Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[VVilliam]

Same source??
Where is it springing from?

Prove the source by tracking from what is empirical [top down] like I done earlier.

I have countered Bahman that one cannot simply assume there is an pre-existing consciousness before proving it really exists.

One can indeed assume such without first having proof.

Yes you can assume, but then your conclusion is limited to the assumption that you have made.
An assumption is not proven, thus your conclusion is unrealiable. This is why Bahman is having difficulties convincing his conclusion rationally.

The assumption is made following a logical course. We know that we exist and we can assume that we may exist within a creation which then implies a creator which then has one asking 'who or what created the creator' and in order to prevent the fallacy of infinite regression, we can assume that there is a source of all that is...which was never created and has always existed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One can indeed assume such without first having proof.

Yes you can assume, but then your conclusion is limited to the assumption that you have made.
An assumption is not proven, thus your conclusion is unrealiable. This is why Bahman is having difficulties convincing his conclusion rationally.

The assumption is made following a logical course. We know that we exist and we can assume that we may exist within a creation which then implies a creator which then has one asking 'who or what created the creator' and in order to prevent the fallacy of infinite regression, we can assume that there is a source of all that is...which was never created and has always existed.

Which logical course?
Note logical is very limited and do not represent the truth of reality.
Hume contended, the principle of cause and effect is merely a psychological impulse driven by custom and habits upon constant conjunction.

In addition, Hume contended there is no ultimate real self or person.
What you have is merely an empirical person, not an ultimate person.

As such you cannot imply for creation there must be an ultimate creator.

What is the truth of reality, i.e. existence must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

What you are driving at with existence of self, creation, therefore creator is merely a psychological issue. If one can resolve that psychological issue plus with the right knowledge of the self, there is no need to assume a creator at all that land itself into an infinite regress issue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No a thing in itself is that which repeats as a point of change to some other phenomenon.

Your above are merely words and statements.
Prove your thing-in-itself exists as real?

A simple point is a thing in itself.

The simple point is there is no a point-in-itself.

The point is there is no thing-in-itself that exists absolutely independent from the human conditions.
As such, the extreme contention is, there are no pre-existing moon, sun or stars before there were humans.

The repetition of patterns necessitates forms as things in themselves. The branching of a tree, veins, rivers, or lighting necessitates the repetition of a branching form which mirrors itself through further states thus are a thing in themselves. The nature of repetition necessitates one thing existing through many, with the one through the many as a thing in itself.

As long as you are assigning a "thing", i.e. repetition, patterns, tree, or whatever, there is no things-in-themselves.

There are only things-by-humanselves, the collective humanity.
If there are no humans at all, there is no things-by-themselves.

Just in case, there are things-by-empirical-means, i.e. things you can verify and justify empirically and philosophically.

The truth and necessity of curbing the speculation of a thing-in-itself is mainly to restraint the falsehood of an independent God as the thing-in-itself and other woo woo spirits and non-physical entities.

[Terrapin Station]

One is the inherent drive for consonance to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonance which general terrible subliminal pains.
All humans are 'programmed' with the instinct for the principles of cause and effect, i.e. every effect must have a cause, that something cannot come from nothing, and the likes.
Thus whatever is 'appearance' must have something-that-is-appearing. Whatever is phenomenon must have a real corresponding noumenon.

As such, any sense/thought that there is appearance without a corresponding something-that-is-appearing generate an internal very painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonance [CD].
To relieve the pains of CD the brain/mind jumped hastily to reify the corresponding that-something-beyond-appearance as real, which give immediate relief to the pulsating pains.

There is an empirical something, but the reality is there is no ultimate real thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself beyond appearance - presumably that is what you claimed as the objective reality of the thing that appear.

Wow, this is actually very interesting to me. So you "reify" other people that appear mentally to you because it causes you literal pain if you don't do that?

Where did I say that??

Note this just in case you are not familiar with it [Bundle Theory], which is relevant to support the theory there is no thing-in-itself;

• Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
  
  According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more;
  thus, there cannot be an object without properties and one cannot conceive of such an object.
  For example, when we think of an apple, we think of its properties: redness, roundness, being a type of fruit, etc. There is nothing above and beyond these properties; the apple is nothing more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
  -wiki

The above is applied to the self, the personhood, the self as essence;

• This theory owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as ’nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement’ (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).

There is no denial the empirical-self exists as real, but there is no real self-in-itself.
But due to cognitive dissonance the majority of people reify this self-in-itself as really real, i.e. as a soul that will live eternally in Heaven or Hell.

It is the same with you reifying the thing-in-itself e.g. apple or table-in-itself as really real in the ultimate sense when what is ultimately the table is merely a bundle of activities as per Hume, Russell and others of the likes.

This is the same with theists reifying the illusory-God as really real that God will listens and answers their prayers and giving them a passport to heaven.

It is also the same with the schizophrenic who reify hallucinations as really real because of some mental/brain defect.

Therefore when you insist the thing-in-itself [not the empirical thing-by-evidence] is really real by reifying it, in a sense you are delusional.

What would you say this has to do with why you believe that you're observing other people and their FSKs?

[Eodnhoj7]

Your above are merely words and statements.
Prove your thing-in-itself exists as real?

A simple point is a thing in itself.

The simple point is there is no a point-in-itself.

The point is there is no thing-in-itself that exists absolutely independent from the human conditions.
As such, the extreme contention is, there are no pre-existing moon, sun or stars before there were humans.

The repetition of patterns necessitates forms as things in themselves. The branching of a tree, veins, rivers, or lighting necessitates the repetition of a branching form which mirrors itself through further states thus are a thing in themselves. The nature of repetition necessitates one thing existing through many, with the one through the many as a thing in itself.

As long as you are assigning a "thing", i.e. repetition, patterns, tree, or whatever, there is no things-in-themselves.

There are only things-by-humanselves, the collective humanity.
If there are no humans at all, there is no things-by-themselves.

Just in case, there are things-by-empirical-means, i.e. things you can verify and justify empirically and philosophically.

The truth and necessity of curbing the speculation of a thing-in-itself is mainly to restraint the falsehood of an independent God as the thing-in-itself and other woo woo spirits and non-physical entities.

1. False, all observations expand and condense from a point. The point exists through observation thus making observation as a thing in itself considering there is nothing beyond it.

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow, this is actually very interesting to me. So you "reify" other people that appear mentally to you because it causes you literal pain if you don't do that?

Where did I say that??

Note this just in case you are not familiar with it [Bundle Theory], which is relevant to support the theory there is no thing-in-itself;

• Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
  
  According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more;
  thus, there cannot be an object without properties and one cannot conceive of such an object.
  For example, when we think of an apple, we think of its properties: redness, roundness, being a type of fruit, etc. There is nothing above and beyond these properties; the apple is nothing more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
  -wiki

The above is applied to the self, the personhood, the self as essence;

• This theory owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as ’nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement’ (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).

There is no denial the empirical-self exists as real, but there is no real self-in-itself.
But due to cognitive dissonance the majority of people reify this self-in-itself as really real, i.e. as a soul that will live eternally in Heaven or Hell.

It is the same with you reifying the thing-in-itself e.g. apple or table-in-itself as really real in the ultimate sense when what is ultimately the table is merely a bundle of activities as per Hume, Russell and others of the likes.

This is the same with theists reifying the illusory-God as really real that God will listens and answers their prayers and giving them a passport to heaven.

It is also the same with the schizophrenic who reify hallucinations as really real because of some mental/brain defect.

Therefore when you insist the thing-in-itself [not the empirical thing-by-evidence] is really real by reifying it, in a sense you are delusional.

What would you say this has to do with why you believe that you're observing other people and their FSKs?

Don't get your point at all.

My point was,
"Therefore when you insist the thing-in-itself [not the empirical thing-by-evidence] is really real by reifying it, in a sense you are delusional."

[Veritas Aequitas]

A simple point is a thing in itself.

The simple point is there is no a point-in-itself.

The point is there is no thing-in-itself that exists absolutely independent from the human conditions.
As such, the extreme contention is, there are no pre-existing moon, sun or stars before there were humans.

The repetition of patterns necessitates forms as things in themselves. The branching of a tree, veins, rivers, or lighting necessitates the repetition of a branching form which mirrors itself through further states thus are a thing in themselves. The nature of repetition necessitates one thing existing through many, with the one through the many as a thing in itself.

As long as you are assigning a "thing", i.e. repetition, patterns, tree, or whatever, there is no things-in-themselves.

There are only things-by-humanselves, the collective humanity.
If there are no humans at all, there is no things-by-themselves.

Just in case, there are things-by-empirical-means, i.e. things you can verify and justify empirically and philosophically.

The truth and necessity of curbing the speculation of a thing-in-itself is mainly to restraint the falsehood of an independent God as the thing-in-itself and other woo woo spirits and non-physical entities.

1. False, all observations expand and condense from a point. The point exists through observation thus making observation as a thing in itself considering there is nothing beyond it.

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

Suggest you read the following to understand [not necessary agree] what the thing-in-itself aka noumenon is about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
If the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is independent from human sense and/or perception, how can it ever be observed at all?

[Eodnhoj7]

The simple point is there is no a point-in-itself.

The point is there is no thing-in-itself that exists absolutely independent from the human conditions.
As such, the extreme contention is, there are no pre-existing moon, sun or stars before there were humans.


As long as you are assigning a "thing", i.e. repetition, patterns, tree, or whatever, there is no things-in-themselves.

There are only things-by-humanselves, the collective humanity.
If there are no humans at all, there is no things-by-themselves.

Just in case, there are things-by-empirical-means, i.e. things you can verify and justify empirically and philosophically.

The truth and necessity of curbing the speculation of a thing-in-itself is mainly to restraint the falsehood of an independent God as the thing-in-itself and other woo woo spirits and non-physical entities.

1. False, all observations expand and condense from a point. The point exists through observation thus making observation as a thing in itself considering there is nothing beyond it.

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

Suggest you read the following to understand [not necessary agree] what the thing-in-itself aka noumenon is about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
If the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is independent from human sense and/or perception, how can it ever be observed at all?

If the universe is self aware then the forms may be observed independent of human sense perception. Considering observation both observes form and is a form (is a form in the respect one observation branches to another thus follows the nature of a branching form), form and observation are inseperable. Form through form is observation through observation.

The universe as self aware allows for observation to exist independent of human observation.

You still have to address both points 2 and 3:

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

[Eodnhoj7]

The totality of FSKs dependent on one another results in a cycle.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is what Kant said of things-in-themselves or the singular thing-in-itself, [mine];

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 [thing-in-itself], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [conclusions of things-in-themselves] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
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

So basically whatever are things-in-themselves are illusory.

You know that Rorty book you keep pretending to have read? The mistaken thinking that gives rise to this question is well covered in the first chapter as I recall. So maybe just read it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is what Kant said of things-in-themselves or the singular thing-in-itself, [mine];

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 [thing-in-itself], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [conclusions of things-in-themselves] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
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

So basically whatever are things-in-themselves are illusory.

You know that Rorty book you keep pretending to have read? The mistaken thinking that gives rise to this question is well covered in the first chapter as I recall. So maybe just read it.

You are in my 'ignore' list, so happen to read the above post;

Still reading Rorty's book. I converted it to Words, thus has to take time to reformat it properly. Read one time already [line by line] will go through it again a few rounds.

Rorty mentioned Kant >200 times all over the book, he dealt with Kant mainly in Chapter III,

• Chapter III: The Idea Of A "Theory of Knowledge" 131
  1. Epistemology And Philosophy's Self-Image 131
  2. Locke's Confusion Of Explanation With Justification 139
  3. Kant's Confusion Of Predication With Synthesis 148
  4. Knowledge As Needing "Foundations" 155

Rorty mentioned he understood Kant via analytic philosophers like Strawson and other critics.
I know for sure, these analytic philosophers with their inherent bias NEVER fully understood Kant.
So Rorty's critique of Kant synthetic a priori [necessary to critique the thing-in-itself] is not credible.

While I agree with certain aspects of Rorty's condemnation of the logical positivists, the classical analytic philosophers and others, I do not agree with him on everything.
I agree with Rorty's pragmatism but it has to have limits.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. False, all observations expand and condense from a point. The point exists through observation thus making observation as a thing in itself considering there is nothing beyond it.

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

Suggest you read the following to understand [not necessary agree] what the thing-in-itself aka noumenon is about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
If the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is independent from human sense and/or perception, how can it ever be observed at all?

If the universe is self aware then the forms may be observed independent of human sense perception. Considering observation both observes form and is a form (is a form in the respect one observation branches to another thus follows the nature of a branching form), form and observation are inseperable. Form through form is observation through observation.

The universe as self aware allows for observation to exist independent of human observation.

You still have to address both points 2 and 3:

2. "Nothing in itself" is a phenomenon which is fundamentally empty thus necessitating a "thing in itself".

3. "Only collective humanity" is a thing in itself thus you contradict yourself.

You are not into gears with what is the thing-in-itself as from the Kantian perspective [re OP] and generally understood and contested by most philosophers.

I won't bother until you get into gear with it.

[Advocate]

A thing in itself seems to intend a thing with no particular instantiation, but every thing is mind bound, even those that represent an ineffable average without a particular External instantiation, and even those which are broadly agreed and generic.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is what Kant said of things-in-themselves or the singular thing-in-itself, [mine];



So basically whatever are things-in-themselves are illusory.

You know that Rorty book you keep pretending to have read? The mistaken thinking that gives rise to this question is well covered in the first chapter as I recall. So maybe just read it.

You are in my 'ignore' list, so happen to read the above post;

And yet I am going to take the time to explain something that would be helpful for you under the condition that you read it - which you may not -, and actually stop to try and understand something anohter person wrote - which you don't really do very often. So let's see how that trivial gambe works out.

Still reading Rorty's book. I converted it to Words, thus has to take time to reformat it properly. Read one time already [line by line] will go through it again a few rounds.

Doing things like that, as well as putting entire religious texts into spreadsheets, and endlessly reading the same thing over and over again might not actually be very efficent methods of actually comprehending what something is about. In this case at least, I would say you are missing the point - failing to see the woods beause there are a bunch of trees in the way as the old idiom goes.

Rorty mentioned Kant >200 times all over the book, he dealt with Kant mainly in Chapter III,

• Chapter III: The Idea Of A "Theory of Knowledge" 131
  1. Epistemology And Philosophy's Self-Image 131
  2. Locke's Confusion Of Explanation With Justification 139
  3. Kant's Confusion Of Predication With Synthesis 148
  4. Knowledge As Needing "Foundations" 155

Rorty in that book is telling you a tale of how predecessors to Kant including Aristotle and Descartes created a metaphor for how we come to know things based on knowing being much like seeing. That is the point of all that stuff about glassy essences and mind as the mirror of nature. Kant pretty much is just the guy who best formalised those choices his predecessors made without really questioning them.

Rorty mentioned he understood Kant via analytic philosophers like Strawson and other critics.
I know for sure, these analytic philosophers with their inherent bias NEVER fully understood Kant.
So Rorty's critique of Kant synthetic a priori [necessary to critique the thing-in-itself] is not credible.

Your claim to be a great analyst of Kant is that you spent three years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hours per day?
I would suggest that years spent investigating not merely Kant but all of philosophy and doing so via open conversation and actual consideration of competing interpretations might work better than that. That would be the sin that Rorty is confessing there.

While I agree with certain aspects of Rorty's condemnation of the logical positivists, the classical analytic philosophers and others, I do not agree with him on everything.
I agree with Rorty's pragmatism but it has to have limits.

That's not really how it works with that book though. You either buy into the argument that most of these silly debates about whether there is or is not a really really really real world to inspect with some non extended but really really real mind are founded on an arbitrary mistake that caused centuries of confused epistemology on the basis of a bad allegory to vision, or you just don't agree with Rorty in the least.

[Atla]

The meaning of thing-in-itself seems to have changed a lot since Kant, wouldn't it be great if someone could just translate his usage into plain present day English?