Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds »

_______

Man this thread must be incredibly boring to the lurkers and forum members. Oh well. :D
seeds wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:05 pm ...Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your key syllogisms...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am Point is, for Kant,
  • 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
    2. God is the thing-in-itself
    3. Therefore God is impossible to be real
...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:23 am As I had stated you are interpreting each statement above too literally and not taking them in the context of the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Especially re Kant, your approach above shown you lack intellectual integrity and is insulting your own intelligence.
Veritas, here’s the situation:

You and I (and Atla, to some extent) have been quibbling over Kant’s definition of the “thing-in-itself” as set-forth in the following quote:
Kant wrote: ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a 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.
However, this is no longer an issue of you disagreeing with a few of us knuckleheads on an obscure philosophy forum. No, this is now an issue of you disagreeing with Wikipedia.

Because, again, according to the Wiki interpretation of that very same quote:
Wiki wrote: ...he...
...Kant...
Wiki wrote: ...regards things-in-themselves as existing...
In other words, according to Wiki, Kant is saying:

...the thing-in-itself is real.

However, based on your 3 whole years of personal study by which you have acquired an unprecedented understanding of Kant’s philosophy, you insist that Kant has asserted that:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
So the question is - what are you going to do to correct the egregious error that Wikipedia is presenting to the world?
_______
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Maybe as an Easterner and ex-theist, VA is actually unaware that appearances, objectivity, subjectivity etc. are already part of Western thinking.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

seeds wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:29 pm _______

Man this thread must be incredibly boring to the lurkers and forum members. Oh well. :D
seeds wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:05 pm ...Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your key syllogisms...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am Point is, for Kant,
  • 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
    2. God is the thing-in-itself
    3. Therefore God is impossible to be real
...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:23 am As I had stated you are interpreting each statement above too literally and not taking them in the context of the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Especially re Kant, your approach above shown you lack intellectual integrity and is insulting your own intelligence.
Veritas, here’s the situation:

You and I (and Atla, to some extent) have been quibbling over Kant’s definition of the “thing-in-itself” as set-forth in the following quote:
Kant wrote: ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a 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.
However, this is no longer an issue of you disagreeing with a few of us knuckleheads on an obscure philosophy forum. No, this is now an issue of you disagreeing with Wikipedia.

Because, again, according to the Wiki interpretation of that very same quote:
Wiki wrote: ...he...
...Kant...
Wiki wrote: ...regards things-in-themselves as existing...
In other words, according to Wiki, Kant is saying:

...the thing-in-itself is real.

However, based on your 3 whole years of personal study by which you have acquired an unprecedented understanding of Kant’s philosophy, you insist that Kant has asserted that:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
So the question is - what are you going to do to correct the egregious error that Wikipedia is presenting to the world?
_______
When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?

Note I am relying on Kant's Critique of Reason as the final authority.

The Wikipedia mentioned Stephen Palmquist whom I am very familiar with and Palmquist is a Christian thus very bias toward theism. Palmquist would be bias that the thing-in-itself, reasoned as God is real.
In addition, wiki also mentioned Schopenhauer a philosopher who I am also very familiar. Schopenhauer argued the Thing-in-itself [outside the CPR] is the fundamental Will in his book, is real. Schopenhauer is an atheist [?] and other would interpret that 'WILL' is God.

Note the Wikipedia article never mentioned 'the thing-in-itself is possible to be real'.
If the 'thing-in-itself' is argued by Kant as an illusion, who would dare to insist it is real within the CPR.

I did not join Wikipedia as a contributor, otherwise I would correct whatever errors re Kant's thing-in-itself therein as supported by quotes and context from the Critique of Reason.

Btw, I mentioned the quote [B-xl] Atla and you put forwards is merely a summary point in the Preface thus without the proper context fully presented in the whole book.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:53 pm Maybe as an Easterner and ex-theist, VA is actually unaware that appearances, objectivity, subjectivity etc. are already part of Western thinking.
My background is Eastern Philosophy.
When I first participated in philosophical forums [eons ago], I was bashed left, right and center with my ignorance of terms such epistemology, logic, metaphysics, morality, ontology, appearances, objectivity, subjectivity and all the various Western Philosophy terms. By now I have covered them all and is very familiar with all the common terms.
It is not only with terms, I have also covered and understood the philosophy of all the common and popular Western Philosophy with emphasis on Kant, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein [later] and others in general.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:11 am Wikipedia
Another possibility is that we are all wrong, because Kant was inconsistent. It's not just the Wiki, pretty much everywhere I look, they claim or imply that Kant treated the thing-in-itself as possible to be real. However many also claim that Kant's thing-in-itself usually doesn't refer to any outside object, but sometimes it does or seems to do so.

Maybe he really was talking about 3 things:

1. raw appearances
2. the objectifications of these raw appearances (the abstract thought itself in the head)
3. the 'actual' object out there, which appears

If by thing-in-itself he usually meant the 2. one, then yes of course that's just a thought, and not supposed to be taken at face value. In that sense it's not 'real'.

But then the question becomes, why did he sometimes conflate 2 and 3? Or did he even have a concept of 3? 3 is totally unknowable directly, we can't even tell if it exists or not, but without assuming it, we also can't make sense of existence (unless some batshit solipsism, or an even more batshit denial of everything).
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:20 am
Here is another Kant quote about things-in-themselves possibly existing

“our cognition reaches appearances only, leaving the thing in itself as something actual for itself, but uncognized by us”
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Haha what a mess

https://www.academia.edu/2066793/Kant_- ... Themselves

See what I did in this topic? I just skipped a year of study, while also confirmed that Kant made it far but not far enough (to the nondual understanding).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:11 am Wikipedia
Another possibility is that we are all wrong, because Kant was inconsistent. It's not just the Wiki, pretty much everywhere I look, they claim or imply that Kant treated the thing-in-itself as possible to be real. However many also claim that Kant's thing-in-itself usually doesn't refer to any outside object, but sometimes it does or seems to do so.

Maybe he really was talking about 3 things:

1. raw appearances
2. the objectifications of these raw appearances (the abstract thought itself in the head)
3. the 'actual' object out there, which appears

If by thing-in-itself he usually meant the 2. one, then yes of course that's just a thought, and not supposed to be taken at face value. In that sense it's not 'real'.

But then the question becomes, why did he sometimes conflate 2 and 3? Or did he even have a concept of 3? 3 is totally unknowable directly, we can't even tell if it exists or not, but without assuming it, we also can't make sense of existence (unless some batshit solipsism, or an even more batshit denial of everything).
Before embarking on researching Kant full time for 3 years, I was like you hoping to get precise answers re the thing-in-itself the whole of the CPR from discussing with others, even so-called experts on Kant in the various forums and also reading many secondary sources from various authors.

What I found out is there is various different views depending on the background of the philosopher. E.g. Stephen Palmquist and other theists will attempt to twist Kant toward the theistic angle. The analytic philosophers, like P R Strawson, Guyer et. al. will have their own specifically analytic view. The philosophical anti-realists e.g. Alison will have their own views.

So whose views should I take?
Thus I decided to invest time to understand Kant thoroughly given that I see the parallel Kantian has with Eastern Philosophy.

Thus even if I do my best [especially in limited posts within this discussion], it is not likely you will grasp the essence of Kant's CPR and the rest of his works.

The best is for you to read Kant yourself to grasp a reasonable degree of Kant's view, then it would be easier to argue whose view is the correct view Kant had intended.

Kant had presented his work within a system approach;
  • For Pure Speculative Reason has a structure wherein everything is an Organ, the whole being for the sake of every part, and every part for the sake of all the others,
    so that even the smallest imperfection, be it a fault (error) or a deficiency, must inevitably betray itself in use.
    This System will, as I hope, maintain, throughout the future, this unchangeableness.
Thus every part must flow correctly within the whole and the slightest out of alignment will show. To justify this I have done a master flowchart to ensure all the relevant flow in one master theme.

To get to your point I suggest you read this from Bertrand Russel [early] which he doubted whether there is a real table at all. Chapter 1 - Appearance and Reality
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Probl ... nd_Reality

Russell would agree with 1. Raw Appearances.
Point 2 is also not an issue since such objectification would be an imagination or dream within the mind.
Russell is questioning your "3. the 'actual' object out there, which appears" i.e. the actual empirical table per se 'out there' which appears to your senses, perhaps it may not even exists [this is Kant's table-in-itself].
Thus Russell was referring to the real table he can touch but at the same time it [table-in-itself] is not real when we scrutinize its truth philosophically.

What is the real table actually? Science tells us it is merely a bundle of atoms, protons and electrons or packets of energy.

At the final, Russell conceded there is no certain real table out there based on philosophical scrutiny [the highest] of the truth;
While Russell is in a dilemma, Kant did explain the whole issue via different perspectives within one single system.
Unfortunately it not easy to explain how Kant did it without you reading Kant thoroughly first.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:57 am Haha what a mess

https://www.academia.edu/2066793/Kant_- ... Themselves

See what I did in this topic? I just skipped a year of study, while also confirmed that Kant made it far but not far enough (to the nondual understanding).
You think so?
I was in the same position (I read many of such articles from both sides) before I started the 3 years research to justify to myself which position is the correct one.
Kant's CPR is one long argument, if you misunderstood one term, statement or paragraph that could lead you to the wrong conclusion.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:04 am Before embarking on researching Kant full time for 3 years, I was like you hoping to get precise answers re the thing-in-itself the whole of the CPR from discussing with others, even so-called experts on Kant in the various forums and also reading many secondary sources from various authors.

What I found out is there is various different views depending on the background of the philosopher. E.g. Stephen Palmquist and other theists will attempt to twist Kant toward the theistic angle. The analytic philosophers, like P R Strawson, Guyer et. al. will have their own specifically analytic view. The philosophical anti-realists e.g. Alison will have their own views.

So whose views should I take?
Thus I decided to invest time to understand Kant thoroughly given that I see the parallel Kantian has with Eastern Philosophy.

Thus even if I do my best [especially in limited posts within this discussion], it is not likely you will grasp the essence of Kant's CPR and the rest of his works.

The best is for you to read Kant yourself to grasp a reasonable degree of Kant's view, then it would be easier to argue whose view is the correct view Kant had intended.

Kant had presented his work within a system approach;
  • For Pure Speculative Reason has a structure wherein everything is an Organ, the whole being for the sake of every part, and every part for the sake of all the others,
    so that even the smallest imperfection, be it a fault (error) or a deficiency, must inevitably betray itself in use.
    This System will, as I hope, maintain, throughout the future, this unchangeableness.
Thus every part must flow correctly within the whole and the slightest out of alignment will show. To justify this I have done a master flowchart to ensure all the relevant flow in one master theme.

To get to your point I suggest you read this from Bertrand Russel [early] which he doubted whether there is a real table at all. Chapter 1 - Appearance and Reality
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Probl ... nd_Reality

Russell would agree with 1. Raw Appearances.
Point 2 is also not an issue since such objectification would be an imagination or dream within the mind.
Russell is questioning your "3. the 'actual' object out there, which appears" i.e. the actual empirical table per se 'out there' which appears to your senses, perhaps it may not even exists [this is Kant's table-in-itself].
Thus Russell was referring to the real table he can touch but at the same time it [table-in-itself] is not real when we scrutinize its truth philosophically.

What is the real table actually? Science tells us it is merely a bundle of atoms, protons and electrons or packets of energy.

At the final, Russell conceded there is no certain real table out there based on philosophical scrutiny [the highest] of the truth;
While Russell is in a dilemma, Kant did explain the whole issue via different perspectives within one single system.
Unfortunately it not easy to explain how Kant did it without you reading Kant thoroughly first.
For some inexplicable reason, you continue to equate "may or may not exist" with "impossible to exist".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:04 am Russell is questioning your "3. the 'actual' object out there, which appears" i.e. the actual empirical table per se 'out there' which appears to your senses, perhaps it may not even exists [this is Kant's table-in-itself].
Thus Russell was referring to the real table he can touch but at the same time it [table-in-itself] is not real when we scrutinize its truth philosophically.

What is the real table actually? Science tells us it is merely a bundle of atoms, protons and electrons or packets of energy.

At the final, Russell conceded there is no certain real table out there based on philosophical scrutiny [the highest] of the truth;
For some inexplicable reason, you continue to equate "may or may not exist" with "impossible to exist".
In this case I was referring to Russell's doubt, i.e. he mentioned 'perhaps'.

In my case, when I stated the thing-in-itself is an impossibility to be real only when it is extended to its ultimate sense, i.e. as a transcendental idea which is an illusion.

In reference to the noumenal apple, i.e. apple-in-itself this is sitting right on the boundary between sensibility and reason.
In my master flowchart diagram I had to draw a boundary between the field of sensibility and the distinct field of reason. Whatever is noumenon cannot exceed the boundary of sensibility because by definition the noumenon is limited to its boundary.

If the noumenal apple is taken up with sensibility, then it can possibly be real as an empirical apple out there which can be eaten.
However if the noumenal apple is pushed* over by reason on the side of reason [transcendental] as apple-in-itself, then it is impossible to be real.

*this is where the whole of empirical creation [noumenon] as a whole is pushed [by the psychological existential crisis] beyond its boundary over into the field reason to be associated with God [thing-it-itself] which is an impossibility.


This why Kant stated the following;
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    B311
Thus the apple as noumenon is to prevent the sensible-apple from being pushed out of its boundary to the field of reason, e.g. the sensible-apple is created by God [pure reason] if false due to equivocation when the noumenal apple is forced out its cage [the limit].
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:29 am In this case I was referring to Russell's doubt, i.e. he mentioned 'perhaps'.

In my case, when I stated the thing-in-itself is an impossibility to be real only when it is extended to its ultimate sense, i.e. as a transcendental idea which is an illusion.

In reference to the noumenal apple, i.e. apple-in-itself this is sitting right on the boundary between sensibility and reason.
In my master flowchart diagram I had to draw a boundary between the field of sensibility and the distinct field of reason. Whatever is noumenon cannot exceed the boundary of sensibility because by definition the noumenon is a limited.

If the noumenal apple is taken up with sensibility, then it can possibly be real as an empirical apple out there which can be eaten.
However if the noumenal apple is pushed* over by reason on the side of reason [transcendental] as apple-in-itself, then it is impossible to be real.

*this is where the whole of empirical creation [noumenon] as a whole is pushed [by the psychological existential crisis] beyond its boundary over into the field reason to be associated with God [thing-it-itself] which is an impossibility.


This why Kant stated the following;
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    B311
Thus the apple as noumenon is to prevent the sensible-apple from being pushed out of its boundary to the field of reason, e.g. the sensible-apple is created by God [pure reason] if false due to equivocation when the noumenal apple is forced out its cage [the limit].
So what you were actually trying to say is: our perception/experience/concept of God is impossible to be real? But a noumenal God may or may not exist anyway?

Because in standard English, 'God is impossible to be real' means that a 'noumenal God is also impossible to exist'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:42 am So what you were actually trying to say is: our perception/experience/concept of God is impossible to be real? But a noumenal God may or may not exist anyway?

Because in standard English, 'God is impossible to be real' means that a 'noumenal God is also impossible to exist'.
As I had explained there is a boundary between sensibility [with its noumenal limit] and field of reason. e.g
  • |Sensibility||Reason|
Note the boundary || that set them apart. What is in sensibility cannot be mixed with what is in the field of Reason.
There is something in between, i.e. the Understanding, I won't go into that to add more confusion.

The idea of God emerges only within the field of reason*, thus there is no such thing as a 'noumenal God'. Any idea that is within the field of reason is illusory and impossible to be real.
* field of reason is a defined by Kant, thus one need to understand what is this 'reason' which is the 'reason' in The Critique of Pure Reason.

Because the idea of God is only within the field of reason and not in sensibility, there is no such thing as perception/experience/concept of God.
The elements perception/experience/concept are only confined within the field of sensibility.

What we have is 'an idea of God' since within the field of reason, there can only be idea. Note the term 'idea' is specific for Kant, so you need to understand this definition for CPR's purposes.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:57 am
Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:42 am So what you were actually trying to say is: our perception/experience/concept of God is impossible to be real? But a noumenal God may or may not exist anyway?

Because in standard English, 'God is impossible to be real' means that a 'noumenal God is also impossible to exist'.
As I had explained there is a boundary between sensibility [with its noumenal limit] and field of reason. e.g
  • |Sensibility||Reason|
Note the boundary || that set them apart. What is in sensibility cannot be mixed with what is in the field of Reason.
There is something in between, i.e. the Understanding, I won't go into that to add more confusion.

The idea of God emerges only within the field of reason*, thus there is no such thing as a 'noumenal God'. Any idea that is within the field of reason is illusory and impossible to be real.
* field of reason is a defined by Kant, thus one need to understand what is this 'reason' which is the 'reason' in The Critique of Pure Reason.

Because the idea of God is only within the field of reason and not in sensibility, there is no such thing as perception/experience/concept of God.
The elements perception/experience/concept are only confined within the field of sensibility.

What we have is 'an idea of God' since within the field of reason, there can only be idea. Note the term 'idea' is specific for Kant, so you need to understand this definition for CPR's purposes.
You still seem to make the same mistake. You claim that there is no such thing as a 'noumenal God'. And we agree that the noumenon is unknowable.

But to claim that a noumenal God is impossible, you have to know the noumenon first!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:06 am You still seem to make the same mistake. You claim that there is no such thing as a 'noumenal God'. And we agree that the noumenon is unknowable.

But to claim that a noumenal God is impossible, you have to know the noumenon first!
You are the one who is mistaken.
I had anticipated that.

Note this;
  • |<-Sensibility ->N||<-Tit Reason ->|
Tit = Thing-in-itself
Note the noumenon 'N' is sitting on the fringe boundary of sensibility. The noumenon is a limit thus cannot cross over to Reason.

Read my point above again.
I stated there is no such thing as a noumenal God because the noumenal is confined only to sensibility. So there is no noumenal God to be known in the sensible sense.

The thing-in-itself is from the field of reason which generate the illusion of a God-in-itself.
One can think of such an illusion but it is impossible to be real.
Note what is real is only confined to sensibility + understanding.
Because God-in-itself is has nothing to do with "Sensibility + Understanding", it is impossible for God to be real.

Note this quote B397;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms [Reason] which contain no Empirical premisses [sensibility], and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept [sensibility], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality. [sensibility + understanding]


What Kant meant in the above is;
Reason which should be confined the the field of reason, somehow duped the person in thinking there is something real even when there are no sensible elements involved. Thus reason create an illusion, e.g. God [confined to reason] is real [sensibility + understanding].

Not only the above, but Reason will continue to dupe the person even at time s/he may see the truth.
  • They 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.
    B397
This is the position you are in where your mind by instinct is driving you to something real when there is nothing real as per your intended object.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply