The in-it-self thing cannot exist

[Harbal]

What we know without any possible doubt is that experience is happening.It's happening right now as I type this, and right now as you read this. Experience is therefore real and there is no need whatsoever to posit "things in themselves" which is nonsensical compared with experiences
and contexts of experiences. Experiences are always experiences in contexts or, if you prefer, experiences in environments.

Experiences would be rather empty without things, so, even though there are no things, it is fortunate that we can still experience them.

[Belinda]

What we know without any possible doubt is that experience is happening.It's happening right now as I type this, and right now as you read this. Experience is therefore real and there is no need whatsoever to posit "things in themselves" which is nonsensical compared with experiences
and contexts of experiences. Experiences are always experiences in contexts or, if you prefer, experiences in environments.

Experiences would be rather empty without things, so, even though there are no things, it is fortunate that we can still experience them.

Yes, but I believe we are the creators of differentiated things, which, until someone came along and saw or felt them, had no forms only possibilities. That's absolute idealism.

[Harbal]

Yes, but I believe we are the creators of differentiated things, which, until someone came along and saw or felt them, had no forms only possibilities. That's absolute idealism.

As much as I would like to pursue this I'm afraid nothing short of a face to face conversation would shed any light on it for me. I know from experience that the written word is totally inadequate when it comes to concepts like this, and my understanding of them. It does intrigue me though, so perhaps you could message me if ever you find yourself anywhere near Doncaster.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.
Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.
While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.
Therefore it does not exist.

What you present above is very obvious and logical but there is more to it in perspectives and contexts where the idea of 'thing-in-itself' is discussed philosophically.
It is so evident that everything that exist are interconnected and interdependent on other things, as such as you stated, "there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself."
Since it is obvious, it should not be contentious in general.

The contentious issue is with the thing-in-itself that was introduced by Kant to counter the
Metaphysical Realists' claims and beliefs, i.e.

Philosophical [Metaphysical] Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
[Metaphysical] Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
[Metaphysical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
Philosophers who profess [Metaphysical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Instead of dealing with a various views of the points below,
1. this kind of thing has mind-independent existence
2. exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding
3. reality exists independent of the mind
Kant categorized them as things-in-themselves, or a thing-in-itself aka noumenom.

Kant claimed that such a thing-in-itself cannot exists as real [empirically & scientifically], i.e. they are useful beliefs but essentially are illusory.

These things-in-themselves [sing. thing-in-itself] aka noumenon are what PH and other metaphysical realists are claiming, i.e. there are facts and things that exist independent of the individual human's opinion and beliefs.

Btw, you are not likely to agree - to Kant the Father of thing-in-itself is God which cannot be real and thus is illusory.

[bobmax]

Btw, you are not likely to agree - to Kant the Father of thing-in-itself is God which cannot be real and thus is illusory.

If the in-it-self doesn't exist, you in-yourself don't exist.

Your existence is illusory.

The Father of the in-it-self thing, therefore your Father, is the father of that which does not exist, including you.

You appear to exist only because of what you are not.
And what makes you exist, in turn owes its existence to something other than itself.
In a continuous reference until we reach the in-it-self thing that cannot exist.

If you truly admit the non-existence of the in-it-self thing, the whole castle collapses, and you with it.

However, you have a Father.
That doesn't exist, because it is.

And you are that.

[Dontaskme]

If the in-it-self doesn't exist, you in-yourself don't exist.

Your existence is illusory.

You cannot even talk about a you in-yourself as non-existent without making you exist, even if your existence is illusory.

Because even illusions exist.

When one thing is known, everything is known.

Even illusions are known.

[bobmax]

If the in-it-self doesn't exist, you in-yourself don't exist.

Your existence is illusory.

You cannot even talk about a you in-yourself as non-existent without making you exist, even if your existence is illusory.

Because even illusions exist.

When one thing is known, everything is known.

Even illusions are known.

Yes, because I am still the son.

However the son may momentarily cease to exist (the illusion ceases).

Because of love.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, you are not likely to agree - to Kant the Father of thing-in-itself is God which cannot be real and thus is illusory.

If the in-it-self doesn't exist, you in-yourself don't exist.

Your existence is illusory.

The Father of the in-it-self thing, therefore your Father, is the father of that which does not exist, including you.

You appear to exist only because of what you are not.
And what makes you exist, in turn owes its existence to something other than itself.
In a continuous reference until we reach the in-it-self thing that cannot exist.

If you truly admit the non-existence of the in-it-self thing, the whole castle collapses, and you with it.

However, you have a Father.
That doesn't exist, because it is.

And you are that.

There is NO I-in-itself [me-in-itself, myself-in-itself] and to claim it exists can only be illusory.
The I-in-Itself is claimed as the soul existing independently of the empirical world and can survive physical death, thereafter proceed to heaven with eternal life.
For many, to deny the above claim is blasphemy and should be killed as commanded by the father of all thing-in-itself, i.e. Allah.

OTOH., my empirical-I [the thinking-I] exists as real and can be verified and justified within myself, others and science.

[bobmax]

OTOH., my empirical-I [the thinking-I] exists as real and can be verified and justified within myself, others and science.

You verify and justify your existence based on the existence of something other than you.
Which in turn...

With your empirical self you fall back into the thing itself.

Exit the loop!

Where even Kant was spinning ...

[Dontaskme]

Yes, because I am still the son.

However the son may momentarily cease to exist (the illusion ceases).

Because of love.

I've no idea what you mean here.

One simply cannot know one ceases to exist...nor can one know they exist...except in this imaginary conceptual conception, as an illusion.

[bobmax]

Yes, because I am still the son.

However the son may momentarily cease to exist (the illusion ceases).

Because of love.

I've no idea what you mean here.

One simply cannot know one ceases to exist...nor can one know they exist...except in this imaginary conceptual conception, as an illusion.

It can happen.

That the links of existence at some point fray.
And let love take over.

Then you no longer exist.

You can't make this happen.
Since you are an illusion.

But you can prepare the ground.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, because I am still the son.

However the son may momentarily cease to exist (the illusion ceases).

Because of love.

I've no idea what you mean here.

One simply cannot know one ceases to exist...nor can one know they exist...except in this imaginary conceptual conception, as an illusion.

It can happen.

That the links of existence at some point fray.
And let love take over.

Then you no longer exist.

You can't make this happen.
Since you are an illusion.

But you can prepare the ground.

No idea what you are trying to say.

[bobmax]

That the links of existence at some point fray.
And let love take over.

Then you no longer exist.

You can't make this happen.
Since you are an illusion.

But you can prepare the ground.

No idea what you are trying to say.

Perhaps because you are doing everything to not prepare the ground.

I wish you to be overwhelmed with love.

[Dontaskme]

That the links of existence at some point fray.
And let love take over.

Then you no longer exist.

You can't make this happen.
Since you are an illusion.

But you can prepare the ground.

No idea what you are trying to say.

Perhaps because you are doing everything to not prepare the ground.

I wish you to be overwhelmed with love.

Still no idea what you are saying to me, or what your message is supposed to mean..the message is totally meaningless to me here....but if it's your vibe, then good for you, I have absolutely no intention or wish to interfere by making it my business to steal your wish you have for yourself from you.

The only love I know or wish to be overwhelmed with is the idea of never existing ever. That would be my true and only one wish, the love for non-existence.

But since I could never tell myself I do not exist, then I guess I'm forever stuck with being...and having the freedom of choice to hate or love being...and no matter what my opinion about that maybe - will not change what is always an indifferent universe.

[Sculptor]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

You have zero justification for saying that. And its not even wrong; since the thing-in-itself does not even imply complete independence. Regardless then of what you say, you are off beam on two accounts.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

The phrase "thing in itself" is used to indicate the limits of perception such that any thing has qualities beyond which our limited perception allows. There no implication of complete independence from other things, and these connections could well be outside the limits of perception too.


We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.