Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:38 pm That under the context repeating the same results or definitions always occur.
What?

That doesn't really read as English.
"That" refers to "what does it mean"?

You can put it this way: An action or statement under the same context always repeats the same effect or results in the same definition used to describe it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?
You are making too much noises on this one because you ignored the context of the discussion.

Conde Lucanor claimed "Science gives you realism." This to him imply scientific truths represent 'absolute* certainty' of objective reality out there.
* note the difference between absolutely-absolute [e.g. God] and 'absolute-in-general'.
Examples of absolute-in-general are 'absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes.

Obviously the quote
"It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. "
refer to absolute-in-general not absolutely-absolute [God's certainty].

Thus my introduction of the above quote was to squash Conde Lucanor's claim that Science give "absolute certainty" [re absolute-in-general] of objective reality out there which is ontological.
Science is "Scientific", actual Science don't give a damn about ontology [philosophical].

This is where the arrogance of Scientism arose within many.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4358
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: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:56 am It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?
You are making too much noises on this one because you ignored the context of the discussion.

Conde Lucanor claimed "Science gives you realism." This to him imply scientific truths represent 'absolute* certainty' of objective reality out there.
* note the difference between absolutely-absolute [e.g. God] and 'absolute-in-general'.
Examples of absolute-in-general are 'absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes.

Obviously the quote
"It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. "
refer to absolute-in-general not absolutely-absolute [God's certainty].

Thus my introduction of the above quote was to squash Conde Lucanor's claim that Science give "absolute certainty" [re absolute-in-general] of objective reality out there which is ontological.
Science is "Scientific", actual Science don't give a damn about ontology [philosophical].

This is where the arrogance of Scientism arose within many.
No one should be reading truth or knowledge claims as implying any sort of certainty period.
Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=513291 time=1623237119 user_id=12582]
No one should be reading truth or knowledge claims as implying any sort of certainty period.
[/quote]

That's exactly what knowledge is, certainty. It's a scale of justification. As long as 100% of evidence points in a given direction, you can be 100% certain that's the right thing to believe. Whether or if additional evidence comes to light is in the current moment an entirely imaginary proposition.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:54 pm

Claims about what's true, claims about what we know, have no implication for absolute certainty.

How many times does this need to be repeated before one finally gets it?
You are making too much noises on this one because you ignored the context of the discussion.

Conde Lucanor claimed "Science gives you realism." This to him imply scientific truths represent 'absolute* certainty' of objective reality out there.
* note the difference between absolutely-absolute [e.g. God] and 'absolute-in-general'.
Examples of absolute-in-general are 'absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes.

Obviously the quote
"It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. "
refer to absolute-in-general not absolutely-absolute [God's certainty].

Thus my introduction of the above quote was to squash Conde Lucanor's claim that Science give "absolute certainty" [re absolute-in-general] of objective reality out there which is ontological.
Science is "Scientific", actual Science don't give a damn about ontology [philosophical].

This is where the arrogance of Scientism arose within many.
No one should be reading truth or knowledge claims as implying any sort of certainty period.
Aren't you aware there is such thing as absolutely-absolute-certainty [attributed to God]
and relative-absolute-certainty [relative to a specific FSK].

Within the Arithmetic FSK, 1 + 1 = 2 is a 100%-certainty, i.e. relative to the Arithmetic FSK only.

That is the problem with your philosophy when you hold dogmatic stances and thus unable to flex with the relevant contexts within reality.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4358
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 Jun 10, 2021 3:35 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:53 am
You are making too much noises on this one because you ignored the context of the discussion.

Conde Lucanor claimed "Science gives you realism." This to him imply scientific truths represent 'absolute* certainty' of objective reality out there.
* note the difference between absolutely-absolute [e.g. God] and 'absolute-in-general'.
Examples of absolute-in-general are 'absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes.

Obviously the quote
"It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. "
refer to absolute-in-general not absolutely-absolute [God's certainty].

Thus my introduction of the above quote was to squash Conde Lucanor's claim that Science give "absolute certainty" [re absolute-in-general] of objective reality out there which is ontological.
Science is "Scientific", actual Science don't give a damn about ontology [philosophical].

This is where the arrogance of Scientism arose within many.
No one should be reading truth or knowledge claims as implying any sort of certainty period.
Aren't you aware there is such thing as absolutely-absolute-certainty [attributed to God]
and relative-absolute-certainty [relative to a specific FSK].

Within the Arithmetic FSK, 1 + 1 = 2 is a 100%-certainty, i.e. relative to the Arithmetic FSK only.

That is the problem with your philosophy when you hold dogmatic stances and thus unable to flex with the relevant contexts within reality.
Disavowals of certainty are anything but dogmatic.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12365
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Where would you like it "proved"? :wink:

And by whom? :wink:

Why would you "withdraw your claim" when something had been "proved" by a person you don't believe exists, in a place you don't believe exists, using data you don't believe exists?

Are you confused? :shock:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Where would you like it "proved"? :wink:

And by whom? :wink:

Why would you "withdraw your claim" when something had been "proved" by a person you don't believe exists, in a place you don't believe exists, using data you don't believe exists?

Are you confused? :shock:
You are the one who is very confused because you are unable to distill the nuances involved.

Note,
The SELF-in-itself is claimed to be the independent soul that will survive physical death.
Can you prove such an independent soul exists?

I don't believe in such a SELF-in-itself as above exists at all.
Most philosophers who are non-theistic do not believe such an independent soul-in-itself exists in reality. Note Hume and others.

What I believe is my empirical self exists as real [the one I can pinch, feels and see in the mirror] and other observable empirical selves exist and they exist independent from each other in the common and conventional sense perspectives.

However in a higher perspective of reality, the apparently independent selves are not truly independent. note the illustration of the 'the giantic forest of pando trees which appear as individual and independent but ALL are actually connected underground as ONE single tree"

Image
viewtopic.php?p=502653#p502653

Reality-in-itself and things-in-themselves are claimed in the same real sense of the self-in-itself, aka soul-in-itself, albeit the latter is in the theological perspective.
Just as the self-in-itself do not exists as real, similarly reality-in-itself also do not exists as real.

Thus if you are able to prove the independent soul-in-itself aka self-in-itself exists as real, then you are on your way to prove an independent reality-in-itself also exists as real.

So, show me your proof.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12365
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Where would you like it "proved"? :wink:

And by whom? :wink:

Why would you "withdraw your claim" when something had been "proved" by a person you don't believe exists, in a place you don't believe exists, using data you don't believe exists?

Are you confused? :shock:
You are the one who is very confused because you are unable to distill the nuances involved.
"Nuanced" is a word people use when they mean "I'm confused." 8)
So, show me your proof.
Again, before I do, you need to tell me:

1. In what realm should I produce this proof, since you say reality does not exist?

2. Who should produce it, since you deny that I exist?


Answer those, and I'll be happy to give you the proof. But there has to be somewhere in which to prove the thing, and somebody to prove it.

Thus, your very question refutes your own claim: you can't ask for "proof" if there is no such place where proof can be instantiated and nobody to instantiate it.

I don't need to prove your claim wrong, because you've just done it, in other words. :shock:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:07 pm
Where would you like it "proved"? :wink:

And by whom? :wink:

Why would you "withdraw your claim" when something had been "proved" by a person you don't believe exists, in a place you don't believe exists, using data you don't believe exists?

Are you confused? :shock:
You are the one who is very confused because you are unable to distill the nuances involved.
"Nuanced" is a word people use when they mean "I'm confused." 8)
Didn't know your vocab is that restricted and so bad in this case.
So, show me your proof.
Again, before I do, you need to tell me:

1. In what realm should I produce this proof, since you say reality does not exist?
Note, not an unqualified 'reality' [you are trying to slide] but reality-in-itself.
So prove it at the minimal in the realm of scientific sense.
If you want to, you can prove a soul exists as real in the heavenly realm.
2. Who should produce it, since you deny that I exist?
Where did I say you [normal sense] do not exist?
Your empirical self exists as real in the empirical scientific and philosophical sense.

What I am claiming is your self-in-itself i.e. your soul-in-itself that will survives physical death does not exists as real. Note OP's "in-itself".
Answer those, and I'll be happy to give you the proof. But there has to be somewhere in which to prove the thing, and somebody to prove it.

Thus, your very question refutes your own claim: you can't ask for "proof" if there is no such place where proof can be instantiated and nobody to instantiate it.

I don't need to prove your claim wrong, because you've just done it, in other words. :shock:
Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=513474 time=1623472295 user_id=7896]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=513419 time=1623417175 user_id=9431]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=513396 time=1623394560 user_id=7896]

You are the one who is very confused because you are unable to distill the nuances involved.[/quote]
"Nuanced" is a word people use when they mean "I'm confused." 8) [/quote]
Didn't know your vocab is that restricted and so bad in this case.

[quote][quote]So, show me your proof.[/quote]
Again, before I do, you need to tell me:

[b]1. In what realm should I produce this proof, since you say reality does not exist?[/b][/quote]
Note, not an unqualified 'reality' [you are trying to slide] but reality-in-itself.
So prove it at the minimal in the realm of scientific sense.
If you want to, you can prove a soul exists as real in the heavenly realm.

[quote][b]2. Who should produce it, since you deny that I exist?[/b][/quote]
Where did I say you [normal sense] do not exist?
Your empirical self exists as real in the empirical scientific and philosophical sense.

What I am claiming is your self-[b]in-itself[/b] i.e. your soul-[b]in-itself [/b]that will survives physical death does not exists as real. Note OP's "[b]in-itself[/b]".

[quote]Answer those, and I'll be happy to give you the proof. But there has to be [i]somewhere [/i]in which to prove the thing, and[i] somebody[/i] to prove it.

Thus, [i]your very question[/i] refutes your own claim: you can't ask for "proof" if there is no such place where proof can be instantiated and nobody to instantiate it.

I don't need to prove your claim wrong, because you've just done it, in other words. :shock:
[/quote]
[/quote]

You've explained the kernel of metaphysics well enough that anyone who wasn't actively trying not to understand would understand. Why do more?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12365
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:31 am 1. In what realm should I produce this proof, since you say reality does not exist?
...[in] reality-in-itself...in the realm of scientific sense...
But that's the realm you say doesn't exist. :shock: So what you're asking for is me to do the equivalent of "prove in the realm of Neverneverland," or " prove in the realm of Disney," (i.e. to prove in a realm that you insist does not exist). :shock:

If you accept that there exists such a realm, the sort of place where proof can be produced contrary to your OP, then you have already denied the OP.

So I think it's clear that you know there is an "independent reality in itself." It's in that place that you want me to produce the "proof." But your request makes that unnecessary -- for you would have to assume the existence of such a place in order to ask for "proof" in it.
2. Who should produce it, since you deny that I exist?
Where did I say you [normal sense] do not exist?
In the OP, it is necessarily implicit. If there is no "independent reality-in-itself," them there is no place in which actual other people, such as me, can exist. So you can't possibly be speaking to anyone, because there's nowhere for them to be.
Your empirical self exists as real in the empirical scientific and philosophical sense.
If that's true, then again you've denied your own OP, assumptively.
What I am claiming is your self-in-itself i.e. your soul-in-itself that will survives physical death does not exists as real. Note OP's "in-itself".
That's not your wording in the OP. In the OP, you ask if "reality-in-itself" exists. You say nothing at all about the "soul" or the human "self," just about "reality-in-itself."

So do you want to change the OP now? If that's what you meant, you certainly should. I suggest maybe you ask, "Prove to me that the soul/self exists."
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:Strawman!! Actually your point merely reflect your intellectual incompetence in this case.

As I have always emphasize, note the different perspectives between 'reality-in-itself' and the common and conventional sense.
Actually, it is your total incompetence to escape from the hole of contradictions in which you have trapped yourself. Disguising them as mere "different perspectives" does not make them vanish. While you cannot commit to a statement of what is the actual case, you demand very comfortably from others to provide what is their case, so you can play the skepticism charade.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Your knowledge re what is science is very outdated. You must read up on the latest view on Science and the Philosophy of Science.
That's the rubber stamp of your dogmatism. Since you cannot provide counterarguments, you simply resort to invoking some books you have read that just happen to contain the ultimate truths. Read Bunge and then tell me about it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Show me proof that "Science give you realism" i.e. philosophical realism?
I am sure when Newton did science he would have claimed his conclusions gave him creationism and theism.
In any case, scientific realism do not jive with philosophical realism [re this OP].
More dogmatism from your part. You seem to take your "isms" as rigorous drawer box classifications and treat them as the expression of concrete, real, perfectly-defined things (note the paradox), instead of useful abstract approximations to the common features of particular philosophical stances, allowing to cross each other's boundaries, while still showing differences among them. That's why it is not necessary to build fixed walls between philosophical realism and scientific realism, they can get along well. I'm OK with being a realist, a philosophical realist or a scientific realist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: This really reflect ignorance on your part and it is insulting your own intelligence to hold on to such a view.
What works with Science as I had repeated many times is whether the scientific conclusions are processed via the necessary requirements of the scientific framework, is accepted by the relevant peers and more so is useful to humanity.
A clear sign of intellectual feebleness is to riddle philosophical discussions with streams of Ad Hominem arguments.
Sure, it is the methodology of science that gives us trustworthy certainties, but its materialistic and realistic assumptions are part of its methodological and epistemological foundations. Science is inherently natural science, it only makes whole sense in a natural world of predictable regularities of substantial entities.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are ignorant to hold this view.
What is most realistic is the micro state of reality not the macro.
This is why Physicists are so focused on searching for what is the ultimate particle that grounds all of macro reality.
Again, Ad Hominem arguments only impoverish philosophical debate.

Note how suddenly you turn into an avid seeker of "reality", that's because you think quantum physics hold the ultimate truth of your idealism. It's my time then, to point out that you're just chasing illusions.

It's completely ludicrous to believe that science is close to abandoning the physical laws that govern the macroscopic universe. They still describe it with astounding accuracy, just as much as quantum mechanics describes the physical laws that govern the microscopic world. You might not found out yet, but what scientists are actually doing is looking for the overarching theory that unifies both, the so-called Theory of Everything. Whether that's possible or not is yet to be seen, but this point is undisputable: what we're talking about is still Physics, it is still materialistic, it is still realistic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are very ignorant on this.
When QM was first introduced, Einstein, the realist, was very strong against the idealistic views of Bohr and others. But eventually Bohr and gang won out against Einstein the realist.
Bohr was a physicist and to claim him for the idealist gang is disputable, and famously did dispute it Henry Folse. While some of his philosophical views might have resounded to idealists, he ultimately believed an atom was a real entity and he still held the notion of causality. He was not deranged as Heisenberg, but in any case, whatever case one can make out of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, this is not a settled matter that turns the tide in favor of idealism, they are still interpretations in dispute:
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality
Veritas Aequitas wrote: If scientific truths ["roses"] are merely "polished conjectures" they cannot be anything better than whatever names you assign to them.
Scientific truths are never claimed to be "undisputed objective facts and testable certainties" at most they are all conditional to the scientific framework [FSK] which is ultimately conditioned to human conditions plus open to change and rejection, thus not facts-in-themselves.
Such relativism of science is often peddled by idealists, but no one disputes that water molecules are composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, or what is the mass of an electron. It is not that we should hold this as a "polished conjecture" that might change tomorrow conditioned to changes in the scientific framework.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again you are so wrong in this case.
If Kant stated "1 plus 1 = 3" in German in his book, whoever translate it will have to translate that literally.
You simply have no idea of how these types of translations work. It is not like the translation of inventory records.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I believe you are not well verse philosophically of the tribalism [us vs them] between realists and anti-realists which is due their psychologically, primal, cultural, ideological and political stances and differences.
Serious philosophers don't engage in such hostile, irrational fanatism. It is only their dogmatic fans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Again note 'what is real' is QUALIFIED to the empirical and scientific framework.

Here is a good illustration of my claims re empirical realism subsumed within transcendental idealism.
Similarly scientific realism of an independent world is subsumed with a non-independent scientific framework constructed by humans.
Therefore all scientific truths of independent things cannot be ultimately independent.
By your admission, your "truth" is conditioned to an epistemological framework that conditions truths to the chosen epistemological framework, therefore you are actually not arriving to knowledge, but departing from one assumption and landing on it. Pure circular reasoning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: You keep forgetting that Science and its scientific truths are only possible because of human activities in Science.
Science is a human endeavor, I have never denied this. But it is a human endeavor that seeks to obtain knowledge of an objective reality, independent of the human mind. It wouldn't be science otherwise.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Note your strawman.
Where did I ever state "simple conjectures"? You are trying to resort to deceptions in this case, but the slide is so obvious.
I stated "POLISHED CONJECTURES" and if you don't understand this term, you are really ignorant of what is Science.
Conjectures are by definition, speculations. As such, they are simpler, less developed, than statements of facts. So, no matter how "polished" your conjectures are, they are still simple conjectures compared to statements of facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nope! Kant did not make any attempt to raise Metaphysics to the level of a Science.
Rather he merely ask the question whether it can or not [knowing well it cannot].
Kant ultimately proved metaphysics cannot be raised to a level of science.
Nope. He actually engaged in the opposite. He thought metaphysics before him was problematic and the spectacular achievements of Newtonian science had surpassed the possibilities of philosophy. Kant came to the rescue in the light of the crisis in philosophy and the Enlightenment in general:
Immanuel Kant
From this Kant concludes that metaphysics is indeed possible in the sense that we can have a priori knowledge that the entire sensible world – not just our actual experience, but any possible human experience – necessarily conforms to certain laws. Kant calls this immanent metaphysics or the metaphysics of experience, because it deals with the essential principles that are immanent to human experience.[...] In this way, Kant replaces transcendent metaphysics with a new practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. It thus turns out that two kinds of metaphysics are possible: the metaphysics of experience (or nature) and the metaphysics of morals, both of which depend on Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Your thinking is too crude.
Within classical Science there is no doubt that the moon is a mind-independent object.
But with the emergence of Einstein relativity theory and the observers effect, doubts were creeping in.
However with QM in the picture, [as qualified] there is a strong claim there is no independent moon.

Note, to counter QM Einstein raised the question,
No, that's just the derailed interpretation of idealist philosophers. Quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the the effects of observation on the Moon, there's no experiment or theory showing that the Moon as we know it will cease to be the same moon when humans are not observing it. The descriptions of QM apply only at the quantum level and yet, they are descriptions of the behavior of real things that can be calculated with mathematical accuracy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: If you are well read you would be well aware of the above issue.
As a dogmatic realist it is unlikely you will accept the truth, there is no independent moon from the QM perspective.
The QM perspective is about the behavior of fundamental physical particles, it does not apply to the behavior and properties of the Moon!!
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Your "what is the actual case" perspective is classical Science which in a way is empirical-idealism.
The "what-is-the-actual-case perspective" is simply taking the ontological position of what is objectively real. What is objectively real is a material world, which science can describe, and that includes classical science and quantum-level science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: As I had argued, if your approach is;
  • using my sensible faculties along with my intellect, relying on methodological and epistemological tools, to work around the manifest image and arrive to the scientific image. It is this complex exercise of systematic rationality that relies on trustable methods that leads us to ontological realism and materialism as the only tenable positions.

then what you are claiming is not an 'absolute' external independent objective reality, but rather that it is dependent on your human activity, human institution -science etc, thus ultimately dependent on the human conditions.

In this case if you claim the above is ontological realism and materialism, it can only be human dependent "ontological realism and materialism" because your above approaches and processes are all ultimately dependent on the human conditions.

Therefore your "ontological realism and materialism" is not the philosophical ontological realism and materialism, where the moon exists absolutely independent of humans.
Your argument confuses the method of inquiry and knowledge-dependency with ontological-dependency. My awareness of the existence of things is not necessarily tied to their existence. I can use rational knowledge to discover that things exist or existed independent of them becoming objects of my perception and knowledge. That's why it is a discovery: they were there before I came to know them. This is what makes ancestrality a central issue of scientific discourse:
Quentin Meillassoux wrote:It is the discourseof empirical science which, for the first time, gives meaning to the idea ofa rational debate about what did or did not exist prior to the emergenceof humankind, as well as about what might eventually succeed humanity. Theories can always be improved and amended, but the very fact that there can be such dia-chronic theories is the remarkable feature madepossible by modern knowledge. It was science that made it meaningful to disagree about what there might have been when we did not exist, and what there might be when we no longer exist – just as it is sciencethat provides us with the means to rationally favour one hypothesis over another concerning the nature of a world without us...

[...]Once again, the fundamental point at issue is not the fact that science is spontaneously realist, since the same could be said of every discourse, but rather the fact that science deploys a process whereby we are able to know what may be while we are not, and that this process is linked to what sets science apart: the mathematization of nature.


As a subject, I recognize myself in other subjects that necessarily belong to the set of objects of the world, therefore it is the worldly conditions where I navigate as a subject that impose over your so-called "human conditions", not the other way around. The subject is not the center, and Kant's Copernican revolution is actually a Ptolemaic regression:
Quentin Meillassoux wrote:Kant presents his own revolution in thought under the banner of the revolution wrought by Copernicus – instead of knowledge conforming to the object, the Critical revolution makes the object conform to our knowledge. Yet it has become abundantly clear that a more fitting comparison for the Kantian revolution in thought would be to a ‘Ptolemaic counter-revolution’, given that what the former asserts is not that the observer whom we thought was motionless is in fact orbiting around the observed sun, but on the contrary, that the subject is central to the process of knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: I am not promoting Rorty's pragmatism in this case.
What I am highlighting is Rorty's argument that philosophical realism is a mess [due to Descartes' et. al] and not tenable [he relied on Wittgenstein, and others].
Do you agree with his arguments if you have read his book.

It seems you're not very much aware of what is implied in Rorty's pragmatism. Anyway, I know enough of Rorty and I have no further interest in him. I don't agree with his radical anti-foundationalism and I don't have to. In any case, his own project rejects the notion of necessity of truth, or justified belief, therefore it would be futile to present his rejection of realism as a verifiable conclusion, instead of as the deployment of his relativism and subjectivism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Do you understand Meno's Paradox in the first place and the realistic philosophical issues behind it?

As many other philosophical paradoxes, Meno's is just another silly pseudoproblem, which is only of interest for those involved with sophistry. Right off the bat, it is ridiculous and a complete waste of time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:31 am 1. In what realm should I produce this proof, since you say reality does not exist?
...[in] reality-in-itself...in the realm of scientific sense...
But that's the realm you say doesn't exist. :shock: So what you're asking for is me to do the equivalent of "prove in the realm of Neverneverland," or " prove in the realm of Disney," (i.e. to prove in a realm that you insist does not exist). :shock:

If you accept that there exists such a realm, the sort of place where proof can be produced contrary to your OP, then you have already denied the OP.

So I think it's clear that you know there is an "independent reality in itself." It's in that place that you want me to produce the "proof." But your request makes that unnecessary -- for you would have to assume the existence of such a place in order to ask for "proof" in it.
You are making a mess for your self.

The OP is addressed to those who insist there is an independent reality-in-itself that exists as real.
These are the philosophical realists who insist, e.g. the moon pre-existed before humans, and things at present exist in an external world that is independent of the human conditions.

If you believe as above, then prove such an independent reality-in-itself exists based on the scientific realm preferably or whatever realm you can convince others your claims is true.
2. Who should produce it, since you deny that I exist?
Where did I say you [normal sense] do not exist?
In the OP, it is necessarily implicit. If there is no "independent reality-in-itself," them there is no place in which actual other people, such as me, can exist. So you can't possibly be speaking to anyone, because there's nowhere for them to be.
You still don't get the point.
Of course, I do not believe there is an independent reality-in-itself.
But there are others 'philosophical realists' and theological realists who believe and insist such a independent reality-in-itself exists as real.
Thus the onus is on them to prove their claims.
Your empirical self exists as real in the empirical scientific and philosophical sense.
If that's true, then again you've denied your own OP, assumptively.
Nope.
The OP is a challenge to those who believe an independent reality-in-itself exists as real.
It has nothing to do with my beliefs.
What I am claiming is your self-in-itself i.e. your soul-in-itself that will survives physical death does not exists as real. Note OP's "in-itself".
That's not your wording in the OP. In the OP, you ask if "reality-in-itself" exists. You say nothing at all about the "soul" or the human "self," just about "reality-in-itself."

So do you want to change the OP now? If that's what you meant, you certainly should. I suggest maybe you ask, "Prove to me that the soul/self exists."
Point is those who are theists and believe an independent reality-in-itself exists as real also believe the soul-in-itself exists as real and the believers' souls will go to heaven.
In the context of the OP, "Prove to me that the soul/self exists" is the same as "Prove to me that the soul/self-in-itself exists" which exist within reality-in-itself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Nope! Kant did not make any attempt to raise Metaphysics to the level of a Science.
Rather he merely ask the question whether it can or not [knowing well it cannot].
Kant ultimately proved metaphysics cannot be raised to a level of science.
Nope. He actually engaged in the opposite. He thought metaphysics before him was problematic and the spectacular achievements of Newtonian science had surpassed the possibilities of philosophy. Kant came to the rescue in the light of the crisis in philosophy and the Enlightenment in general:
Immanuel Kant
From this Kant concludes that metaphysics is indeed possible in the sense that we can have a priori knowledge that the entire sensible world – not just our actual experience, but any possible human experience – necessarily conforms to certain laws. Kant calls this immanent metaphysics or the metaphysics of experience, because it deals with the essential principles that are immanent to human experience.[...] In this way, Kant replaces transcendent metaphysics with a new practical science that he calls the metaphysics of morals. It thus turns out that two kinds of metaphysics are possible: the metaphysics of experience (or nature) and the metaphysics of morals, both of which depend on Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy.
Metaphysics like its element 'ontology' is a very loose term.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
It is like the term 'spirituality' which is also a VERY loose term. As such when I speak of spirituality, one cannot conflate it with say theistic spirituality and the likes. It thus critical to understand the specific context of 'spirituality' involved.

In this case of 'metaphysics' I am referring to the traditional metaphysics of speculations beyond experiences [transcendent metaphysics] and not regarding morals nor the ideals of experiences.

If you read further in the article you linked, you will note;

But, second, if “we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them,” then we cannot have a priori knowledge about things whose existence and nature are entirely independent of the human mind, which Kant calls things in themselves (Bxviii). In his words: “[F]rom this deduction of our faculty of cognizing a priori […] there emerges a very strange result […], namely that with this faculty we can never get beyond the boundaries of possible experience, […and] that such cognition reaches appearances only, leaving the thing in itself as something actual for itself but uncognized by us” (Bxix–xx).

That is, Kant’s constructivist foundation for scientific knowledge restricts science to the realm of appearances and implies that transcendent metaphysics – i.e., a priori knowledge of things in themselves that transcend possible human experience – is impossible.

In the Critique Kant thus rejects the insight into an intelligible world that he defended in the Inaugural Dissertation, and he now claims that rejecting knowledge about things in themselves is necessary for reconciling science with traditional morality and religion.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/


It is in the sense of 'transcendent metaphysics' that I am concerned with, not re morality and religion which is a separate issue.


Note the point in here;
Since objects can only be experienced spatiotemporally, the only application of concepts that yields knowledge is to the empirical, spatiotemporal world.
Beyond that realm, there can be no sensations of objects for the understanding to judge, rightly or wrongly.
Since intuitions of the physical world are lacking when we speculate about what lies beyond, metaphysical knowledge, or knowledge of the world outside the physical, is impossible.
Claiming to have knowledge from the application of concepts beyond the bounds of sensation results in the empty and illusory transcendent metaphysics of Rationalism that Kant reacts against.
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
It one were to read the Critique of Pure Reason, the central theme is Kant rejected the traditional ontology and transcendent metaphysics.

However I noted Kant did provide a sliver of room within the CPR for the metaphysics of morals but that is a separate subject altogether to be dealt within his Second Critique of Practical Reason.
Post Reply