Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am
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.
Of course it's an assumption as I already said like a dozen times.
And that doesn't make it impossible to be real either.
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' "?
Of course that's how it works.
But you said "the 'thing-in-itself' cannot be co-dependent with appearance" so either you were talking about 'grounded' IN ANOTHER SENSE, or you were talking about 'co-dependent' in some NAIVE REALISM SENSE which obviously no one here with the vaguest clue is talking about.

I'm losing my patience with this much unnecessary idiocy.
Last edited by Atla on Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:39 am
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.
From what you've posted, I inferred that you are a pantheist.
It is very obvious from your post, you bring in the Universe without providing proof the Universe exists.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 am
3. The WHOLE Universe.
I'll grab some popcorn while you look for proof of The Universe.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am
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.
It's not an assumption. it's a metaphysical limit. Science is the best metaphysic we have.

If you have another, better, less constrained metaphysic for learning/understanding - share it with us.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am
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.

DNA wise all humans experience certain universal empirical illusions e.g. bent stick in water, 'curved' straight parallel lines, etc.
You are arguing for DNA-determinism. Science disagrees with you.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am
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.
And somebody could cognize a rope when it's a snake. All of those mistakes are summised into two categories.

False positives and false negatives

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:28 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:38 am
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.
Of course it's an assumption as I already said like a dozen times.
And that doesn't make it impossible to be real either.
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' "?
Of course that's how it works.
But you said "the 'thing-in-itself' cannot be co-dependent with appearance" so either you were talking about 'grounded' IN ANOTHER SENSE, or you were talking about 'co-dependent' in some NAIVE REALISM SENSE which obviously no one here with the vaguest clue is talking about.

I'm losing my patience with this much unnecessary idiocy.
Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:28 am
Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself.
Lol. What. Are you claiming that you are NOT ignorant of a thing-in-itself?

In context of the token/type distinction.

Could you tell me what a token electron is, in itself?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:28 am
Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself.
And how do you know that you got it right? And I'm not necessarily using Kant's usage of these concepts either, I can't even make sense of Kant's usage.
Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship.[14] However, Stephen Palmquist holds that "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" are only loosely synonymous, inasmuch as they represent the same concept viewed from two different perspectives,[15][16] and other scholars also argue that they are not identical.
...
Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing:

"...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"

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:48 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:28 am
Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself.
And how do you know that you got it right? And I'm not necessarily using Kant's usage of these concepts either, I can't even make sense of Kant's usage.
Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship.[14] However, Stephen Palmquist holds that "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" are only loosely synonymous, inasmuch as they represent the same concept viewed from two different perspectives,[15][16] and other scholars also argue that they are not identical.
...
Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing
I have spent 3 years reading and researching Kant's philosophy and have read 1000+!! of related books and articles on Kantian Philosophy. I have done a flowchart for each chapter of the Kant and overall flowchart for the CPR. So I am not merely opining what I think is Kant's thought, but at least there a great degree of objectivity on my interpretation of Kant.

I am very familiar with Stephen Palmquist, he is a theist, like other theists thus twisted Kant's philosophy toward a theological spin due to confirmation bias.

Instead of referring to Stephen Palmquist you should read up the chapter related to Phenomena versus Noumenon and if necessary the whole of the CPR many times to understand [not necessary agree] what the issue is about.
Especially with Kant it is never advisable to depend on secondary sources because people with different background will be bias to the inherent interests.
This is why I put in some much time researching Kant and ensuring as much objectivity as possible in my approach driven by philosophy-proper.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:48 am
I have spent 3 years reading and researching Kant's philosophy and have read 1000+!! of related books and articles on Kantian Philosophy. I have done a flowchart for each chapter of the Kant and overall flowchart for the CPR. So I am not merely opining what I think is Kant's thought, but at least there a great degree of objectivity on my interpretation of Kant.

I am very familiar with Stephen Palmquist, he is a theist, like other theists thus twisted Kant's philosophy toward a theological spin due to confirmation bias.
You said:
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.
Kant said:
...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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:01 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:48 am
I have spent 3 years reading and researching Kant's philosophy and have read 1000+!! of related books and articles on Kantian Philosophy. I have done a flowchart for each chapter of the Kant and overall flowchart for the CPR. So I am not merely opining what I think is Kant's thought, but at least there a great degree of objectivity on my interpretation of Kant.

I am very familiar with Stephen Palmquist, he is a theist, like other theists thus twisted Kant's philosophy toward a theological spin due to confirmation bias.
You said:
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.
Kant said:
...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
Note 'think' not conclude objects-in-themselves as real.
Beside you should read context of the above statement within the chapter and whole book of the CPR.
The above is from the 2nd preface (B xxvii) with a qualification note to things in themselves,
  • *To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
    But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
    This suffices for the Possibility of the Concept, even though I may not be able to answer for there being, in the sum of all possibilities, an Object corresponding to it.
    But Something more is required before I can ascribe to such a Concept Objective Validity, that is, Real Possibility; the former Possibility is merely Logical.
    This Something more need not, however, be sought in the Theoretical sources of Knowledge; it may lie in those that are Practical.
Thus we can think of the noumenon but Kant stated,
  • 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
It is has a limiting concept having a limiting function, but the concept of noumenon should not lead to it as a thing.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:01 am
Note 'think' not conclude objects-in-themselves as real.
Beside you should read context of the above statement within the chapter and whole book of the CPR.
The above is from the 2nd preface (B xxvii) with a qualification note to things in themselves,
  • *To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
    But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
    This suffices for the Possibility of the Concept, even though I may not be able to answer for there being, in the sum of all possibilities, an Object corresponding to it.
    But Something more is required before I can ascribe to such a Concept Objective Validity, that is, Real Possibility; the former Possibility is merely Logical.
    This Something more need not, however, be sought in the Theoretical sources of Knowledge; it may lie in those that are Practical.
Thus we can think of the noumenon but Kant stated,
  • 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
It is has a limiting concept having a limiting function, but the concept of noumenon should not lead to it as a thing.
So you are saying that
1. noumena are independent of human sense/perception

But since there can't be appearances without anything that appears, you are also saying that
2. noumena aren't independent of human sense/perception?

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

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:01 am
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
How and why have you chosen the religion of non-contradiction?

Quantum logic allows for dialethisms.

Here's a paper: The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:40 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:01 am
Note 'think' not conclude objects-in-themselves as real.
Beside you should read context of the above statement within the chapter and whole book of the CPR.
The above is from the 2nd preface (B xxvii) with a qualification note to things in themselves,
  • *To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
    But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
    This suffices for the Possibility of the Concept, even though I may not be able to answer for there being, in the sum of all possibilities, an Object corresponding to it.
    But Something more is required before I can ascribe to such a Concept Objective Validity, that is, Real Possibility; the former Possibility is merely Logical.
    This Something more need not, however, be sought in the Theoretical sources of Knowledge; it may lie in those that are Practical.
Thus we can think of the noumenon but Kant stated,
  • 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
It is has a limiting concept having a limiting function, but the concept of noumenon should not lead to it as a thing.
So you are saying that
1. noumena are independent of human sense/perception

But since there can't be appearances without anything that appears, you are also saying that
2. noumena aren't independent of human sense/perception?
Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception.

However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept;

2. the noumenon is the basis of phenomenon.

Subsequently this assumption will expose the impulse to reify the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is due to one's psychology.

Kant explained here why we need to THINK of the noumenon or thing-in-itself;
  • We may not say that this Idea is a Concept of the Object, but only of the Thoroughgoing Unity of such Concepts, in so far as that Unity serves as a Rule for the Understanding.

    By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
    We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.

    -B674
As Kant stated, PURE, the IDEAL, the absolute independence of the empirical are never real!
But we require [thus THINK] a concept of them [noumenon - the pure empirical] to gather more knowledge of Appearances [empirical] and subsequent issues of reality.

So that is the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. there is no such things a PURE, ideal empirical thing, but we need a concept of the noumenon to have a greater understanding of the empirical.
In the non-conceptual situation, i.e. re thoughts only we have the IDEA of the thing-in-itself which again is to gain a greater understand to reality.

Get it?

Point is if you read the whole of the CPR you will get a better picture as the principles of the above are repeated often.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:40 am
Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception.

However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept;

2. the noumenon is the basis of phenomenon.

Subsequently this assumption will expose the impulse to reify the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is due to one's psychology.

Kant explained here why we need to THINK of the noumenon or thing-in-itself;
  • We may not say that this Idea is a Concept of the Object, but only of the Thoroughgoing Unity of such Concepts, in so far as that Unity serves as a Rule for the Understanding.

    By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
    We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.

    -B674
As Kant stated, PURE, the IDEAL, the absolute independence of the empirical are never real!
But we require [thus THINK] a concept of them [noumenon - the pure empirical] to gather more knowledge of Appearances [empirical] and subsequent issues of reality.

So that is the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. there is no such things a PURE, ideal empirical thing, but we need a concept of the noumenon to have a greater understanding of the empirical.
In the non-conceptual situation, i.e. re thoughts only we have the IDEA of the thing-in-itself which again is to gain a greater understand to reality.

Get it?

Point is if you read the whole of the CPR you will get a better picture as the principles of the above are repeated often.
What made you think that anyone here is talking about pure idea(l)s? Pure idea(l)s are obvious nonsense.
The topic is about how or whether Kant's categories are relevant to today's understanding of reality.

It's common/basic even today in both Western philosophy and science to divide the 'real world' into the phenomenal and the noumenal, and Kant is usually seen as the main figure to whom we have our understanding to thank.

But the above is an error of epic proportions, if his categories were merely used to dismiss some Platonic or whatever tradition of Pure Reason (which tradition is obviously batshit).

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

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:21 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:49 pm
if legitimate, should have no problem giving measurement and definition to the void.
Here is an example of how to use double-negation with void constructively: https://rufflewind.com/2016-12-11/doubl ... limination

And here is an answer an answer by Bartosz Milewski on explaining why that's the case

In the world that has no bottom, the negation of t is t->Void.

He's basically arguing anti-foundationalism. From an empty foundation - anything follows. The truth that every philosopher knows, but refuses to acknowledge.
That is because you end up having to meld mysticism and reason together and we are left with Eastern philosophy (daoism, buddhism, hinduism) where "void" is an actual premise. Western philosophy, in its continual pursuit of "reason", has failed to acknowledge that its grounding are empty assumptions.

The only rational stance, is to strictly observe "assumption" as a self-referencing foundation...but this kills 2000+ years of eastern thought.

One can assume and be rational, it is the expansion of definition (connected assumptions) that gives clarity to any argument.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:24 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:43 pm

No, no, no.
The phenomena are things as perceived.

But this is distinct from the Noumena, which are the things are they truly are; NOT shit in your head, but stuff that the senses can't get to - or not without aid. The things "Ding an sich", are as they are not perceptible to the senses; as they are NOT obtainable by the senses.

If this thread is about Kant, at least get your facts straight.
Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.

Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,
  • 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.

    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    CPR - B311
    viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?

You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . SInce humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.


Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.

What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!

.


I suggest you read the above quoted point re the noumenon carefully in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.
I suggest you try to understand the context in which this passage was written.
I suggest you answer how to make a distinction over what distinction is without either going in a loop, referencing intuition, and or making an assumption...and stop avoiding my point.

Sculpt me a hollow little answer.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests