Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:07 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:00 am
Kant however did show there an empirical table but there is NO table-in-itself as reality, other than it is an illusion driven by the subjects' psychology.

You are struggling with your own psychology [cognitive dissonance] on this issue which insist there is an absolutely absolute reality when there is none at all.
What cognitive dissonance? There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.

Do you understand that we are always talking about 3 'categories' here?
Explain how can you prove there is a real absolutely independent table-in-itself out there.
At most you are merely assuming there is a independent table out there.

Note Russell's dilemma I quoted above. Did you grasp the essence of the problem and dilemma he faced.
viewtopic.php?p=425315#p425315

Kant had resolved the above dilemma and conclude there is no real thing-in-itself or table-in-itself. To insist there is a real thing-in-itself is grabbing at a transcendental illusion.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:07 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:00 am
Kant however did show there an empirical table but there is NO table-in-itself as reality, other than it is an illusion driven by the subjects' psychology.

You are struggling with your own psychology [cognitive dissonance] on this issue which insist there is an absolutely absolute reality when there is none at all.
What cognitive dissonance? There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.

Do you understand that we are always talking about 3 'categories' here?
Explain how can you prove there is a real absolutely independent table-in-itself out there.
At most you are merely assuming there is a independent table out there.

Note Russell's dilemma I quoted above. Did you grasp the essence of the problem and dilemma he faced.
viewtopic.php?p=425315#p425315

Kant had resolved the above dilemma and conclude there is no real thing-in-itself or table-in-itself. To insist there is a real thing-in-itself is grabbing at a transcendental illusion.
No, I said there is probably a non-absolutely-independent table 'out there'.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:05 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:00 pm
Hehe maybe God is tricky.. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell. :) :) :)
Despite P4 is sarcasm? Your above argument is groundless and fallacious.
  • P1- God exists
    P2. Hehe maybe God is tricky..
    P3. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him.
    P4. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell.
You merely throw in P1 without proofs nor justifications.
This is why the belief in God is based on faith.

The proper argument should be;
  • P1. Humans exists [self -evident]
    P2. DNA wise all humans are infected with an existential crisis and pains [proof available]
    P3. The existential pains are most effectively with the idea God exists as real [proof available]
    P4. Therefore God exists
    P3. God is tricky and whatever.
As from the above, it is more likely the idea of 'God exists as real' is psychological and driven by the human DNA.
"Proof available" if required.

It is so easy for theists to test P3.
For any theists to be forced or even in thinking 'God is false and an illusion' the theist will be automatically be triggered with mental pains of fears, anxieties, Angst, discomforts and the likes.
Some theists will even kill anyone who threatens their theism as a security blanket, this is so evident.
I obviously didn't say that God is real for sure, I was mentioning a possibility.
Look I don't know what kind of constant psychological torment you lived or live in, but many people don't really have it.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:23 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:55 am
Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly.
Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that assumption.

There is nothing wrong with speculating on empirical possibility within the unknown.
I can predict there are stars, suns, and other empirical object is a universe one billion light years away, because these are all empirical possible object which can be empirically verified upon availability of evidences.

However your belief, God exists as unknown is an impossibility like a square-circle exists.
This insistence is due to desperate existential psychology within.

Note there are non-theists who acknowledge this existential psychology and they have lived efficiently, productively and happily without clinging to a God as real or unknown.

Thus the isolating variable is the psychological factor. If theists can deal with the existential psychological basis, they can do the same as non-theists and lived efficiently, productively and happily without the accompany fear of God and/or the threat of perdition and hellfire.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:23 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:55 am
Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly.
Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that assumption.

There is nothing wrong with speculating on empirical possibility within the unknown.
I can predict there are stars, suns, and other empirical object is a universe one billion light years away, because these are all empirical possible object which can be empirically verified upon availability of evidences.

However your belief, God exists as unknown is an impossibility like a square-circle exists.
This insistence is due to desperate existential psychology within.

Note there are non-theists who acknowledge this existential psychology and they have lived efficiently, productively and happily without clinging to a God as real or unknown.

Thus the isolating variable is the psychological factor. If theists can deal with the existential psychological basis, they can do the same as non-theists and lived efficiently, productively and happily without the accompany fear of God and/or the threat of perdition and hellfire.
Again, you are just making a disgusting ass out of yourself as usual by projecting on me that I "believe" that God exists.
And while limiting speculation to the empirical is rational, no one said that we are forced to remain rational.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:38 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:19 am
I obviously didn't say that God is real for sure, I was mentioning a possibility.
Look I don't know what kind of constant psychological torment you lived or live in, but many people don't really have it.
Those existential crisis and pains are pulsating subliminally within the subconscious mind, thus the majority [many] are not conscious of it.
However you cannot deny there are many who are conscious of the existential pains of anxieties, despairs, Angst, hopelessness, lost, etc, that pushed them to cling to a God.

However for the majority of theists, their terrible impulses of subliminal discomfort are expressed in their outer behaviors, such as being zealous religiously, dogmatic to doctrines, pray, going to church every week, paying tithe to the church, volunteering, proselytizing and doing whatever God commands them to do as in their scriptures. If they don't that they will experience the existential pains as guilt, uneasiness, etc.

For example, the wearing of hijab or full covering of their body, the Muslim women will often claim it is voluntary, but actually this is directed subliminally by the existential drives to soothe the existential pains.

At the extreme, the subliminal impulses will even drive the believers to kill non-believers and even worst drive them to commit suicide for the interest of their God.

That you are driven to belief in God is due to a certain degrees of the subliminal pains from an existential crisis within you.

You need to do research on the subconscious mind and its subliminal effects.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:39 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:23 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:55 am
Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly.
Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that assumption.

There is nothing wrong with speculating on empirical possibility within the unknown.
I can predict there are stars, suns, and other empirical object is a universe one billion light years away, because these are all empirical possible object which can be empirically verified upon availability of evidences.

However your belief, God exists as unknown is an impossibility like a square-circle exists.
This insistence is due to desperate existential psychology within.

Note there are non-theists who acknowledge this existential psychology and they have lived efficiently, productively and happily without clinging to a God as real or unknown.

Thus the isolating variable is the psychological factor. If theists can deal with the existential psychological basis, they can do the same as non-theists and lived efficiently, productively and happily without the accompany fear of God and/or the threat of perdition and hellfire.
Again, you are just making a disgusting ass out of yourself as usual by projecting on me that I "believe" that God exists.
And while limiting speculation to the empirical is rational, no one said that we are forced to remain rational.
From what you have posted, I inferred you are a theist.
It is very obvious from your post, your bring in God without providing proofs God exists.

Are you a non-theist then, if not what?
To avoid confusion, why don't you describe your position.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:39 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:23 am

Again, your argument is flawed when you assumed 'God exists' without proof and proceed to link premises to that assumption.

There is nothing wrong with speculating on empirical possibility within the unknown.
I can predict there are stars, suns, and other empirical object is a universe one billion light years away, because these are all empirical possible object which can be empirically verified upon availability of evidences.

However your belief, God exists as unknown is an impossibility like a square-circle exists.
This insistence is due to desperate existential psychology within.

Note there are non-theists who acknowledge this existential psychology and they have lived efficiently, productively and happily without clinging to a God as real or unknown.

Thus the isolating variable is the psychological factor. If theists can deal with the existential psychological basis, they can do the same as non-theists and lived efficiently, productively and happily without the accompany fear of God and/or the threat of perdition and hellfire.
Again, you are just making a disgusting ass out of yourself as usual by projecting on me that I "believe" that God exists.
And while limiting speculation to the empirical is rational, no one said that we are forced to remain rational.
From what you have posted, I inferred you are a theist.

Are you a non-theist then, if not what?
To avoid confusion, why don't you describe your position.
I've been an atheist for like 30 years, and so far this has been blatantly obvious to almost everyone else.
Why do you think you haven't been able to realize that?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:44 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:07 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:49 am

What cognitive dissonance? There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.

Do you understand that we are always talking about 3 'categories' here?
Explain how can you prove there is a real absolutely independent table-in-itself out there.
At most you are merely assuming there is a independent table out there.

Note Russell's dilemma I quoted above. Did you grasp the essence of the problem and dilemma he faced.
viewtopic.php?p=425315#p425315

Kant had resolved the above dilemma and conclude there is no real thing-in-itself or table-in-itself. To insist there is a real thing-in-itself is grabbing at a transcendental illusion.
No, I said there is probably a non-absolutely-independent table 'out there'.
From your point,
There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.
What you are basing on is an absolutely-independent table 'out there' independent of appearance.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:48 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:39 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 am

Again, you are just making a disgusting ass out of yourself as usual by projecting on me that I "believe" that God exists.
And while limiting speculation to the empirical is rational, no one said that we are forced to remain rational.
From what you have posted, I inferred you are a theist.

Are you a non-theist then, if not what?
To avoid confusion, why don't you describe your position.
I've been an atheist for like 30 years, and so far this has been blatantly obvious to almost everyone else.
Why do you think you haven't been able to realize that?
Noted.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:44 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:07 am

Explain how can you prove there is a real absolutely independent table-in-itself out there.
At most you are merely assuming there is a independent table out there.

Note Russell's dilemma I quoted above. Did you grasp the essence of the problem and dilemma he faced.
viewtopic.php?p=425315#p425315

Kant had resolved the above dilemma and conclude there is no real thing-in-itself or table-in-itself. To insist there is a real thing-in-itself is grabbing at a transcendental illusion.
No, I said there is probably a non-absolutely-independent table 'out there'.
From your point,
There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.
What you are basing on is an absolutely-independent table 'out there' independent of appearance.
There are 3 relevant categories here:
1. 'thing-in-itself' independent of appearance
2. 'thing-in-itself' not independent of appearance
3. appearance

Aren't you conflating 1. and 2.?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:06 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:44 am
What you are basing on is an absolutely-independent table 'out there' independent of appearance.
There are 3 relevant categories here:
1. 'thing-in-itself' independent of appearance
2. 'thing-in-itself' not independent of appearance
3. appearance

Aren't you conflating 1. and 2.?
Point 2 is not a possibility to be real.

Appearance is grounded on sensibility, i.e. the human conditions.
The thing-in-itself is not grounded on sensibility.
Therefore the "thing-in-itself" cannot be co-dependent with appearance.

The thing-in-itself is driven by the faculty of reason, i.e. pure primal crude reason, thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant also implied the thing-in-itself is related to one's own psychology, and I argued it is due to the existential psychology.

In support the thing-in-itself is without sensibility, I quoted B9 and B397 where Kant mentioned how Plato omitted the sensible grounds, and absence of empirical elements;
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
    CPR B9
and;
  • 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 of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    CPR -B397
I have done this many times, but I anticipate you are not likely to grasp them as one has to read the whole of the CPR many times to understand [not necessary agree] Kant's philosophy.

Note the inevitable illusion that drive one to reify objective reality. This is the work of a parasitic zombie that drive the person to claim reality out of non-reality in desperation.

In the case of theists [not you], the parasitic zombie will compel the theists to kill non-believers or even the believer himself on a misperception of threats to their beliefs.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:06 am
Point 2 is not a possibility to be real.
Almost everything science does is based on point 2. Did you miss the last few hundred years?
Appearance is grounded on sensibility, i.e. the human conditions.
The thing-in-itself is not grounded on sensibility.
Therefore the "thing-in-itself" cannot be co-dependent with appearance.
Word salad. Nothing is "grounded on sensibility".

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:04 am

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:49 pm
How dare you quote Feynman, you scurrilous scobberlotcher.
Ooooh! If you bow at Feynman's altar and you feel that I am tarnishing his honour, then how dare you ignore Feynman on the issue of categories?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:06 am
Point 2 is not a possibility to be real.
Almost everything science does is based on point 2. Did you miss the last few hundred years?
You got it wrong.
Science made point 2 as merely an assumption not claimed it as a ground nor truth.
This is why Popper claimed scientific theories are at best polished conjectures grounded on various assumptions.
Appearance is grounded on sensibility, i.e. the human conditions.
The thing-in-itself is not grounded on sensibility.
Therefore the "thing-in-itself" cannot be co-dependent with appearance.
Word salad. Nothing is "grounded on sensibility".
It is obvious appearances to various living things are grounded on their respective DNA.
A bat, a fly and other animals do not cognize and experience the same appearances like humans.

If there are variations in human conditions human experiences empirical illusions.
Note empirical illusions are different from transcendental illusions.
Someone may cognize a snake when it is a rope depending one state of mind and external conditions.

DNA wise all humans experience certain universal empirical illusions e.g. bent stick in water, 'curved' straight parallel lines, etc.
Note various illusions of sensibility, i.e. sense perception here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je1mkzRU5rc

How can you be so ignorant to insist "Nothing is 'grounded on sensibility' "?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests