Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by VVilliam »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:28 am
"This sentence is false" is simultaneously true and false thus is dualistic. All observations, as grounded in contrast, are both true and false.
One of those two understandings makes sense.
"This Sentence is False" is false in the sense that it is incomplete. As a device for argument, it is therefore used inappropriately. It holds no true meaning.
Last edited by VVilliam on Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by VVilliam »

DP
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:28 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:26 pm 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.
One of those two understandings makes sense.
The one is defined in contrast to another. Definition through contrast necessitates a dualism between form and formlessness.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:22 am
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:28 am
"This sentence is false" is simultaneously true and false thus is dualistic. All observations, as grounded in contrast, are both true and false.
One of those two understandings makes sense.
"This Sentence is False" is false in the sense that it is incomplete. As a device for argument, it is therefore used inappropriately. It holds no true meaning.
Yet incompleteness (irrational) is grounded in phenomenon which are complete (rational). The contradiction of 2+2=5 necessitates that 2 and 5 are rational considering both are composed of 1 repeating itself. Even with contradictions a rational base can be founded. Incompleteness necessitates complete phenomena below it.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Mar 09, 2021 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by VVilliam »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 3:12 am
VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:22 am
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:57 am

One of those two understandings makes sense.
"This Sentence is False" is false in the sense that it is incomplete. As a device for argument, it is therefore used inappropriately. It holds no true meaning.
Yet incompleteness (irrational) is grounded in phenomenon which are complete (rational). The contradiction of 2+2=5 necessitates that 2 and 5 are rational considering both are composed of 1 repeating itself. Even with contradictions a rational base can be founded. Incompleteness necessitates complete phenomenon below it.
Image
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:06 pm

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.
How do you verify and justify the universe as self-aware, i.e. self-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.
That is the point, those who claim the thing-in-itself exists, claim that the thing-in-itself is independent of human awareness.
There is no real thing-in-itself.
There is no universal-self-awareness-in-itself.
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Atla »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:55 pm 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.
...
Looks like you haven't improved at all over the years. Still unable to understand the law of identity, still reifying abstractions, confusing a philosophical view with a phenomenon with a reified abstraction and seeing a made-up dependence there..
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:26 pm Solipcism is exactly like "This sentence is false." In referencing nothing but itself it defeats the communicative purpose of language and is thus meaningless.
It references the appearances. But of course we have to divide the world into "inside my mind" and "outsie my mind" first, before we can discard the latter.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:26 am 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"
To dispel the notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator, one need to understand why one's brain, mind or self is driving and generating that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator.

What drive that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator is an inherent neural 'program' in the brain.
Therefore if we need to reprogram that neural programs so that one do not have to bother with the idea of an infinite regression or an ultimate creator.

It is similar to one reprogramming one's brain to get rid of a phobia, say of snakes, spiders, height, etc.

One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.
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: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:27 am
VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:26 am 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"
To dispel the notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator, one need to understand why one's brain, mind or self is driving and generating that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator.

What drive that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator is an inherent neural 'program' in the brain.
Therefore if we need to reprogram that neural programs so that one do not have to bother with the idea of an infinite regression or an ultimate creator.

It is similar to one reprogramming one's brain to get rid of a phobia, say of snakes, spiders, height, etc.

One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.
It is not, nor does it have to be a negative.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:32 am
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.
How do you verify and justify the universe as self-aware, i.e. self-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.
That is the point, those who claim the thing-in-itself exists, claim that the thing-in-itself is independent of human awareness.
There is no real thing-in-itself.
There is no universal-self-awareness-in-itself.
1. The universe can be justified as self aware given it is the replication of forms. This replication of forms is self reflection.

2. In determining where human awareness falls short we understand there is a thing beyond human awareness as the limit to human awareness. Given human awareness is not a thing in itself we understand there is a being beyond it. A thing in itself exists as the limit of human awareness and we can observe the limits of human awareness. A thing in itself exists.

3. The nature of observation is independent in itself given it is self reflective. One form of observation (universe as self aware) exists beyond another form of observation (human self awareness) given observation cannot be observed in its totality through human self awareness. This lack of totality in observation necessitates one form of observation existing beyond and independent of another form of observation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Atla wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:55 pm 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.
...
Looks like you haven't improved at all over the years. Still unable to understand the law of identity, still reifying abstractions, confusing a philosophical view with a phenomenon with a reified abstraction and seeing a made-up dependence there..
I see you still cannot back up your own points and resort to ad hominums because of your inability to state your own case.

1. The law of identity is P=P. One phenomenon is equal to itself thus as equal necessitates one P in a different time and space to another given equality necessitates two phenomenon. This contradicts its identity. The law of identity should just be "P".

2. Abstractions are real as they form physical phenomenon. The abstraction of the schematics for a building results in the formation of physical materials into a new form, ie that of the building. The abstract forms the physical.

3. If solipsism is circular then this circularity necessitates its dependence on a form beyond it, ie that of the circle.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:27 am
VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:26 am 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"
To dispel the notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator, one need to understand why one's brain, mind or self is driving and generating that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator.

What drive that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator is an inherent neural 'program' in the brain.
Therefore if we need to reprogram that neural programs so that one do not have to bother with the idea of an infinite regression or an ultimate creator.

It is similar to one reprogramming one's brain to get rid of a phobia, say of snakes, spiders, height, etc.

One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.
If the concept of infinity is a result of a neural state then the concept of infinity is a result of evolution much in the same manner a phobia of snakes is the evolution of a survival instinct. The evolution of the brain necessitates the evolution of concepts.


Dually to be the source of reprogramming the brain is to take the role of the creator where humanity is the creator. This results in humanity as a thing in itself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

VVilliam wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:27 am One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.
It is not, nor does it have to be a negative.
It can be negative when the thing-in-itself is believed as a God-in-itself which can save the soul-in-itself to eternal life within a heaven-in-itself.
Note the negativity from the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam.

You have not answer my question, i.e.

what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:51 pm

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.
How do you verify and justify the universe as self-aware, i.e. self-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.
That is the point, those who claim the thing-in-itself exists, claim that the thing-in-itself is independent of human awareness.
There is no real thing-in-itself.
There is no universal-self-awareness-in-itself.
1. The universe can be justified as self aware given it is the replication of forms. This replication of forms is self reflection.

2. In determining where human awareness falls short we understand there is a thing beyond human awareness as the limit to human awareness. Given human awareness is not a thing in itself we understand there is a being beyond it. A thing in itself exists as the limit of human awareness and we can observe the limits of human awareness. A thing in itself exists.

3. The nature of observation is independent in itself given it is self reflective. One form of observation (universe as self aware) exists beyond another form of observation (human self awareness) given observation cannot be observed in its totality through human self awareness. This lack of totality in observation necessitates one form of observation existing beyond and independent of another form of observation.
Point is, if there is a limit to human awareness, then it is limited in cognizing what is beyond human awareness.

Therefore whatever [thing-in-itself] is beyond human awareness is merely a speculation and you are reifying whatever is speculated which is an illusion.
It [thing-in-itself] is an illusion because it is an impossibility to be empirical as proven since it is beyond human awareness.

Note the term 'thing-in-itself' i.e. the "in-itself" means it is absolutely independent and can never, i.e. impossible to be observed by humans.
I believe you never fully grasp what "in-itself" meant.
Post Reply