Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an explanation why 'Perfect Circle' cannot and is impossible to exist as real.

1. What is empirically real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
2. A perfect circle is noumenon [from Reason] that is beyond empirical "sensibility + understanding".
3. Therefore a perfect-circle is impossible to be real.

The realm of Sensibility + Understanding = real empirical things.
This how empirical things are derived from experiences.
Humans perceived things of all shapes, e.g. roundish ones.
From such observations and using understanding, the empirical concept of circle is abstracted with its various defined qualities.
In this case we can verify and know empirical circles existing as real.

However we have a faculty of Reason which can think of PERFECT CIRCLES and attributed it with a definition and qualities.
But the point while a Perfect circle as extrapolated from empirical circles, they are impossible to exists as real. There can NEVER be any absolute PERFECT Circles in the empirical world of sensibility + understanding.

Show me where can one find a real perfect_circle-in-itself?
The argument is related to Plato's ideas, forms and universals as real things that are independent of humans.
Thus a PERFECT circle can be thought of but cannot be really real in the empirical world.
The Perfect Circle is the noumenal-circle which a limit to what is a circle.
This is the principle of the Noumenon that is applicable a limit to all sensible and empirical things.

Here is the impossibility of a perfect circle in reality;

• Mathematical Perfection
  Mathematically speaking, a circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point. For a circle to be perfect, you'd need all those points in the circle's circumference to match up exactly.
  And for all those points to match up exactly you'd need this precision to remain constant no matter how closely you looked: the particles, the cells, the atoms... And are these "points" stationary or are they in motion?
  The maddening search for perfection simply breaks down.
  
  Only in the abstract world of pure mathematics can we find our perfect circle -- a world of points and infinitely-thin lines with no room for particle inconsistencies or spherical oblateness.
  https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blo ... iverse.htm

Forms From Beyond
The situation brings to mind Plato's Theory of Forms. We live in the material realm, it states, but beyond our plane exists an immaterial realm of ideal forms. You can think of these ideal forms as the absolute perfection of a given thing, a truth that cannot be manifested in our universe. All we can do is echo it.

In our world there is no true beauty, but we have an innate understanding and longing for the true form of beauty as it exists beyond the limits of our reality. There's no true justice here, but we have a sense of it because the unreachable ideal exists in the realm of forms.

The Theory of Forms applies to chairs, apples, fears, sex, art -- everything we can comprehend and long for, really. For each there is a godlike ideal beyond our worldly grasp, residing in a pantheon of other awesome and terrible forms.

The circle is but one of them, its perfection impossible in our imperfect world.

https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blo ... iverse.htm

My Point;
A Perfect Circle is impossible to exists as real, i.e. within the field of sensibility + understandng + rationality.

Any counter to the above?

A perfect circle is most likely an abstraction and does not actually exist in itself. But that's not what 'noumenal' means today, get a dictionary already.

We are in a philosophy forum, thus any general dictionary is of secondary importance in contrast to the direct meaning from Kant.
I believe most dictionary will refer the term 'noumenal' from noumenon back to Kant.

[Atla]

Here is an explanation why 'Perfect Circle' cannot and is impossible to exist as real.

1. What is empirically real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
2. A perfect circle is noumenon [from Reason] that is beyond empirical "sensibility + understanding".
3. Therefore a perfect-circle is impossible to be real.

The realm of Sensibility + Understanding = real empirical things.
This how empirical things are derived from experiences.
Humans perceived things of all shapes, e.g. roundish ones.
From such observations and using understanding, the empirical concept of circle is abstracted with its various defined qualities.
In this case we can verify and know empirical circles existing as real.

However we have a faculty of Reason which can think of PERFECT CIRCLES and attributed it with a definition and qualities.
But the point while a Perfect circle as extrapolated from empirical circles, they are impossible to exists as real. There can NEVER be any absolute PERFECT Circles in the empirical world of sensibility + understanding.

Show me where can one find a real perfect_circle-in-itself?
The argument is related to Plato's ideas, forms and universals as real things that are independent of humans.
Thus a PERFECT circle can be thought of but cannot be really real in the empirical world.
The Perfect Circle is the noumenal-circle which a limit to what is a circle.
This is the principle of the Noumenon that is applicable a limit to all sensible and empirical things.

Here is the impossibility of a perfect circle in reality;

• Mathematical Perfection
  Mathematically speaking, a circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point. For a circle to be perfect, you'd need all those points in the circle's circumference to match up exactly.
  And for all those points to match up exactly you'd need this precision to remain constant no matter how closely you looked: the particles, the cells, the atoms... And are these "points" stationary or are they in motion?
  The maddening search for perfection simply breaks down.
  
  Only in the abstract world of pure mathematics can we find our perfect circle -- a world of points and infinitely-thin lines with no room for particle inconsistencies or spherical oblateness.
  https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blo ... iverse.htm

My Point;
A Perfect Circle is impossible to exists as real, i.e. within the field of sensibility + understandng + rationality.

Any counter to the above?

A perfect circle is most likely an abstraction and does not actually exist in itself. But that's not what 'noumenal' means today, get a dictionary already.

We are in a philosophy forum, thus any general dictionary is of secondary importance in contrast to the direct meaning from Kant.
I believe most dictionary will refer the term 'noumenal' from noumenon back to Kant.

I showed you a list about the definition of noumenon (derived from Kant) and you disagreed with it.
We are on a philosophy forum, but it's your private language against the world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A perfect circle is most likely an abstraction and does not actually exist in itself. But that's not what 'noumenal' means today, get a dictionary already.

We are in a philosophy forum, thus any general dictionary is of secondary importance in contrast to the direct meaning from Kant.
I believe most dictionary will refer the term 'noumenal' from noumenon back to Kant.

I showed you a list about the definition of noumenon (derived from Kant) and you disagreed with it.
We are on a philosophy forum, but it's your private language against the world.

Note I provided references of page reference from the Critique of Pure Reason.

You pick yours from Wiki and wherever.
How can that be credible?

[Atla]

Note I provided references of page reference from the Critique of Pure Reason.

You pick yours from Wiki and wherever.
How can that be credible?

You idiot. I picked my list from like 10 different dictionaries, the first 10 hits in google, 1 or 2 of that was the Wiki.

YOU have no credibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I provided references of page reference from the Critique of Pure Reason.

You pick yours from Wiki and wherever.
How can that be credible?

You idiot. I picked my list from like 10 different dictionaries, the first 10 hits in google, 1 or 2 of that was the Wiki.

YOU have no credibility.

Re your first Wiki definition, I had pointed that definition has a quote that refer back to Kant.
So we should fall back on Kant as the authority instead of arguing over the secondary definition.

It is the same for the other definition you listed.

[Atla]

Note I provided references of page reference from the Critique of Pure Reason.

You pick yours from Wiki and wherever.
How can that be credible?

You idiot. I picked my list from like 10 different dictionaries, the first 10 hits in google, 1 or 2 of that was the Wiki.

YOU have no credibility.

Re your first Wiki definition, I had pointed that definition has a quote that refer back to Kant.
So we should fall back on Kant as the authority instead of arguing over the secondary definition.

It is the same for the other definition you listed.

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You idiot. I picked my list from like 10 different dictionaries, the first 10 hits in google, 1 or 2 of that was the Wiki.

YOU have no credibility.

Re your first Wiki definition, I had pointed that definition has a quote that refer back to Kant.
So we should fall back on Kant as the authority instead of arguing over the secondary definition.

It is the same for the other definition you listed.

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

[Atla]

Re your first Wiki definition, I had pointed that definition has a quote that refer back to Kant.
So we should fall back on Kant as the authority instead of arguing over the secondary definition.

It is the same for the other definition you listed.

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

That's right it's a limiting concept, and not Platonic illusions themselves, in the head.
And today's meaning of noumenon simply refers to the directly unknowable, as derived from Kant. You disagreed with that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I gave you a list of like 10 definitons which all disagree with you. And those definitions are derived from Kant (you seem to even disagree with Kant and use Plato's meaning).
It's how we use English words today. You are on a philosophy forum so either adapt or fuck off.

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

That's right it's a limiting concept, and not Platonic illusions themselves, in the head.
And today's meaning of noumenon simply refers to the directly unknowable, as derived from Kant. You disagreed with that.

Basically the noumenon is a type of thing-in-itself and the same as Plato's ideas and universals. Fundamentally they are all the same.
Kant has isolated certain things-in-themselves that has empirical relations as 'noumenon'.

[Atla]

What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• 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

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

That's right it's a limiting concept, and not Platonic illusions themselves, in the head.
And today's meaning of noumenon simply refers to the directly unknowable, as derived from Kant. You disagreed with that.

Basically the noumenon is a type of thing-in-itself and the same as Plato's ideas and universals. Fundamentally they are all the same.
Kant has isolated certain things-in-themselves that has empirical relations as 'noumenon'.

Yes that's what you believe. So you disagree with Kant's definition and you completely disagree with today's commonly accepted usage of noumenon, thing-in-itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's right it's a limiting concept, and not Platonic illusions themselves, in the head.
And today's meaning of noumenon simply refers to the directly unknowable, as derived from Kant. You disagreed with that.

Basically the noumenon is a type of thing-in-itself and the same as Plato's ideas and universals. Fundamentally they are all the same.
Kant has isolated certain things-in-themselves that has empirical relations as 'noumenon'.

Yes that's what you believe. So you disagree with Kant's definition and you completely disagree with today's commonly accepted usage of noumenon, thing-in-itself.

I stated Kant's thing-in-itself and noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals.
Logically how can I disagree with Kant's definition.

If we are to discuss the noumenon in a philosophy like this, it would be more credible to refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rather than secondary sources. This is a default intellectual requirement.

[Atla]

Basically the noumenon is a type of thing-in-itself and the same as Plato's ideas and universals. Fundamentally they are all the same.
Kant has isolated certain things-in-themselves that has empirical relations as 'noumenon'.

Yes that's what you believe. So you disagree with Kant's definition and you completely disagree with today's commonly accepted usage of noumenon, thing-in-itself.

I stated Kant's thing-in-itself and noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals.
Logically how can I disagree with Kant's definition.

If we are to discuss the noumenon in a philosophy like this, it would be more credible to refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rather than secondary sources. This is a default intellectual requirement.

No, you stated that
- Kant's noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals
- Kant's noumenon is a limiting function
- Kant's noumenon only concerns the empirical, about 10% of Kant's philosophy

You also implied that
- things in itself and noumenon are the same
- things in itself and noumenon are not the same

So you have given about 6 contradictory definitions so far. AND you dismiss the fact that Kant in the end acknowledged the thing-out-there. AND you dismiss the fact that the main definition of noumenon today (as derived from Kant) totally disagrees with you.

In short you have no idea what you're actually talking about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes that's what you believe. So you disagree with Kant's definition and you completely disagree with today's commonly accepted usage of noumenon, thing-in-itself.

I stated Kant's thing-in-itself and noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals.
Logically how can I disagree with Kant's definition.

If we are to discuss the noumenon in a philosophy like this, it would be more credible to refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rather than secondary sources. This is a default intellectual requirement.

No, you stated that
- Kant's noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals
- Kant's noumenon is a limiting function
- Kant's noumenon only concerns the empirical, about 10% of Kant's philosophy

You also implied that
- things in itself and noumenon are the same
- things in itself and noumenon are not the same

So you have given about 6 contradictory definitions so far. AND you dismiss the fact that Kant in the end acknowledged the thing-out-there. AND you dismiss the fact that the main definition of noumenon today (as derived from Kant) totally disagrees with you.

In short you have no idea what you're actually talking about.

You are the one who has not read Kant thoroughly thus is more likely you are lost.
I have just mentioned the noumenon [empirically related] is a type of thing-in-itself but given a special name by Kant for good reason.

[Atla]

I stated Kant's thing-in-itself and noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals.
Logically how can I disagree with Kant's definition.

If we are to discuss the noumenon in a philosophy like this, it would be more credible to refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rather than secondary sources. This is a default intellectual requirement.

No, you stated that
- Kant's noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals
- Kant's noumenon is a limiting function
- Kant's noumenon only concerns the empirical, about 10% of Kant's philosophy

You also implied that
- things in itself and noumenon are the same
- things in itself and noumenon are not the same

So you have given about 6 contradictory definitions so far. AND you dismiss the fact that Kant in the end acknowledged the thing-out-there. AND you dismiss the fact that the main definition of noumenon today (as derived from Kant) totally disagrees with you.

In short you have no idea what you're actually talking about.

You are the one who has not read Kant thoroughly thus is more likely you are lost.
I have just mentioned the noumenon [empirically related] is a type of thing-in-itself but given a special name by Kant for good reason.

Well, things point toward the conclusion that you needed 3 years for Kant because you never could follow him, and you still don't.

I guess it's final then, in Western philosophy, what you are arguing for is called solipsism: we just dismiss "everything possibly out there" as unreal.
It's one of the most idiotic dead-ends of philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you stated that
- Kant's noumenon is the same as Plato's ideas and universals
- Kant's noumenon is a limiting function
- Kant's noumenon only concerns the empirical, about 10% of Kant's philosophy

You also implied that
- things in itself and noumenon are the same
- things in itself and noumenon are not the same

So you have given about 6 contradictory definitions so far. AND you dismiss the fact that Kant in the end acknowledged the thing-out-there. AND you dismiss the fact that the main definition of noumenon today (as derived from Kant) totally disagrees with you.

In short you have no idea what you're actually talking about.

You are the one who has not read Kant thoroughly thus is more likely you are lost.
I have just mentioned the noumenon [empirically related] is a type of thing-in-itself but given a special name by Kant for good reason.

Well, things point toward the conclusion that you needed 3 years for Kant because you never could follow him, and you still don't.

I guess it's final then, in Western philosophy, what you are arguing for is called solipsism: we just dismiss "everything possibly out there" as unreal.
It's one of the most idiotic dead-ends of philosophy.

Is using strawman your best argument?

I have stated many times, I am an empirical realist where I believe everything 'out there' is real within empirical justifications.

Frankly you are adopting the most idiotic philosophy where you assume there is something out there but it is unknowable.
It is impossible ever to know anything is fundamentally it is unknowable.
You are caught within Meno's paradox.