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.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."
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.
It is not the noumenon "had to exist in order for the phenomena to be perceived."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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am
In the above Kant challenged realist to provide proof, the external independent world exists,
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.
Kant is no exception. Most philosophers' works has different views from opposing parties.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.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.
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.
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.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.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?
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.