meant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am I don't think Belinda take "human construct" in the direct literal sense.
Instead of you speaking on Belinda's behalf, how about we let Belinda explain her own take on the issue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:23 am Note "construct" in the Philosophical sense.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy)
    In philosophy, a construct is an object which is ideal, that is, an object of the mind or of thought, meaning that its existence may be said to depend upon a subject's mind. This contrasts with any possibly mind-independent objects, the existence of which purportedly does not depend on the existence of a conscious observing subject.
The above term 'depend' tend to be misinterpreted very narrowly.
Instead of 'depend' I had used the phrase "somehow connected and linked with the subject's mind in the broadest perspective."
Other more accurate terms are 'inevitably interdependent' or in 'complementarity.'
I'm not sure of what you are getting at with the above interpretation of the word "construct."

Nevertheless, from my own personal perspective, all constructs (be they subjective or objective) are dependent on mind in one way or another.
_______
Btw, I did not make any assumption.

Note I used "IF".
If your case is not the case, then you can ignore the whole post.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So You Think There are Laws in Nature?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:55 pm That is true. I simply don't know enough philosophy to identify myself according to the categories you name. I am slowly working on it, and would welcome any insights from other posters.
At this time I don't believe in things in themselves, so I not Kantian. Neither do I believe that God establishes harmony, so I'm not a follower of Berkeley.
I think what I believe is called absolute idealism i.e idealism with no get-out clauses.

I'd not want to call my belief anti-realism, because idealists look towards reality every bit as much as do materialists(physicalists).
FYI, if it is the Absolute Idealism of Hegel, then it entails agreeing with the Thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
Absolute Idealism aligns well with Pantheism.
A Thing-in-itself is inherently 'Absolute' i.e. totally independent.
A thing-in-itself is also related to things-in-themselves.

Thus if you don't believe in things-in-themselves culminating in a thing-in-itself, you cannot align with Absolute Idealism.

If you align with Absolute Idealism then you have to believe things-in-themselves culminating in a thing-in-itself.

A thing-in-itself to Kant is an illusion nevertheless thinkable [not as real] as God, thus Kant is a deist i.e. believing in a reasoned-God [not personal God].
Post Reply