Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It not my problem alone but a two way communication issue, more so when the other party is so dogmatically narrow minded with their views.

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.

I believe whatever Rorty condemned in his book are useful but their inherent limitations must be qualified.

The problem is when those engage in various philosophies get too dogmatic and ideological with their views as with the logical positivists, classical analytic philosophers and others, as Rorty stated,

• Philosophy as a whole was shrugged off by those who wanted an ideology or a self-image.

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.

In my "Philosophy" Folder I have 9000+ files in 550 folders which cover all notable philosophies and philosophers.

Personally I am interested in how Rorty condemned the Classical Analytic Philosophy to the rubbish bin.
But I am well aware Rorty did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy. I am digging into that more closely.

The point is if one were to critique a book one must have a thorough grasp [not necessary agree with] of the points. Reading it once will not help. This is what I suggest to critiques of Kant to do the same.

Here is a summary to Rorty's Introduction in Mirror of Nature;

• Evolution of the Philosophical Urge re Foundation of Knowledge to the anti-Cartesian and anti-Kantian revolution
  Aim of this Book to UNDERMINE Confidence of ..
  Analytic Philosophy Need Changes to Improve
  The Independent Framework of Analytic Philosophy
  Foundation of Knowledge due to a priori Elements
  Philosophy Escaped from History
  Summary for Part and Chapters
  Picture – Mind as a Mirror
  Historical Phenomenon of Mirror-Imagery Missing
  Dewey’s aesthetic enhancement and Hope to pierce through and shatter that crust of philosophical convention

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.

That is where you get ideological with either or else.

Note Russell's

• Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
  Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

Kant's view is that every philosophical view must be subject to openness and critical analysis, i.e. his Critical Philosophy, that is why he had 3 Critiques, i.e. of Pure Reason, Practical Reasons, Judgment.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

It not my problem alone but a two way communication issue, more so when the other party is so dogmatically narrow minded with their views.

Try thinking that through from everyone else's perspective for a second. For the last year or so every argument you have presented has been circular, you have an FSK that needs to derive ought from is, and you have an ought from is argument that needs to be derived via that same FSK. Every different way anyone has used to try to explain that to you has gotten some variant of "that's because you are ignorant" and "that's because you are dogmatic" as a response.

Are you not being narrow minded and dogmatic when you do that?

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.

I believe whatever Rorty condemned in his book are useful but their inherent limitations must be qualified.

The problem is when those engage in various philosophies get too dogmatic and ideological with their views as with the logical positivists, classical analytic philosophers and others, as Rorty stated,

• Philosophy as a whole was shrugged off by those who wanted an ideology or a self-image.

Dogma is a bland term that can just be pointed at anything you don't happen to like by anyone for no particular reason. That is why ranndom facebook antivaxxers call all of science "dogma" in lieu of offering any useful criticism of scientific method. Logical Positivism failed because it was incoherent and simply a faulty way of looking at things, and many people were able to offer specific examples of that such as its tendency to render giant portions of normal language litteraly meaningless.

If you have an exmple of Rorty being specifically wrong, then share it. If you have nothing but "I think it's dogmatic" then you might not be ready yet to render judgment.

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.

In my "Philosophy" Folder I have 9000+ files in 550 folders which cover all notable philosophies and philosophers.

I'm questioning whether this work of dividing and categorising into so many folders really gets you where you want to go? You are stuck in a loop of broadcasting the same circular arguments over and over again, something hasn't worked there and a different approach that is less focussed on quantities of folders might be helpful.

Personally I am interested in how Rorty condemned the Classical Analytic Philosophy to the rubbish bin.
But I am well aware Rorty did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy. I am digging into that more closely.

It wasn't really Rorty that condemned that sort of thing. It was Quine, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Strawson, Kripke, Derida and many others, with Rorty merely being the one who wrote the most accessible and comprehensive particular text on the matter (in my view), largely rounding up ideas he got from some of those other guys. And some of those guys sort of took their lead from Hume, others from elsewhere, none of it is completely original.

But here's the thing, the outcome of all that stuff and all those works (to the extent I even understand them which I definitely do not for several of those names listed above), is that old problems of philosophy like the one this thread is about are redundant. That it was a misadventure to get bogged down in questions of whether this is a hand and this is another hand.

So we have to wonder why it is that you want to cast yourself as a purveyor of some shiny futuristic post-analytic philosophy given that you have an inventory of worn out pre-victorian relics such as realism vs antirealism and the entire notion of "morality-proper". Why not just be some sort of neo-kantian instead?

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=500518 time=1614874790 user_id=15497]
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?
[/quote]

It doesn't matter what Kant said. Let's talk about the ideas!

[Atla]

It doesn't matter what Kant said. Let's talk about the ideas!

I don't have much to say except stating the obvious. Let's try this one for example:

Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are independent of observation.

By observation I guess the appearances are meant. Human consciousness is representational, observation = appearances = the representation.

The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

It exists independently of observation in the sense that observation is (at least partially) constructed from it. It doesn't exist independently from observation in the sense that we are the universe looking at itself. I don't know if this state of affairs violates both realism and antirealism, if yes then both schools are bullshit.

[Advocate]

>The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference and anything that cannot be replicably verified is indistinguishable from fiction.

[Atla]

>The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference and anything that cannot be replicably verified is indistinguishable from fiction.

It's true that nothing can be verified beyond solipsism*. But treating everything beyond solipsism as fiction, and thus turning people into solipsists, is a pretty surefire way to destroy humanity. You want to save humanity right?

(*Well, not even solipsism can be verified, but that's another matter.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try thinking that through from everyone else's perspective for a second. For the last year or so every argument you have presented has been circular, you have an FSK that needs to derive ought from is, and you have an ought from is argument that needs to be derived via that same FSK. Every different way anyone has used to try to explain that to you has gotten some variant of "that's because you are ignorant" and "that's because you are dogmatic" as a response.

Are you not being narrow minded and dogmatic when you do that?

Nope, I did not use the same framework and system of knowledge [FSK] to verify and justify the moral fact empirically and philosophically.

The general principle is 'what is fact' is specific a FSK.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486


Take the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans.'

Firstly, I rely on the scientific-biological FSK to establish,
1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable -

The the above is input into the moral FSK to establish.
2. No human ought to kill humans.

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777


So I did not rely on the same FSK to get the same result.
As I had claimed, the moral FSK rely on inputs from the scientific FSK and others.
The moral FSK has a near-credibility to the scientific FSK.

Peter Holmes insisted the above is wrong because his view of 'what is fact' is related to the "Theory of Reference" [Indirect Realism] of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers which Rorty condemned. This is why I am stating PH's ideas are narrow minded and dogmatic [ideological].

I had thought you were in the same philosophical shoes as Peter Holmes, but if you agree with Rorty, it is not likely you will agree with Peter's approach.

The problem is when those engage in various philosophies get too dogmatic and ideological with their views as with the logical positivists, classical analytic philosophers and others, as Rorty stated,

• Philosophy as a whole was shrugged off by those who wanted an ideology or a self-image.

Dogma is a bland term that can just be pointed at anything you don't happen to like by anyone for no particular reason. That is why ranndom facebook antivaxxers call all of science "dogma" in lieu of offering any useful criticism of scientific method. Logical Positivism failed because it was incoherent and simply a faulty way of looking at things, and many people were able to offer specific examples of that such as its tendency to render giant portions of normal language litteraly meaningless.

If you have an example of Rorty being specifically wrong, then share it. If you have nothing but "I think it's dogmatic" then you might not be ready yet to render judgment.

I agree with Rorty's critique of those philosophers who are stuck with their philosophical views as an ideology, for self-image reason and are dogmatic.

I agree with Rorty in many ways but disagree with his dogmatic intent to get rid the old traditions "lock, stock and barrel" to be replaced by his pragmatism. Besides he misunderstood Kant as with all the analytic philosophers.
I read there are some who critiqued Rorty as being dogmatic in his ways.

I will present the views of my disagreement with Rorty when I have fully grasped and understood [not necessary agree with everything of] his Mirror of Nature.

In my "Philosophy" Folder I have 9000+ files in 550 folders which cover all notable philosophies and philosophers.

I'm questioning whether this work of dividing and categorising into so many folders really gets you where you want to go? You are stuck in a loop of broadcasting the same circular arguments over and over again, something hasn't worked there and a different approach that is less focussed on quantities of folders might be helpful.[/quote]
The above is necessary to maintain and sustain my intellectual integrity and personal standard.
Basically I am confident when anyone accused be being ignorant re philosophy, it won't hold water.

Note my above explanation that your accusing me of circularity is wrong.

My approach is both quantity and quality, note my focus on Kant, Buddhism, Islam, Schoppenhauer, Russell [philosophy in general], Heidegger, late-Wittgenstein, Continental Philosophy and others - lately on the failure of analytic philosophy.

Personally I am interested in how Rorty condemned the Classical Analytic Philosophy to the rubbish bin.
But I am well aware Rorty did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy. I am digging into that more closely.

It wasn't really Rorty that condemned that sort of thing. It was Quine, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Strawson, Kripke, Derida and many others, with Rorty merely being the one who wrote the most accessible and comprehensive particular text on the matter (in my view), largely rounding up ideas he got from some of those other guys. And some of those guys sort of took their lead from Hume, others from elsewhere, none of it is completely original.

But here's the thing, the outcome of all that stuff and all those works (to the extent I even understand them which I definitely do not for several of those names listed above), is that old problems of philosophy like the one this thread is about are redundant. That it was a misadventure to get bogged down in questions of whether this is a hand and this is another hand.

So we have to wonder why it is that you want to cast yourself as a purveyor of some shiny futuristic post-analytic philosophy given that you have an inventory of worn out pre-victorian relics such as realism vs antirealism and the entire notion of "morality-proper". Why not just be some sort of neo-kantian instead?

I am familiar with all the philosophers you mentioned above.
Yes, I am now focusing on Rorty for his summary condemnation of classical analytic philosophy which will support
Robert Hanna's
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History

I was rereading and refreshing on Kant's CPR [full time reading >3 years ago] until interrupted by the above and will go back to it later.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't matter what Kant said. Let's talk about the ideas!

Why? Ideas are only instruments. If noumenon has lost its utility, invent a new concept.

But before we invent any new concepts (for we can invent many) tell us why even part-take in this game?

[Terrapin Station]

>The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

If you're going to limit yourself to things you can be sure of you should just give up and do something else.

Certainty isn't available. Focus instead on the reasons to believe one option versus another, and go with the options that you have better reasons to believe.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The universe as self aware necessitates observation as independent of human observation. The nature of this self awareness is the replication of forms given form and awareness are inseperable. We know forms repeat beyond human awareness given human awareness in itself is empty considering all phenomenon are empty in itself. At best human awareness is a mirror of universal self awareness and as a mirror does not capture universal self awareness in its entirety thus necessitating a form of awareness which exists beyond human awareness.

The nature of universal self awareness existing beyond human awareness is the limit to where human awareness falls short. In describing a thing in itself as independent of human awareness we are describing where human awareness does not exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

>The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference and anything that cannot be replicably verified is indistinguishable from fiction.

It's true that nothing can be verified beyond solipsism*. But treating everything beyond solipsism as fiction, and thus turning people into solipsists, is a pretty surefire way to destroy humanity. You want to save humanity right?

(*Well, not even solipsism can be verified, but that's another matter.)

Solipsism is a phenomenon in itself thus is circular.

As circular it depends upon a form beyond it (the circle) thus is not completely self dependent.

Solipsism necessitates itself as fundamentally empty therefore things exists beyond the human mind.

Solipsism is both a thing in itself and not a thing in itself much like a ring within a ring necessitates both the outer ring a full of rings while being simultaneously empty.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=500917 time=1615240546 user_id=14533]
[quote=Atla post_id=500609 time=1614972611 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500607 time=1614970391 user_id=15238]
>The assumed world outside observation is the world of the things-in-themselves. We can assume that this world exists and it's real, but we can never be sure of this, we can never verify this. We can never actually know what this world is like.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference and anything that cannot be replicably verified is indistinguishable from fiction.
[/quote]
It's true that nothing can be verified beyond solipsism*. But treating everything beyond solipsism as fiction, and thus turning people into solipsists, is a pretty surefire way to destroy humanity. You want to save humanity right?

(*Well, not even solipsism can be verified, but that's another matter.)
[/quote]

Solipsism is a phenomenon in itself thus is circular.

As circular it depends upon a form beyond it (the circle) thus is not completely self dependent.

Solipsism necessitates itself as fundamentally empty therefore things exists beyond the human mind.

Solipsism is both a thing in itself and not a thing in itself much like a ring within a ring necessitates both the outer ring a full of rings while being simultaneously empty.
[/quote]

Solipcism is exactly like "This sentence is false." In referencing nothing but itself it defeats the communicative purpose of language and is thus meaningless.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's true that nothing can be verified beyond solipsism*. But treating everything beyond solipsism as fiction, and thus turning people into solipsists, is a pretty surefire way to destroy humanity. You want to save humanity right?

(*Well, not even solipsism can be verified, but that's another matter.)

Solipsism is a phenomenon in itself thus is circular.

As circular it depends upon a form beyond it (the circle) thus is not completely self dependent.

Solipsism necessitates itself as fundamentally empty therefore things exists beyond the human mind.

Solipsism is both a thing in itself and not a thing in itself much like a ring within a ring necessitates both the outer ring a full of rings while being simultaneously empty.

Solipcism is exactly like "This sentence is false." In referencing nothing but itself it defeats the communicative purpose of language and is thus meaningless.

"This sentence is false" is simultaneously true and false thus is dualistic. All observations, as grounded in contrast, are both true and false.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=500932 time=1615246089 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500923 time=1615242399 user_id=15238]
Solipcism is exactly like "This sentence is false." In referencing nothing but itself it defeats the communicative purpose of language and is thus meaningless.
[/quote]
"This sentence is false" is simultaneously true and false thus is dualistic. All observations, as grounded in contrast, are both true and false.
[/quote]

One of those two understandings makes sense.

[VVilliam]

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.

One has to acknowledge therefore that if there is a creator [in that the universe was created] then all one needs to do is assume that one is said creator...difficult to do within the creation, but not impossible...

As explained, in order to dispel the notion of infinite regress, we simply understand the notion of "Ever was and ever will be"