Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:02 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:51 pm
........
It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.
Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.
Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?
Whatever exists must be a "thing-in-itself."
That is what you are merely stating in words and statement.
How do you prove that "thing-in-itself" exists
by itself?
In order for something to make sense as an "illusion," we'd need to have some idea of what we're getting wrong in the illusion. And then the illusion exists however it does, as a "thing-in-itself," and it's not itself an "illusion of an illusion."
Illusion in this case is not with reference to the common empirical illusion of seeing a bent stick in water.
What we are referring to is the case of meta-illusion.
Note the following image of the subject perceiving an object.
In the above case there is
reality-gap between the perceiver and the object.
What the perceiver perceived are merely wavelengths from the supposed-object.
Because of the reality-gap, it is impossible for the perceiver to perceive whatever is the supposedly real object.
Thus whatever is deemed to be real based on the perceiver's perception and justification via a
specific framework, it is effective an illusion, i.e. a meta-illusion in this case.
There is no such thing as thing-in-itself except thing-via-specific-FSK.