Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:58 am Here is Kant in the Prolegomena in response to his critics (my comments added in blue):

The dictum of all genuine idealists from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: "All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only, in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason there is truth."

This is the equivalent of saying: "there is NOT a real physical object that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data in the brain. This thing-in-itself is NOT real and is NOT independent of the human conditions, or human mind." And Kant says he does not endorse this.

The principle that throughout dominates and determines my Idealism, is on the contrary: "All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth."

But this is directly contrary to idealism proper. How came I then to use this expression for quite an opposite purpose, and how came my reviewer to see it everywhere?

The solution of this difficulty rests on something that could have been very easily understood from the general bearing of the work, if the reader had only desired to do so. Space and time, together with all that they contain, are not things nor qualities in themselves, but belong merely to the appearances of the latter: up to this point I am one in confession with the above idealists.
But these, and amongst them more particularly Berkeley, regarded space as a mere empirical presentation that, like the phenomenon it contains, is only known to us by means of experience or perception, together with its determinations.
I, on the contrary, prove in the first place, that space (and also time, which Berkeley did not consider) and all its determinations a priori, can be known by us, because, no less than time, it inheres in our sensibility as a pure form before all perception or experience and makes all intuition of the same, and therefore all its phenomena, possible.
It follows from this, that as truth rests on universal and necessary laws as its criteria, experience, according to Berkeley, can have no criteria of truth, because its phenomena (according to him) have nothing a priori at their foundation; whence it follows, that they are nothing but sheer illusion; whereas with us, space and time (in conjunction with the pure conceptions of the understanding) prescribe their law to all possible experience a priori, and at the same time afford the certain criterion for distinguishing truth from illusion therein.
My so-called (properly critical) Idealism is of quite a special character, in that it subverts the ordinary idealism, and that through it all cognition a priori, even that of geometry, first receives objective reality...
Here Kant endorses the view that "there is a real objective reality that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data that is received as cognition by the brain. This thing-in-itself is real and is independent of the human conditions, or human mind."
Where in the above did Kant assert nor implied the thing-in-itself is real and in is independent of the human conditions, or human mind.
What Kant did assert above is he did not claim space and time are elements of experience like Berkeley did [see above].
Since Kant claimed space and time are pure intuition underlying all things of sensations, the enable objective reality which differentiate truths from illusion.

Kant did not assert in the above the thing-in-itself is real and in is independent of the human conditions, or human mind.

What I quoted earlier in B311 re the noumenon aka thing-in-itself from Kant main Critique of Pure Reason is more central to Kant's philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

In the above Kant challenged realist to provide proof, the external independent world exists,
Which of course was the first most obvious interpretation of Kant, but to which Kant responded denying it. Actually, what Kant meant is that the thing in itself had to exist in order for the phenomena to be perceived, in other words, that the phenomena have something a priori at their foundation, they cannot be pure illusion.
It is not the noumenon "had to exist in order for the phenomena to be perceived."
The noumenon is in a way an assumption and must be taken as a limiting concept not a real object at all.
See my refer re B311 above.
Ultimately the thing-in-itself is demonstrated to be an illusion but nevertheless can be thought-of and is useful.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am Show me the evidence in the context of the whole of Kant's CPR that Kant was certainly inconsistent.
Those who claimed 'inconsistency' is because they did not understand the CPR thoroughly re the various perspectives of reality that Kant was engaging in.
That Kant's work is obscure and open to several interpretations from competent scholars is not something controversial. It does not diminish his greatness. Denying it amounts to approaching philosophy with the fan club mentality.
Kant is no exception. Most philosophers' works has different views from opposing parties.
Whatever one claim to represent Kant's view, that must of course be substantiated from his books and in coherence with other sources of knowledge hermeneutically.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am Note I'd spent [sometime ago] 3 years full time [up to 8 hours a day] intensively researching Kant, so I am very familiar with Kant's philosophy. You?
I would advice anyone in these forums not to claim expertise in any given subject, it might be counterproductive to their whole debate strategy, as it is the case now. It looks like you will need some more years of research. I don't claim myself to be an expert on Kant, but I have debated a good enough amount of idealists throughout the years as to know where they are standing.
I did not claim to be an 'expert' per se but merely "very familiar with". I did the full time research some time ago but kept in touch but I don't have the whole CPR and his other works on my finger tips. I was about to refresh Kant's CPR thoroughly recently but was sidelined by something else.

There is definitely a difference [assuming average person] between one who had merely scan through Kant's work, study it for one month, one year and one who had researched Kant's work for three years full time.
This is why I am able to pin point where you go wrong in the above when you merely based on selected passages from a side source and not the main source [CPR].
Btw, which translation of the Prolegomena are you using so that I can refer to it to counter?
I have 7 translations of the Prolegomena; I believe your reference is the James Fieser's revision of Paul Carus's 1902 translation.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:37 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:52 am
Again I NEVER said or agreed, "that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them."

What I asserted is, "reality [all there is] is never independent of the human conditions" in contrast to the philosophical realists position. This is because human beings are already entangled with reality in the first place, i.e. from the deterministic link of reality of the Big Bang to the present.

The problem is you keep are stuck with interpreting my position from your rigid realist's POV and position.

As I had stated elsewhere,
my position is empirical realism, i.e. we can observe and justify things external to our mind empirically BUT this whole schema is subsumed within transcendental idealism [note the Big Bang connection and entanglement] at the most fundamental level of reality.
So at the temporal point of the big bang, for example, human beings are entangled with that event via?
Via the concept of time and temporality.
Time is entangled with the human conditions.
When humans realized the BB is appx 13 billion years old [time], the entanglement is implied.
This realization is subsumed within the human conditions.

Then there is the other perspective, i.e. via the principle of determination [open ended not absolute].

Why you are clinging to your existing realist views which is opposite to the above is due to psychological desperation arising from the existential crisis and cognitive dissonance.
At the temporal point of the big bang concepts exist?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:42 am At the temporal point of the big bang concepts exist?
At the big bang neither "time" nor "points" exist!

In the language of Physics The Big Bang is a Mathematical singularity.

You are inventing/constructing the very concepts of "time" and "space" as you conceptualise the singularity as "the first point in time".

This is literally the implication of constructivism/computational metaphysics! "Space" and "time" are computational resources!
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:44 amAt the big bang neither "time" nor "points" exist!
What are they after the big bang?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Terrapin Station »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:44 amAt the big bang neither "time" nor "points" exist!
What are they after the big bang?
Re Skepdick (I have him on ignore), what is he talking about? The big bang involves matter in motion (obviously). That's all that time is--motion or change in general.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:46 pmRe Skepdick (I have him on ignore), what is he talking about? The big bang involves matter in motion (obviously). That's all that time is--motion or change in general.
Well, it depends on what you mean by matter. I'm currently reworking a piece I did based on Quantum Field Theory, basically taking what we see to be the observable properties of the universe and attributing them to a substance. You can see the start of how I think that would work here: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -post.html
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Terrapin Station »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:28 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:46 pmRe Skepdick (I have him on ignore), what is he talking about? The big bang involves matter in motion (obviously). That's all that time is--motion or change in general.
Well, it depends on what you mean by matter. I'm currently reworking a piece I did based on Quantum Field Theory, basically taking what we see to be the observable properties of the universe and attributing them to a substance. You can see the start of how I think that would work here: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -post.html
Are you positing "substance" so that it's different than matter? What you linked to doesn't seem to explain that at all.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:26 pm What are they after the big bang?
"After". Lol.

He made a funny.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:22 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:26 pm What are they after the big bang?
"After". Lol.

He made a funny.
Well, thanks but I really can't take the credit, it was you who said "At the big bang".
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:34 pm Well, thanks but I really can't take the credit, it was you who said "At the big bang".
I also used a language which doesn't encode time or space and called it a "singularity".

But you missed that.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:36 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:34 pm Well, thanks but I really can't take the credit, it was you who said "At the big bang".
I also used a language which doesn't encode time or space and called it a "singularity".

But you missed that.
Ah, still shooting your mouth off without thinking first, I see.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:39 pm Ah, still shooting your mouth off without thinking first, I see.
Difficult to do any "thinking" without memory (space).

You are still shooting your mouth off without understanding computational complexity, I see.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:44 pmDifficult to do any "thinking" without memory (space).

You are still shooting your mouth off without understanding computational complexity, I see.
Fucked if I know what you mean, and fucked if I care. Any reason I should?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:50 pm Fucked if I know what you mean, and fucked if I care. Any reason I should?
Would a paper called Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity do it?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by uwot »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:48 pmAre you positing "substance" so that it's different than matter? What you linked to doesn't seem to explain that at all.
Yeah, it's so difficult to be clear what the difference is that physicists, quite rightly, don't bother. For practical purposes, 'matter' is a bunch of measurable 'facts', which can only be measured relative to other measurable facts. 'Substance' is whatever stuff those facts apply to, although the same measurable facts could equally apply to ideas in the mind of god, à la Berkeley, an evil Cartesian dæmon, Minkowski/Einstein spacetime, Witten string theory. Any story not refuted by facts you fancy.
Post Reply