Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:12 am

seeds wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:51 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:02 pm
So you don't think a "mug" is more simple than Quantum Mechanics?
Okay?
Like I said, the more analogies the better, and for someone else, your particular analogy might resonate better (be more mentally accessible) than my analogy.
The QM example is not accessible at all, except to a handful of scientists. Whereas my example is not simply an analogy in any sense. It is a direct and practical example that clearly demonstrates the limits of our experience.

However, if for the sake of some friendly philosophical banter you would like to do a comparison, then let’s take a deeper look at what you said about the mug:
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:57 am
The noumenal mug has a lot more information hidden from my senses. Not only its full shape but the internal structures, of molecules of the pottery and the surface glaze. The facts of the mug, hidden from our senses, can go much deeper...
In my opinion, in order for us to understand what the word “noumenon” truly means...

(or, at least, what it “seems” to mean)

...then we must recognize that there is a huge difference between a situation where information is merely hidden from our senses (as in the case of your mug),...

...and that of a situation in which information is literally inaccessible to our senses (as in the case of what’s taking place in the space between the slitted wall and that of the screen of the Double Slit Experiment).

With that in mind, please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses.

In other words, tell us why under no circumstances could we ever directly experience with our senses (or some scientifically devised extension of our senses), the hidden features of the mug, as per your description.
_______
#
Kant did not have the slightest clues about QM, and the world of science is still scratching its head over the phenomenon.
Kant is perfectly okay about investigations and experience pushing back the boundary lines between the phenomenal world and the noumenal.
The noumenal is not a hard and fast "thou shall not pass" sort of place.
But you ask me "... please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses."
Do you really want me to describe, what is impossible to describe?

Placing Kant in his historical trajectory is the only sure way to unpack his meaning. He explicitly said of Hume, that he had awoken him from his philosophical slumbers. Kant was the pinnacle of the Empiricists, and with his epistemology seeks to reconcile rationalism and empiricism.
I just don't think QM is the naturally applicable point of consideration.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:13 am
Atla wrote:So I started reading Kant (in German) to see what all the fuss is about, holy shit every sentence of this guy is like a paragraph long..
If you read further on, many sentences are as long as half a page or even longer.
This is why I have to download the book into Microsoft Word and parse the parts of the sentences appropriate to find out which part is connected to its respective part.
Thus that is the reason it is generally accepted that one need 3 years full time to understand [not necessary agree] with Kant.
The knowledge therein the CPR is 'epiphanic' thus worth the time invested.
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 am
For all the point re Atla you mentioned, I have countered them with justifications and references directly from Kant. Re 'appearance without thing appearing' Atla quote missed out the note re thing-in-themselves and do not take into account the context of the preface.
Seems like you misunderstood the note as well. Kant states that a thing-in-itself COULD be real as an object (we could think it to be real), when there is real possibility for it from the practical. Like a physical table I guess.

The limiting function doesn't prohibit the thing-in-itself from existing, it is a limiting function on the pretensions of sensibility.

There is a reason why Kant never wrote something utterly solipsistic like "The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real".

Besides how do you want to eradicate all evil and save the world, whene from everyone else's point of view, you are just a thing-in-itself and therefore impossible to be real?
Your lack of reading Kant is a handicapped in attempting to counter my points.

Kant did not write precisely,
"The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real".
But once you understand Kant, the point above is logically obvious.

Kant definition of reality is this;
  • Reality [Category re Quality], in the Pure Concept of Understanding, is that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-General; it is that, therefore, the Concept of which in-itself points to being (in Time). (CPR A143/B182)
The thing-in-itself has nothing to do with Sensation-in-General.
Therefore thing-in-itself is impossible to be real [as defined above].

Reasonable peace will not happen during this or next generation, but perhaps the next-next generation.
However, it is inherent in the human DNA, there is a potential in all to strive for peace. The limitation is this striving for peace is not yet active in all humans. However there is already a sliver of a rising trend [evident] within humanity toward peace.
Thus what we need is a principled and systematized model to expedite the process.

I am optimistic the above trend is accelerating due to the trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology as seen the present.
He talks about something being real, to ascribe reality to something, within the context of the pure concepts of understanding. (Real is what corresponds to an empfindung/sensation at all.)

He's talking about how the thing-in-itself can have an effect on the inherent human cognition (thus implying that the empirical thing-in-itself could exist).
The thing-in-itself has nothing to do with Sensation-in-General.
What do you mean? The empirical things-in-themselves are theorized to affect some or all sensations, in many ways. In a sense, 'cause' them.
There may also be things-in-themselves that can't have any effect on the inherent human cognition.
I had pointed out the wrong interpretations of Kant's
...
-Atta's 'appearance without something appearing'
No, so far you misunderstood the 'appearance without something appearing', you misunderstood the note, and now you misunderstood the reality quote.

Looks like you misunderstood Kant alltogether. Looks like you tried to force some twisted form of Buddhist philosophy on Kant (some kind of Buddhist mind over matter BS where we pretend that it's not mind over matter).

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:07 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:11 pm
He talks about something being real, to ascribe reality to something, within the context of the pure concepts of understanding. (Real is what corresponds to an empfindung/sensation at all.)

He's talking about how the thing-in-itself can have an effect on the inherent human cognition (thus implying that the empirical thing-in-itself could exist).
The thing-in-itself has nothing to do with Sensation-in-General.
What do you mean? The empirical things-in-themselves are theorized to affect some or all sensations, in many ways. In a sense, 'cause' them.
There may also be things-in-themselves that can't have any effect on the inherent human cognition.
I had pointed out the wrong interpretations of Kant's
...
-Atta's 'appearance without something appearing'
No, so far you misunderstood the 'appearance without something appearing', you misunderstood the note, and now you misunderstood the reality quote.

Looks like you misunderstood Kant alltogether. Looks like you tried to force some twisted form of Buddhist philosophy on Kant (some kind of Buddhist mind over matter BS where we pretend that it's not mind over matter).
When you have not read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly your views are at best based on foolish arrogance.

What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis.
The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking.
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. (B xxvi)
Note the above is merely from a preface, thus highly summarized, thus one has to refer to the details in the main book for context.
Kant stated in the above we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves but can only think of them.
Note you can think of a square-circle but it is obvious it cannot exist as real.

If you read further of the CPR you will note the empirical_thing-in-itself is labeled the noumenon which is only a limiting concept, and the same noumenon is also the thing-in-itself [Ding an Sich] which is proven to be an transcendental illusion thus not real.

Especially with Kant, you cannot just wave your opinions based on cherry picked quotes but you need to present the relevant quote and its full related context.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:07 am
When you have not read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly your views are at best based on foolish arrogance.

What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis.
The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking.
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. (B xxvi)
Note the above is merely from a preface, thus highly summarized, thus one has to refer to the details in the main book for context.
Kant stated in the above we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves but can only think of them.
Note you can think of a square-circle but it is obvious it cannot exist as real.

If you read further of the CPR you will note the empirical_thing-in-itself is labeled the noumenon which is only a limiting concept, and the same noumenon is also the thing-in-itself [Ding an Sich] which is proven to be an transcendental illusion thus not real.

Especially with Kant, you cannot just wave your opinions based on cherry picked quotes but you need to present the relevant quote and its full related context.
Kant here says that we need to be able to at least think of the empirical Thing-in-itself. From which it doesn't follow whether or not it actually exists.

If you honestly believe that Kant had proven that the empirical Thing-in-itself is merely a transcendental illusion then prove it. That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him. (And his entire philosophy would be self-contradicting as you can't make a certain statement like "doesn't exist" about the thing-in-itself.)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:18 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:07 am
When you have not read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's work thoroughly your views are at best based on foolish arrogance.

What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis.
The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking.
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. (B xxvi)
Note the above is merely from a preface, thus highly summarized, thus one has to refer to the details in the main book for context.
Kant stated in the above we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves but can only think of them.
Note you can think of a square-circle but it is obvious it cannot exist as real.

If you read further of the CPR you will note the empirical_thing-in-itself is labeled the noumenon which is only a limiting concept, and the same noumenon is also the thing-in-itself [Ding an Sich] which is proven to be an transcendental illusion thus not real.

Especially with Kant, you cannot just wave your opinions based on cherry picked quotes but you need to present the relevant quote and its full related context.
Kant here says that we need to be able to at least think of the empirical Thing-in-itself. From which it doesn't follow whether or not it actually exists.
I have given you an indication [quoted earlier re reality] and argue the thing-in-itself cannot be real but merely is an illusion.
If you honestly believe that Kant had proven that the empirical Thing-in-itself is merely a transcendental illusion then prove it.
That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him. (And his entire philosophy would be self-contradicting as you can't make a certain statement like "doesn't exist" about the thing-in-itself.)
If you had read and understood the whole of the CPR you will note Kant proved the thing-in-itself is an illusion in many ways.
Here is one (anyway, I anticipate you will not understand because one need a Kant dictionary to understand the terms therein.);
  • ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea [thing-in-itself] is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
    For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, Possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
    But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea [thing-in-itself], we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    [The problematic concept leads to;]
    The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [idea or thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
    They [ideas as illusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
Atla: "That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him."

Ha..ha.. your above interpretation would only backfire on you.
Show me one credible philosopher after Kant who had given any inkling Kant was insane.
If none, it is very likely you are insane in making that claim.
Don't insult your own intelligence with such a claim.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:18 am
I have given you an indication [quoted earlier re reality] and argue the thing-in-itself cannot be real but merely is an illusion.
If you honestly believe that Kant had proven that the empirical Thing-in-itself is merely a transcendental illusion then prove it.
That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him. (And his entire philosophy would be self-contradicting as you can't make a certain statement like "doesn't exist" about the thing-in-itself.)
If you had read and understood the whole of the CPR you will note Kant proved the thing-in-itself is an illusion in many ways.
Here is one (anyway, I anticipate you will not understand because one need a Kant dictionary to understand the terms therein.);
  • ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea [thing-in-itself] is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
    For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, Possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
    But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea [thing-in-itself], we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    [The problematic concept leads to;]
    The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [idea or thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
    They [ideas as illusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
Atla: "That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him."

Ha..ha.. your above interpretation would only backfire on you.
Show me one credible philosopher after Kant who had given any inkling Kant was insane.
If none, it is very likely you are insane in making that claim.
Don't insult your own intelligence with such a claim.
The 'Transcendental Idea' is NOT the thing-in-itself. Its Object, of which we have no Concept, is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself. And I wasn't asking about purely transcendental ideas.

And again: even if illusion in some ways or to some degrees is inevitable in our thinking, that does NOT mean that the thing-in-itself is certainly and completely an illusion. What you keep claiming simply does not follow, and nowhere did Kant say it either.

I'm not implying that Kant was utterly insane; your misrepresentation of him is implying that. I'm really out now.

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:57 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:50 pm
In other words, if “we” (meaning “you”) are someone who has already made up their mind that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then just like any biased researcher, they can always find some way of twisting the words of others (“infer” something that’s not truly there) to fit their agenda.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
I have provided the relevant argument.
You can prove me wrong by showing Kant did not make those references I quoted from Kant or I had interpreted it wrongly.
There is absolutely nothing in any of the quotes you have provided thus far that would irrefutably imply or indicate that Kant believed that “God is an impossibility to be real.”
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
I had pointed out the wrong interpretations of Kant's
-your 'deny knowledge to make room for faith'
-Atta's 'appearance without something appearing'
-Sculptors wrong labeling of time and space as 'categories.'
Okay, let’s address your accusation of my “wrong interpretation of Kant.”

I had stated the following:
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:50 pm
...unless I misunderstood what I have read about Kant (which is quite possible), Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality.

And that is my simplistic understanding of what I assume is the underlying sentiment implicit in one of his famous quotes:
Kant wrote: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”
To which you responded with this:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 am
The quote " ... deny (aufheben) Knowledge Wissen in order to make room for Faith. [Glaube.]" is in the later part of the Preface and confined to Morality.

As you have stated,
  • ".. Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality."
The deny of knowledge refer to the above metaphysical knowledge which was supposedly claimed to be the Queen of Science then during Kant's time.

Thus the quote '..deny knowledge [metaphysical] ..." is for the purpose of grounding morality and has no support any point that God is a possibility and real.
(Underlining/bolding mine)

Therefore, instead of pointing out how and why my interpretation was wrong, you appear to have confirmed its accuracy (thank you).

And as to this completely self-serving, non sequiturial add-on:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 am
...and has no support any point that God is a possibility and real.
...nowhere in the body of my above interpretation is there the slightest indication that I assumed that the Kantian quote I was referring to represented some kind of support point for the existence of a real God.

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:58 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
If you want to counter me on Kant, just show me where I am wrong with reference to Kant's works.
You have already conceded that Kant never directly stated that “God is an impossibility to be real.”

In which case, it would be utterly impossible for me to wade through the entire canon of Kant’s writings (or just the CPR) and then somehow intuit which passages caused you to mistakenly “infer” that he concurred with your nonsense about the “impossibility of God being real.”

So don’t be ridiculous.

Besides, my dear Veritas, why should I try to locate something that Kant has said in order to counter your interpretation of him when I can simply do it through the processes of pure and logical reasoning combined with common sense?

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:00 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:11 pm
[... ...]
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:07 am
What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis.
The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking.
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. (B xxvi)
Kant stated in the above we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves but can only think of them.
Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda.

Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think” of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be unreal or imaginary.

Whereas, on the other hand, Kant is proposing that even though we cannot directly know the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” we nevertheless “must” think of them as being “Things-in-Themselves.”

In which case, Kant is clearly imbuing the “Things-in-Themselves (i.e., the noumena) with an implicit substance and realness (albeit inaccessible to our senses).

You will no doubt deny it, but there is a world of difference between your meaning and that of Kant’s intended meaning.

The bottom line is that if you can so obviously misconstrue Kant in the above instance, then the odds are you have done it elsewhere.
_______

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:31 pm

Jesus Fucking Christ (a.k.a Self-fucking Jesus).

Bertrand Russell addressed this point in Chapter I of The Problems of Philosophy

No amount of re-interpretation or "different thinking about it" is going to get around the limits imposed on us by physics.

'you' are on the wrong side of causality.
'you' are only one side of an entanglement.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:49 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:18 am
I have given you an indication [quoted earlier re reality] and argue the thing-in-itself cannot be real but merely is an illusion.
If you honestly believe that Kant had proven that the empirical Thing-in-itself is merely a transcendental illusion then prove it.
That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him. (And his entire philosophy would be self-contradicting as you can't make a certain statement like "doesn't exist" about the thing-in-itself.)
If you had read and understood the whole of the CPR you will note Kant proved the thing-in-itself is an illusion in many ways.
Here is one (anyway, I anticipate you will not understand because one need a Kant dictionary to understand the terms therein.);
  • ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea [thing-in-itself] is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
    For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, Possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
    But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea [thing-in-itself], we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    [The problematic concept leads to;]
    The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [idea or thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
    They [ideas as illusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
Atla: "That would mean that Kant was utterly insane and solipsistic, and is only famous because basically everyone misunderstood him."

Ha..ha.. your above interpretation would only backfire on you.
Show me one credible philosopher after Kant who had given any inkling Kant was insane.
If none, it is very likely you are insane in making that claim.
Don't insult your own intelligence with such a claim.
The 'Transcendental Idea' is NOT the thing-in-itself. Its Object, of which we have no Concept, is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself. And I wasn't asking about purely transcendental ideas.

And again: even if illusion in some ways or to some degrees is inevitable in our thinking, that does NOT mean that the thing-in-itself is certainly and completely an illusion. What you keep claiming simply does not follow, and nowhere did Kant say it either.

I'm not implying that Kant was utterly insane; your misrepresentation of him is implying that. I'm really out now.
Your views are not in the full context of the CPR and Kant's philosophy.

One can think of anything there is no issue with it.
The transcendental idea can be thought of.
However if you reify and objectify the transcendental idea as a thing-in-itself, that is an illusion.

Note you have agreed the thing-in-itself cannot be known [Kant expressed it ever where in the CPR] but you give yourself room it may or may not exists as real.
When you give yourself room that the thing-in-itself may or may not exists as real, you are reifying and objectifying the thing-in-itself [a thing] which can only be an illusion.

Kant proved the thing-in-itself is an illusion and demonstrated it is still useful as an illusion [transcendental] especially in the Moral perspective.
The "North Star" we see in the dark night is a natural empirical illusion but it is very useful for navigators in the seas and ocean.
It is the same with the transcendental illusion of the transcendental idea reified as thing-in-itself which is critically useful for Moral & Ethical [Practical] reasons.

My interpretations are of whatever in the CPR or Kant's works are based on what he wrote which I had produced regularly.
Meanwhile you only mentioned but have not provided any quote proper reference from Kant and from that arrogantly and shamefully insist my interpretations are wrong.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:55 am

seeds wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:57 pm
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:50 pm
In other words, if “we” (meaning “you”) are someone who has already made up their mind that “God is an impossibility to be real,” then just like any biased researcher, they can always find some way of twisting the words of others (“infer” something that’s not truly there) to fit their agenda.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
I have provided the relevant argument.
You can prove me wrong by showing Kant did not make those references I quoted from Kant or I had interpreted it wrongly.
There is absolutely nothing in any of the quotes you have provided thus far that would irrefutably imply or indicate that Kant believed that “God is an impossibility to be real.”
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
I had pointed out the wrong interpretations of Kant's
-your 'deny knowledge to make room for faith'
-Atta's 'appearance without something appearing'
-Sculptors wrong labeling of time and space as 'categories.'
Okay, let’s address your accusation of my “wrong interpretation of Kant.”

I had stated the following:
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:50 pm
...unless I misunderstood what I have read about Kant (which is quite possible), Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality.

And that is my simplistic understanding of what I assume is the underlying sentiment implicit in one of his famous quotes:
Kant wrote: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”
To which you responded with this:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 am
The quote " ... deny (aufheben) Knowledge Wissen in order to make room for Faith. [Glaube.]" is in the later part of the Preface and confined to Morality.

As you have stated,
  • ".. Kant felt that the belief in the existence of God, along with the existence of freedom and immortality (regardless of any of those things being real or not), is necessary for helping to maintain human morality."
The deny of knowledge refer to the above metaphysical knowledge which was supposedly claimed to be the Queen of Science then during Kant's time.

Thus the quote '..deny knowledge [metaphysical] ..." is for the purpose of grounding morality and has no support any point that God is a possibility and real.
(Underlining/bolding mine)

Therefore, instead of pointing out how and why my interpretation was wrong, you appear to have confirmed its accuracy (thank you).

And as to this completely self-serving, non sequiturial add-on:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 am
...and has no support any point that God is a possibility and real.
...nowhere in the body of my above interpretation is there the slightest indication that I assumed that the Kantian quote I was referring to represented some kind of support point for the existence of a real God.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Note the contention stream we are on is about my 'God is an impossibility to be real'.
You have not agreed with any of my points.
Thus in context, it is implied your quote,
“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”
is used to counter my point as is always used by theists to insist Kant agree God exists real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:44 am

seeds wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:58 pm
_______

(Continued from prior post)
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am
If you want to counter me on Kant, just show me where I am wrong with reference to Kant's works.
You have already conceded that Kant never directly stated that “God is an impossibility to be real.”

In which case, it would be utterly impossible for me to wade through the entire canon of Kant’s writings (or just the CPR) and then somehow intuit which passages caused you to mistakenly “infer” that he concurred with your nonsense about the “impossibility of God being real.”

So don’t be ridiculous.

Besides, my dear Veritas, why should I try to locate something that Kant has said in order to counter your interpretation of him when I can simply do it through the processes of pure and logical reasoning combined with common sense?

(Continued in next post)
_______
This point is reference to Kant, thus it is off topic if you simply rely on your "pure and logical reasoning combined with common sense?".
I agree, since I am making the claim, the onus is on me to provide the argument.

Note that the CPR is not about 'God' as the main theme.
The main theme of the CPR is 'knowledge' and what is real and what is not-real [i.e. illusion].
God is merely on of the elements considered in the CPR, thus there was no focus on God.
The idea of God is group under transcendental idea [note reference above] and how they are reified and objectified via pseudo rational arguments resulting as an illusion.

I have also shown [reply to age] from the CPR where Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God based on the best of the theologians arguments. pg 485-532 CPR NKS trans.
The term 'existence' implied reality.

Re Reality, note Cargill's commentary;
  • Reality is the first of the Categories of Quality which corresponds to the ‘Affirmative’ Function of Judgement.
    Along with the remaining Categories of Quality - Negation and Limitation - it yields the Principles that make up the Anticipations of Perception.
    As a Category or 'Pure Concept of the Understanding' Reality is defined as
    'that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-general' or that 'the Concept of which points to being (in time)' (CPR A143/B182).

    The Reality of the Forms of Intuition cannot be separated from the Reality of the Objects of Experience; they do not, Kant insists, belong
    'to things absolutely, as their condition or property, independent of any reference to the Form of our Sensible Intuition' (CPR A 36/B 52).

    The Category of Reality can thus only be applied as Empirical Reality in Space and Time, and never absolutely to Space and Time themselves.
Thus what is real is related only to 'Sensation-in-general' 'reality of the form of intuition' [not to anything independent of it], 'empirical reality within space and time, and the likes.

God as a transcendental idea is beyond all the above, thus impossible to be real as defined above.

Kant demonstrated [as implied] 'God is an impossibility to be real' and God at best is an illusion which is critically useful for Moral & Ethical reasons.
Here is why I disagree with Deistic Kant in using the term God as an illusion for Moral & Ethics reasons.
I believe that 'illusion' can still be a secular idea for usage within secular morality and ethics.

Intellectually, now that I have provided so much information directly from Kant to justify my points and argument, the onus is for you to prove I am wrong in quoting or interpreting Kant.
For you to prove me right or wrong, you have no alternative but to read Kant and understand [not necessary agree] Kant's CPR before you can counter me and point to me where I am wrong in the context of the whole of the CPR.
Otherwise you have no credibility at all to counter my views on Kant.

I used to be in your position where I only knew Kant superficially and attempted to argue with those who are more familiar with Kant. I was trashed badly. That is why to maintain intellectual integrity I decided to spent >3 years [2012-2015] reading and researching Kant and continually keep in touch with Kant's work till the present.

Lately the only ones who are reasonably equiped in all the philosophy forums I have participated who has reasonable knowledge of Kant's work are 'foolso4' [?] and 'HereAndNow' in the other 'ILovePhilosophy' site.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:19 am

seeds wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:00 pm
_______

(Continued from prior post)
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:11 pm
[... ...]
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:07 am
What you presented is way off from Kant's thesis.
The best you can do to support your point is to refer to the CPR in totality not mere cherry picking.
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. (B xxvi)
Kant stated in the above we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves but can only think of them.
Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda.

Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think” of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be unreal or imaginary.

Whereas, on the other hand, Kant is proposing that even though we cannot directly know the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” we nevertheless “must” think of them as being “Things-in-Themselves.”

In which case, Kant is clearly imbuing the “Things-in-Themselves (i.e., the noumena) with an implicit substance and realness (albeit inaccessible to our senses).

You will no doubt deny it, but there is a world of difference between your meaning and that of Kant’s intended meaning.

The bottom line is that if you can so obviously misconstrue Kant in the above instance, then the odds are you have done it elsewhere.
_______
Nah! you are the one who is twisting Kant's words. Kant stated,
  • that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.
Kant did not state 'MUST THINK' as you has twisted it,
Kant stated "we must yet be in position" the "must" is related to the position not the "thinking".
While for 'think' he qualified think as,
"at least to think"
thus at the least and the best one can only 'think' and not to objectify the things-in-themselves as real given objects.

To add, Kant mentioned the 'object' is 'given'
  • Through the former [Sensibility], Objects are given to us; through the latter [Understanding], they are thought. [A15] [B29]

    And since the conditions under which alone the Objects of human knowledge are given must precede those under which they are thought, the transcendental doctrine of Sensibility will constitute the first part of the science of the elements. [A16] [B30]
'Given' this sense is 'emergence.'
Kant claimed is 'a scandal to philosophy' (B XL) to insist things [objects] pre-existed and exist absolutely independent of the human conditions [sensibility].

This condemnation drove Moore [Philosophical Realist] to challenge Kant's claim;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand.

Note the overall approach to Kant's work is represented in his Copernican Revolution. Since ancient philosophy, philosophers has not been able to prove convincingly the existence of the object as absolutely independent of the human condition.
Thus Kant proposed, like Copernicus, why not consider the existence of the object to be grounded [revolve] on the subject.
If all things/objects/entities are grounded on the subject, then even God [proven illusory] is grounded on the subject.
This is why I have argued the idea of God arise out of the subject's psychology due an existential crisis.
Thus note how all my hypothesis in the above are very probable.

There is much more I can refer to Kant's work to justify my points.

Your limitation is you can only view one sentence at a time on this argument with reference to Kant's CPR and other works. Thus your focus on merely the literal meaning of each word. You are not taking into account the full context of the whole of the CPR and the whole of Kant's philosophy.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:06 am

This idiot thinks that 'thing-in-itself' means 'the idea in your head'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests