Re: Kant
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:52 am
I said no such thing.
You seem to have some reading comprehension issues, and a low RQ can make people wait for the second coming of Jesus based on some prophecies.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I said no such thing.
Hmm okay so apparently what Kant was talking about really isn't applicable to the real world.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:25 amI did not prove the negative, i.e. God does not exist.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:03 pmIt's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (like God or the thing-in-itself).Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am ...
The empirical is supported by reason, but there are reasons without empirical basis, Kant assumed and assigned the thing-in-itself to such reasoned ideas based on pure reason. One of such ultimate thing-in-itself is God, a transcendental illusion.
Now that God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real, such a proof is very practical to wean off theism and cut off the grounds of all theistic driven evil and violent acts committed in the name of a supposedly real God.
The illusory thing-in-itself is also manifested the Categorical Imperatives which are ideals and illusion, but they are very useful as guides to the practical ethics to improve the moral and ethics competence of humans. Kant provided very sophisticated and refined arguments to justify this in reconciling 'ought from is' morally and apply ought back to 'is' ethically.
To top it all, all the elements of the Philosophy of Kant are to support his vision and mission of Perpetual Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... cal_Sketch
Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.
It is just that such a subject is not ABC and unfortunately Kant is not a good writer thus difficult for most to grasp his ideas.
And while we have no reason to assume a God, we have all the reasons to assume the thing-in-itself.
I proved the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, thus an impossibility to be real.
It is just like insisting 'a square-circle exists' as real, which is obviously a non-starter.
According to Kant, the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion and the only effective utility to assume it is for the purpose of morality within one self.
Note Kant stated "the moral law within me" which imply he is not referring to any external 'ought' to be enforced or imposed on society.
- “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
Theists has a critical reason to insist God exists as real but it is merely an assumption based on crude ['pure'] reason - thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is fundamentally psychological.
As stated above,Surely you must realize that this is nonsense?God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real
Yes our beliefs about God are proven illusory, there is no sign of God. Which doesn't mean that God can't be real.
If the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, it is an impossibility to be real.
There is no means for the absolute God to be real at all.
Kant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.
Well you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistemology. Are you talking about what one believes to be the case, or why they believe it? You acknowledge that the epistemological default in the presumption that the puppy exists. Technically that position is called 'naive realism'; a typical argument for which goes along the lines of:
The same way everybody does it. You choose which problems to recognise and which to ignore, and then you deny all the facts unfavourable to your position.
Ontology (I guess, but I have a unified model of everything so it's difficult to split it up). I was talking about something else, two different meanings for 'causation'. Saying that noumena and phenomena are somehow fundamentally different and one causes the other is wrong.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 amWell you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistemology. Are you talking about what one believes to be the case, or why they believe it? You acknowledge that the epistemological default in the presumption that the puppy exists. Technically that position is called 'naive realism'; a typical argument for which goes along the lines of:
How do I know the puppy exists?
Because I can see it.
As you point out, it doesn't follow that any experience of a puppy has an external cause, or even any cause. A universe in which experiences of puppies are randomly generated, would ontologically be very different from the 'naive realist' perspective, but it could be epistemologically indistinguishable and for all anyone can tell, we could be living in a random puppy universe. But it is not "insane" to believe that puppies, in some form, 'exist' out side our heads.
No, but it could mean that you categorize words as either mental or material, so you are a dualist.And again: if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.
Well anyway, in the 'real world', there are things beyond human perception that are probably real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:23 amKant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.
For Kant, the point is while the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion, it cannot be real, but yet the thing-in-itself can be useful as a guide for the purpose of morality and practical ethics.
Relative to what ideal for determination?
It follows directly. All models have edge and corner cases which dictate operating limits.
That a theory which explains everything - explains nothing. If a scientific model could account for everything "you" disappear.
He failed to address whether "a posteriori" is actually "a priori" in itself as "a posteriori" is a classification of the senses...it broke down phenomenonon into a dualistic nature without producing a necessary grounds as to what this assumptive nature is...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'.
You are a clueless moron.HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:09 amYou are not very bright, I don't remember the difference because I don't waste time on them, no matter who said what doesn't make Kant less outdated and irrelevant.
Only if Kant had relevance I would spend more time on him and thereby remember who said what ..OMG!!!
Distinctions as to a priori and a posteriori predate Kant by millennia and remain natural, obvious and foundational to all epistemology; as useful today as it was to Plato.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:06 pmHe failed to address whether "a posteriori" is actually "a priori" in itself as "a posteriori" is a classification of the senses...it broke down phenomenonon into a dualistic nature without producing a necessary grounds as to what this assumptive nature is...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'.
His foundations are empty...
Agree, there are things beyond human perception that are possible to be real but that is subject to evidence [with real basis] that can justify they are real.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:53 pmWell anyway, in the 'real world', there are things beyond human perception that are probably real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:23 amKant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.
For Kant, the point is while the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion, it cannot be real, but yet the thing-in-itself can be useful as a guide for the purpose of morality and practical ethics.