The World in Kant’s Head

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by iambiguous »

That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn

2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world

Then of course this part:
In recent years, one topic right at the centre of philosophy has been the nature of consciousness, and the question of how consciousness arises in what is presumably a physical universe of causes and effects. It seems surprising that Kant hasn’t been invoked more often in those debates, given his careful investigation of how the human mind must be organised in order to make sense of the world."
Must be organized? Or determined and compelled by the laws of matter to organize? Assuming of course that Kant's brain was the same as all the rest of ours: Nature embodied in a particularly extraordinary manner.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8509
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

"The World in Kant’s Head" may be a good clickbait but that is not what Kant actually claimed in his Critique of Pure Reason.
For while Kant agrees with early modern empiricists like Hume that there could not be any knowledge without experience, he performs a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in that he argues that experience itself, and consequently the content of our knowledge, is shaped by the way our human minds work. In other words, the world we experience is always a human world.
Kant did claim that our sense of reality is conditioned by the "categories" [Pure Concepts of the Understanding] in our brain but he never claimed the 'world is in the human head'.
Reality is all-there-is and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, as such whatever "is" reality can never be independent of the human conditions [as the metaphysical realists has been claiming].

It is very natural and its common sense that there is an external world but that is necessary pseudo-independent to facilitate survival; however ultimately that pseudo-independence is interdependent with the human conditions.

I agree with;
In many ways, Immanuel Kant was a man for our times. .. he tried to set down some universal truths about what we can know, what people are, and how we should all live.
Innumerable people today, hunched in the glow of their computer screens, try to do all that on Twitter, but one difference is that Kant was extremely good at it. He dug deep – deeper than a mole in a coalmine – trying to tunnel under the barriers that the universe has erected to hide itself from our understanding.
An indication of his success is that his ideas seem to become more, not less, relevant as the centuries go by.
And Kant's morality is driven by the vision of Perpetual Peace;
One example of Kant’s contemporary relevance is a very short essay he published in 1795 called Perpetual Peace.
One can test the efficacy of Kant's Model and System of Morality whether it will lead to Perpetual Peace or not, at least in theory at present, with hope for the future.
Age
Posts: 13422
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn
But absolutely NO one is 'obligated' to think NOR to believe absolutely ANY thing.

Absolutely EVERY one is absolutely free to think AND to believe whatever they like.

'That', what absolutely EVERY one can agree with and accept, is what IS demonstrably True, morally/virtuosly or otherwise.

The extent to which ANY one, so-called' "philosopher' or not, can demonstrate the Truth is, therefore, really rather very simple and very easy indeed.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm 2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world

Then of course this part:
In recent years, one topic right at the centre of philosophy has been the nature of consciousness, and the question of how consciousness arises in what is presumably a physical universe of causes and effects. It seems surprising that Kant hasn’t been invoked more often in those debates, given his careful investigation of how the human mind must be organised in order to make sense of the world."
Must be organized? Or determined and compelled by the laws of matter to organize? Assuming of course that Kant's brain was the same as all the rest of ours: Nature embodied in a particularly extraordinary manner.
Age
Posts: 13422
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:43 am "The World in Kant’s Head" may be a good clickbait but that is not what Kant actually claimed in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Have you still not yet learnt and understood that your own view, which exits within that head, is NOT necessarily the true, right, and correct one, especially in relation to what "another one" actually claimed or not.

Your OWN assumptions and beliefs stop and prevent you from seeing and understanding CLEARLY what the "other" is actually claiming or meaning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:43 am
For while Kant agrees with early modern empiricists like Hume that there could not be any knowledge without experience, he performs a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in that he argues that experience itself, and consequently the content of our knowledge, is shaped by the way our human minds work. In other words, the world we experience is always a human world.
Kant did claim that our sense of reality is conditioned by the "categories" [Pure Concepts of the Understanding] in our brain but he never claimed the 'world is in the human head'.
Reality is all-there-is and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, as such whatever "is" reality can never be independent of the human conditions [as the metaphysical realists has been claiming].

It is very natural and its common sense that there is an external world but that is necessary pseudo-independent to facilitate survival; however ultimately that pseudo-independence is interdependent with the human conditions.

I agree with;
In many ways, Immanuel Kant was a man for our times. .. he tried to set down some universal truths about what we can know, what people are, and how we should all live.
Innumerable people today, hunched in the glow of their computer screens, try to do all that on Twitter, but one difference is that Kant was extremely good at it. He dug deep – deeper than a mole in a coalmine – trying to tunnel under the barriers that the universe has erected to hide itself from our understanding.
An indication of his success is that his ideas seem to become more, not less, relevant as the centuries go by.
And Kant's morality is driven by the vision of Perpetual Peace;
One example of Kant’s contemporary relevance is a very short essay he published in 1795 called Perpetual Peace.
One can test the efficacy of Kant's Model and System of Morality whether it will lead to Perpetual Peace or not, at least in theory at present, with hope for the future.
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:23 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn
But absolutely NO one is 'obligated' to think NOR to believe absolutely ANY thing.

Absolutely EVERY one is absolutely free to think AND to believe whatever they like.

'That', what absolutely EVERY one can agree with and accept, is what IS demonstrably True, morally/virtuosly or otherwise.

The extent to which ANY one, so-called' "philosopher' or not, can demonstrate the Truth is, therefore, really rather very simple and very easy indeed.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm 2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world

Then of course this part:
In recent years, one topic right at the centre of philosophy has been the nature of consciousness, and the question of how consciousness arises in what is presumably a physical universe of causes and effects. It seems surprising that Kant hasn’t been invoked more often in those debates, given his careful investigation of how the human mind must be organised in order to make sense of the world."
Must be organized? Or determined and compelled by the laws of matter to organize? Assuming of course that Kant's brain was the same as all the rest of ours: Nature embodied in a particularly extraordinary manner.
Uh, anyone else?
Age
Posts: 13422
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:27 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:23 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn
But absolutely NO one is 'obligated' to think NOR to believe absolutely ANY thing.

Absolutely EVERY one is absolutely free to think AND to believe whatever they like.

'That', what absolutely EVERY one can agree with and accept, is what IS demonstrably True, morally/virtuosly or otherwise.

The extent to which ANY one, so-called' "philosopher' or not, can demonstrate the Truth is, therefore, really rather very simple and very easy indeed.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:49 pm 2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world

Then of course this part:


Must be organized? Or determined and compelled by the laws of matter to organize? Assuming of course that Kant's brain was the same as all the rest of ours: Nature embodied in a particularly extraordinary manner.
Uh, anyone else?
Let us try another way.

What is your first point, exactly?

Starting out a point with, "The extent to which a ...", does not clarify what 'the extent' is in relation to, exactly.

If ANY one, so-called "philosophers" included, thinks or expects "others" have to be categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe the same, in turn, then they are just fooling "themselves".

But, how to demonstrate 'that' what can NOT be refuted is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

So, will you answer, what is your first point, exactly?
Impenitent
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Impenitent »

I never knew that Immanuel had a boat...

-Imp
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:34 am
Let us try another way.

What is your first point, exactly?

Starting out a point with, "The extent to which a ...", does not clarify what 'the extent' is in relation to, exactly.

If ANY one, so-called "philosophers" included, thinks or expects "others" have to be categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe the same, in turn, then they are just fooling "themselves".

But, how to demonstrate 'that' what can NOT be refuted is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

So, will you answer, what is your first point, exactly?
Given my past experiences with YOU here, it's against my better judgment to COMMENCE a new exchange, but, what the HELL...

In regard to what is inside Kant's head...
That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn

2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world
Now we need to decide on a particular context in which Kant believed something that he was in fact able to demonstrate empirically, existentially, experientially, experimentally, etc., that all rational -- and therefore virtuous? -- men and women were obligated to believe in turn.

The classic example with Kant revolves around lying. Around the example of disclosing the location of someone you know that another is intent on killing.

Now, in the either/or world, you do in fact know where she is hiding. And others may know that in turn. It's not just "personal opinion".

But whether to disclose that information to another intent on killing her? Whether to lie about it?

How can that not be but a personal prejudice rooted in dasein? In a No God world. After all, it's not for nothing that Kant brings this all back around to God eventually.

Just the part revolving around whether the person hiding deserves to be killed or not can spark all kinds of fierce arguments.

Right?
Age
Posts: 13422
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm
Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:34 am
Let us try another way.

What is your first point, exactly?

Starting out a point with, "The extent to which a ...", does not clarify what 'the extent' is in relation to, exactly.

If ANY one, so-called "philosophers" included, thinks or expects "others" have to be categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe the same, in turn, then they are just fooling "themselves".

But, how to demonstrate 'that' what can NOT be refuted is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

So, will you answer, what is your first point, exactly?
Given my past experiences with YOU here, it's against my better judgment to COMMENCE a new exchange, but, what the HELL...

In regard to what is inside Kant's head...
I have NOT read ALL of what you have read, and thus do NOT know exactly what you are referring to. So, what was inferred or implied to be ' inside of the head of the one known as "kant" ', besides the Fact that NO one REALLY KNOWS, I do NOT even know what 'you' are talking about and referring to, exactly. That will be; UNTIL you explain.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm
That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn

2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world
Now we need to decide on a particular context in which Kant believed something that he was in fact able to demonstrate empirically, existentially, experientially, experimentally, etc., that all rational -- and therefore virtuous? -- men and women were obligated to believe in turn.
1. If ANY one is 'believing' something, then this infers that that one does NOT YET have the ACTUAL PROOF, for the belief.

2. If, however, ANY one expects others who are rational and virtuous to be obligated to 'believe' the same, then they are disillusioned from the beginning.

3. if ANY one KNOWS of a truth and they expect other rational and virtuous human beings to come-to-know such truths, then just demonstrate 'that truth' through either empirically or a sound and valid argument. That way NO one could actually refute 'that truth'.

iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm The classic example with Kant revolves around lying. Around the example of disclosing the location of someone you know that another is intent on killing.
I have ALREADY discussed this example with another here in this forum.

There is NO need to lie in that example of disclosing the location of someone when you know that another is intent on killing. So, that example has ALREADY been dealt with.

But if you would like to provide an example to DISCUSS and LOOK AT, then please go on ahead.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm Now, in the either/or world, you do in fact know where she is hiding. And others may know that in turn. It's not just "personal opinion".
But there is NO 'either/or world'. There is ONLY 'this world', ONLY.

And, one CAN tell the truth WITHOUT lying in the above example.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm But whether to disclose that information to another intent on killing her? Whether to lie about it?
But there is NO need to 'disclose'. You can tell 'the Truth' WITHOUT 'disclosing' where they are. This is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE indeed.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm How can that not be but a personal prejudice rooted in dasein? In a No God world. After all, it's not for nothing that Kant brings this all back around to God eventually.
WHEN one HAS a BELIEF, then they will 'try to' say just about ANY thing in order to back up and support THAT BELIEF.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm Just the part revolving around whether the person hiding deserves to be killed or not can spark all kinds of fierce arguments.

Right?
OF COURSE misinterpretations of things can cause so-called 'fierce arguments', but let us not forget that 'fierce arguments' are not necessarily sound and valid arguments, and that it is only sound and valid arguments that are irrefutable and thus are really only the only ones worthy of being repeated.

Also, 'fierce arguments' are due to the fact that:

Some people see an 'either/or world' only. Which, by the way, is NOT the 'real world'.

People with beliefs will make up and say just about absolutely ANY thing to fight for their beliefs.
iambiguous
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: The World in Kant’s Head

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 11:30 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm
Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:34 am
Let us try another way.

What is your first point, exactly?

Starting out a point with, "The extent to which a ...", does not clarify what 'the extent' is in relation to, exactly.

If ANY one, so-called "philosophers" included, thinks or expects "others" have to be categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe the same, in turn, then they are just fooling "themselves".

But, how to demonstrate 'that' what can NOT be refuted is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

So, will you answer, what is your first point, exactly?
Given my past experiences with YOU here, it's against my better judgment to COMMENCE a new exchange, but, what the HELL...

In regard to what is inside Kant's head...
I have NOT read ALL of what you have read, and thus do NOT know exactly what you are referring to. So, what was inferred or implied to be ' inside of the head of the one known as "kant" ', besides the Fact that NO one REALLY KNOWS, I do NOT even know what 'you' are talking about and referring to, exactly. That will be; UNTIL you explain.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm
That's often my point. All philosophers have an understanding of the world "in their head". Also, an understanding of where they themselves fit into the world "in their head".

That's when I bring up these two points:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn

2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world
Now we need to decide on a particular context in which Kant believed something that he was in fact able to demonstrate empirically, existentially, experientially, experimentally, etc., that all rational -- and therefore virtuous? -- men and women were obligated to believe in turn.
1. If ANY one is 'believing' something, then this infers that that one does NOT YET have the ACTUAL PROOF, for the belief.

2. If, however, ANY one expects others who are rational and virtuous to be obligated to 'believe' the same, then they are disillusioned from the beginning.

3. if ANY one KNOWS of a truth and they expect other rational and virtuous human beings to come-to-know such truths, then just demonstrate 'that truth' through either empirically or a sound and valid argument. That way NO one could actually refute 'that truth'.

iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm The classic example with Kant revolves around lying. Around the example of disclosing the location of someone you know that another is intent on killing.
I have ALREADY discussed this example with another here in this forum.

There is NO need to lie in that example of disclosing the location of someone when you know that another is intent on killing. So, that example has ALREADY been dealt with.

But if you would like to provide an example to DISCUSS and LOOK AT, then please go on ahead.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm Now, in the either/or world, you do in fact know where she is hiding. And others may know that in turn. It's not just "personal opinion".
But there is NO 'either/or world'. There is ONLY 'this world', ONLY.

And, one CAN tell the truth WITHOUT lying in the above example.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm But whether to disclose that information to another intent on killing her? Whether to lie about it?
But there is NO need to 'disclose'. You can tell 'the Truth' WITHOUT 'disclosing' where they are. This is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE indeed.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm How can that not be but a personal prejudice rooted in dasein? In a No God world. After all, it's not for nothing that Kant brings this all back around to God eventually.
WHEN one HAS a BELIEF, then they will 'try to' say just about ANY thing in order to back up and support THAT BELIEF.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:09 pm Just the part revolving around whether the person hiding deserves to be killed or not can spark all kinds of fierce arguments.

Right?
OF COURSE misinterpretations of things can cause so-called 'fierce arguments', but let us not forget that 'fierce arguments' are not necessarily sound and valid arguments, and that it is only sound and valid arguments that are irrefutable and thus are really only the only ones worthy of being repeated.

Also, 'fierce arguments' are due to the fact that:

Some people see an 'either/or world' only. Which, by the way, is NOT the 'real world'.

People with beliefs will make up and say just about absolutely ANY thing to fight for their beliefs.
Uh, anyone else?
Post Reply