Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is what Kant said of things-in-themselves or the singular thing-in-itself, [mine];
Kant in CPR wrote: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.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Skip »

You are doomed never to know.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skip wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:26 am You are doomed never to know.
There is nothing real to be known in the case of things-in-themselves in the first place.

If you understand the things-in-themselves are merely illusions created in your mind, there is no question of needing to know about them, as such you will not be deemed never to know.

The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind. Thus if one were to nip those impulses at source to modulate them, then one will not be bothered to cling to things-in-themselves are real.

Note, those who clung to the illusory thing-in-itself as real will even kill you if you tell them in their face, their thing-in-itself is an illusion and unreal.

This is why people like PH as triggered by a defense mechanism had classified those who deny the reality of things-in-themselves are stupid, when in the first place they are the stupid and delusional ones.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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?
A thing exists in itself if all variations of said thing exist as repetitions of said thing thus leaving variations of said thing as the thing itself. For example all things are a variation of a simple dot, the dot exists through variations of the dot as the dot
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 am
Skip wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:26 am You are doomed never to know.
There is nothing real to be known in the case of things-in-themselves in the first place.

If you understand the things-in-themselves are merely illusions created in your mind, there is no question of needing to know about them, as such you will not be deemed never to know.

The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind. Thus if one were to nip those impulses at source to modulate them, then one will not be bothered to cling to things-in-themselves are real.

Note, those who clung to the illusory thing-in-itself as real will even kill you if you tell them in their face, their thing-in-itself is an illusion and unreal.

This is why people like PH as triggered by a defense mechanism had classified those who deny the reality of things-in-themselves are stupid, when in the first place they are the stupid and delusional ones.
The phenomenon of the thing in itself is an emergence thus real as existing as an emergence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Terrapin Station »

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." 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."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 am The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind.
In order to buy that there are brains, you have to believe that you can observe things that aren't yourself/aren't your own mind. Otherwise you'd have to say that your notion of a "brain" and how it works is just an illusion, and there would be no reason to make claims based on that illusion.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by VVilliam »

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?
Perhaps it is the case that things are real as long as that which is experiencing those things acknowledge them as being real. Most things acknowledged as being real are interacted with by that which acknowledges said things as being real, and it is what gives those things the label "real".

Perhaps the truth is that the only actual real thing [if it can be called a 'thing'] is that which does the acknowledging...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:48 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?
A thing exists in itself if all variations of said thing exist as repetitions of said thing thus leaving variations of said thing as the thing itself. For example all things are a variation of a simple dot, the dot exists through variations of the dot as the dot
Your view are off target.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 am
Skip wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:26 am You are doomed never to know.
There is nothing real to be known in the case of things-in-themselves in the first place.

If you understand the things-in-themselves are merely illusions created in your mind, there is no question of needing to know about them, as such you will not be deemed never to know.

The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind. Thus if one were to nip those impulses at source to modulate them, then one will not be bothered to cling to things-in-themselves are real.

Note, those who clung to the illusory thing-in-itself as real will even kill you if you tell them in their face, their thing-in-itself is an illusion and unreal.

This is why people like PH as triggered by a defense mechanism had classified those who deny the reality of things-in-themselves are stupid, when in the first place they are the stupid and delusional ones.
The phenomenon of the thing in itself is an emergence thus real as existing as an emergence.
The phenomenon is an emergence thus real when verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

For the ignorant, the thing-in-itself, i.e. the noumenon is the basis of the phenomenon but that is not true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.
Image
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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:24 am The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind.
In order to buy that there are brains, you have to believe that you can observe things that aren't yourself/aren't your own mind. Otherwise you'd have to say that your notion of a "brain" and how it works is just an illusion, and there would be no reason to make claims based on that illusion.
If I were to claim there is a brain-in-itself, that would be illusory.

My notion of what is brain and how it works is justified empirically and philosophically within the relevant FSK with conditional credibility.

Btw, I recognized in one perspective [common and conventional sense] there are things that are external to my self, body and brain, but on a meta-level such externalness is conditioned within the human conditions. This is empirical realism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

VVilliam wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:09 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?
Perhaps it is the case that things are real as long as that which is experiencing those things acknowledge them as being real. Most things acknowledged as being real are interacted with by that which acknowledges said things as being real, and it is what gives those things the label "real".
From the bolded, thus whatever is real is always conditional, so can never be absolutely by-itself.
Perhaps the truth is that the only actual real thing [if it can be called a 'thing'] is that which does the acknowledging...
What is real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible Framework and System of Reality [FSR], e.g. the scientific FSR.
I can see how else?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Bertrand Russell explained Kant’s theory re thing-in-itself in the following;
Bertrand Russell explains Kant’s theory with an analogy, which I am extending a little here.

If all people were born with blue-tinted spectacles that they could never take off, the unphilosophical person would assume that all the colours of the world have a bluish tinge.

But philosophers, once they have realized that these tinted spectacles (since we all wear them, we might call them ‘transcendental spectacles’) are an irremovable part of our visual equipment, will come to understand that we cannot know what the colours of the world are really like because they can only reach us as mediated by our ‘transcendental spectacles’.

The philosopher will know that he is receiving signals from outside; he will be aware that there is something ‘out there’ which is sending the signals; but he will also know that the signals he is capable of receiving depend on the nature of our receiving apparatus.
The apparatus may by its very nature distort the signals and indeed miss out a whole range of them.
To those signals we cannot receive we are blind, and we can have no conception of them.

We might also add that the apparatus which we all have is often not even used by individuals as it should be: by not paying enough attention to his spectacle lenses a person could have allowed them to become smudged, so that for him they would produce an unreliable picture even of the phenomenal world.

But will the philosopher really know that there is something that is sending the signals? Should Kant not rather have said that he will assume the existence of an external source of the signals?
Indeed, later critics will go further: if the Ding an sich [thing-in-itself] is unknowable, we can have no reason for assuming that it exists at all.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kan ... _in_Itself
The last point is Kant's position in his CPR, i.e. since the thing-in-itself is unknowable and only use for some specific purpose*, we have no reason for assuming that it exists as real at all.
Kant wrote:* 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
Thus the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is merely a negation, and to insist it is something real is thus being deluded with an illusion.

The thing-in-itself can also be used on the positive sense, but only positively as an illusion only and never as something that is real.
Post Reply