Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:36 am

Where did I mention 'assumed'.

The significance of the symbol 1 is representing a mathematical concept of 1.
It is the mathematical concept of 1 that enable its reality as the emerged single empirical object.
One apple is really one apple which can be eaten. Such a 'one' is not assumed.
But 1 can equate to anything, for 1 to be an "apple" is for it to assume the apple. 1, the foundation of measurement and "reason" is not only a variable but subject to equivocation as it is an empty context.

Your foundations are built on nothing.
I have to agree with Sculptor in this case;

"There is no doubt you are bat shit crazy.
Bye bye"
And yet your foundations require a quantification grounded in numbers that can equivocate to anything...

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:24 pm
Of course we are far from it...this OP is about Kant...

I don't think I am drawing you into anything...you are drawing yourself in with that "cognitive illusion" of curiosity. So that is how you view yourself? A victim?

But to address your point directly, or rather just get to a simpler point:

What is "vs."? Is distinction abstract or physical?

Be careful how you answer, your where back tracking on it being "all in the head" then is "may be in the heart as well"...

You can't really answer without breaking your revolving loop of "distinction"...if it is any consolation Kant is Dead...I don't think you would hurt his feelings, rumor has it he slept alone wrapped like a cocoon in his blanks anyhow so it is not like he would be losing someone to cuddle with.
The abstract vs concrete distinction itself refers to two different kinds of thinking (that are concretely happening). The abstract thinking seems to be an ability of the neocortex only, not of other organs which may only influence its contents.

And on another level 'distinctions as understood as fundamental separations' are done away with entirely by the nondual understanding, but that doesn't change the above.

There is no actual revolving loop here, that's just your silly cognitive illusion. You base your entire 'philosophy' on such reification fallacies. And I'm not really Kantian but about these reification illusions he sure is right.

(And yes you do keep coming forward with this narcissistic stuff about exercising your power over others.)

(And yes human thinking ultimately is always relative and therefore circular, that's how our minds work but projecting this kind of circularity onto the world is another illusion.)

"You can't really answer" my ass. Are we done?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:41 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:24 pm
Of course we are far from it...this OP is about Kant...

I don't think I am drawing you into anything...you are drawing yourself in with that "cognitive illusion" of curiosity. So that is how you view yourself? A victim?

But to address your point directly, or rather just get to a simpler point:

What is "vs."? Is distinction abstract or physical?

Be careful how you answer, your where back tracking on it being "all in the head" then is "may be in the heart as well"...

You can't really answer without breaking your revolving loop of "distinction"...if it is any consolation Kant is Dead...I don't think you would hurt his feelings, rumor has it he slept alone wrapped like a cocoon in his blanks anyhow so it is not like he would be losing someone to cuddle with.
The abstract vs concrete distinction itself refers to two different kinds of thinking (that are concretely happening). The abstract thinking seems to be an ability of the neocortex only, not of other organs which may only influence its contents.

And on another level 'distinctions as understood as fundamental separations' are done away with entirely by the nondual understanding, but that doesn't change the above.

There is no actual revolving loop here, that's just your silly cognitive illusion. You base your entire 'philosophy' on such reification fallacies. And I'm not really Kantian but about these reification illusions he sure is right.

(And yes you do keep coming forward with this narcissistic stuff about exercising your power over others.)

(And yes human thinking ultimately is always relative and therefore circular, that's how our minds work but projecting this kind of circularity onto the world is another illusion.)

"You can't really answer" my ass. Are we done?
If "vs." does generate itself as abstraction...then it falls under a cognitive illusion...it is made up.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Kant

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:48 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
That is incorrect. Has anyone tried to explain why yet?

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:21 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:48 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
That is incorrect. Has anyone tried to explain why yet?
Well I mean that phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, as they are most commonly used today (if I understood correctly).

Kant seems to have used them somewhat differently though, and those before Kant seem to have used them in a third way.

But no, I don't think anyone explained it yet in present day English.

Kant seems to have used the noumenon only as a limiting function or something like that, so he couldn't really have made metaphysical claims (other than how to correctly interpret certain features of human thinking, probably). However, some people seem to base their 'universal' metaphysics directly on Kant.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:41 am
If "vs." does generate itself as abstraction...
...
You're a prisoner of your own thinking

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:17 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:41 am
If "vs." does generate itself as abstraction...
...
You're a prisoner of your own thinking
Thus all thoughts are cognitive illusions if "vs" is an abstraction...

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:19 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:17 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:41 am
If "vs." does generate itself as abstraction...
...
You're a prisoner of your own thinking
Thus all thoughts are cognitive illusions if "vs" is an abstraction...
I mean does the "vs" have a built-in generator now or what.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Kant

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:21 pm
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:48 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
That is incorrect. Has anyone tried to explain why yet?
Well I mean that phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, as they are most commonly used today (if I understood correctly).

Kant seems to have used them somewhat differently though, and those before Kant seem to have used them in a third way.

But no, I don't think anyone explained it yet in present day English.

Kant seems to have used the noumenon only as a limiting function or something like that, so he couldn't really have made metaphysical claims (other than how to correctly interpret certain features of human thinking, probably). However, some people seem to base their 'universal' metaphysics directly on Kant.
The ‘thing-in-itself’ is a claim of ‘positive’ noumenon. You cannot even comprehend something that isn’t there. There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. There is phenomenon and the limiting factor - ‘positive’ noumenon refers to the mistake of feeling you can comprehend something beyond the limit (easily done as ‘limit’ is merely a vague concept to articulate a very nuanced point here.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:39 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:21 pm
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:48 am


That is incorrect. Has anyone tried to explain why yet?
Well I mean that phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, as they are most commonly used today (if I understood correctly).

Kant seems to have used them somewhat differently though, and those before Kant seem to have used them in a third way.

But no, I don't think anyone explained it yet in present day English.

Kant seems to have used the noumenon only as a limiting function or something like that, so he couldn't really have made metaphysical claims (other than how to correctly interpret certain features of human thinking, probably). However, some people seem to base their 'universal' metaphysics directly on Kant.
The ‘thing-in-itself’ is a claim of ‘positive’ noumenon. You cannot even comprehend something that isn’t there. There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. There is phenomenon and the limiting factor - ‘positive’ noumenon refers to the mistake of feeling you can comprehend something beyond the limit (easily done as ‘limit’ is merely a vague concept to articulate a very nuanced point here.
Yes, but the issue with these illusions was dealt with long ago (largely thanks to Kant). They are merely a footnote anymore, only a few weirdos like Eodnhoj7 still don't see through them.

Looks to me that the thing-in-itself today means the postulated-to-exist world 'out there', as it is, contrasted with how it appears in the head.

If you mean that Kant thought that "mere existence" can't be postulated then he was simply wrong on that one.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Kant

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
It should be sound based on critical thinking and the various justification methods used
In a soundness test we put whatever the claim through various phases
  • common sense
Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with either critical thinking or soundness
It is merely a collection of assumptions taken to be true by virtue of their popularity

Logic is not based on common sense but on the rigorous application of consistency between the premises and conclusion
Science is not based on common sense but on the rigorous application of all of the components of the scientific method

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:40 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:17 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:30 pm

You're a prisoner of your own thinking
Thus all thoughts are cognitive illusions if "vs" is an abstraction...
I mean does the "vs" have a built-in generator now or what.
If cognitive illusions are grounded in a divergence from "reality", thus vs is an underlying function.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:47 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:39 pm
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:21 pm

Well I mean that phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, as they are most commonly used today (if I understood correctly).

Kant seems to have used them somewhat differently though, and those before Kant seem to have used them in a third way.

But no, I don't think anyone explained it yet in present day English.

Kant seems to have used the noumenon only as a limiting function or something like that, so he couldn't really have made metaphysical claims (other than how to correctly interpret certain features of human thinking, probably). However, some people seem to base their 'universal' metaphysics directly on Kant.
The ‘thing-in-itself’ is a claim of ‘positive’ noumenon. You cannot even comprehend something that isn’t there. There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. There is phenomenon and the limiting factor - ‘positive’ noumenon refers to the mistake of feeling you can comprehend something beyond the limit (easily done as ‘limit’ is merely a vague concept to articulate a very nuanced point here.
Yes, but the issue with these illusions was dealt with long ago (largely thanks to Kant). They are merely a footnote anymore, only a few weirdos like Eodnhoj7 still don't see through them.

Looks to me that the thing-in-itself today means the postulated-to-exist world 'out there', as it is, contrasted with how it appears in the head.

If you mean that Kant thought that "mere existence" can't be postulated then he was simply wrong on that one.
Actually they are not dealt with at all if people are still dealing with them...people quote Neitzche more than Kant...Neitzche killed Kant.

Anyhow as to the reality of illusion:

If a person sees a "x" and panics when seeking "x", but noone else sees "x" this still does not change the nature of the person seeing "x" have actions that effect other people...in these respects illusions form reality as a fragmented state of a tense existence.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:48 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
It should be sound based on critical thinking and the various justification methods used
In a soundness test we put whatever the claim through various phases
  • common sense
Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with either critical thinking or soundness
It is merely a collection of assumptions taken to be true by virtue of their popularity

Logic is not based on common sense but on the rigorous application of consistency between the premises and conclusion
Science is not based on common sense but on the rigorous application of all of the components of the scientific method
What composes critical thing and soundness is agreed upon, thus a "common sense" (sensing the same thing, ie assuming the same thing) is still warranted.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:40 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:17 pm


Thus all thoughts are cognitive illusions if "vs" is an abstraction...
I mean does the "vs" have a built-in generator now or what.
If cognitive illusions are grounded in a divergence from "reality", thus vs is an underlying function.
Yep which implies a hidden universe-wide mechanism/infrastructure implementing such a 'function'.

No sign of this was ever found of course, besides 'function' is a human-made abstraction anyway, so why the hell would we ever find it. Yet again a really good example of a cognitive fallacy/illusion.

Well really bye now, don't want to disturb your genius at work.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests