Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:03 am Since all things empirical are ultimately appearances, not things in themselves, so you say, they are not ultimately real in the transcendental sense. But then when it comes to humans, to be consistent with your point of views, you would have to endorse the notion that humans only exist in the empirical sense, but not in the transcendental sense. They also would be illusions. But since this easily becomes quite problematic, you refuse to acknowledge it, and you always come back with the answer: "humans are real (in the empirical sense), just as the universe and everything else". Are they actual, real, mind-independent objects? You will not tell.
I wasn't following the conversation--too many long posts, which I'm not a fan of, partially because I don't actually have a lot of time to read stuff and post here, but I tried pointing out the above problem to Veritas and asking him about it many times, as well, mostly in the context of his constant appeals to consensus. If there are no real other people and/or we can't actually observe them because we can't (at least accurately) observe an external world, then there's obviously an additional problem (in addition to ad populums) with appeals to consensuses.

Unfortunately, Veritas at least acted as if he never quite understood what I was pointing out or what I was asking him.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
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 22, 2021 12:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am I posted [from quick and hasty search] the article re Transcendental Idealism mainly to counter your claim that Transcendental Idealism is dead.
I have not read the article fully and I did not claim I fully agreed with the authors view.
1) You posted the Stanford article to support your views, supposedly to lecture me about Transcendental Idealism:
As I had stated above

I posted [from quick and hasty search] the article re Transcendental Idealism mainly to counter your claim that Transcendental Idealism is dead.
I have not read the article fully and I did not claim I fully agreed with the authors view.


I am now reading the article [line by line] since you are leveraging on it so seriously. On first reading Stang is quite off course with Kant's CPR.

..............................
OK I have done a reasonably thorough reading of the article in SEP from Nicholas Stang.

One thing you'll need to take into account are the followings;

1. The conclusion:
  • "The meaning and philosophical significance of “transcendental idealism” has been debated by Kant’s readers since 1781, and this debate shows no sign of abating any time soon." 7.0
The above implies Stang did not conclude on any final outcome of the debate on the issues.
You will note Stang presented views from the pro-transcendental_idealists and the philosophical_realists.
If you note every objection and point proposed by the philosophical_realists are countered by the pro-transcendental idealists.
It is the same everywhere, the philosophical realists are so stuck with an "independent substance" that they are unable to see the other perspective of the philosophical idealists.

2. Stang's lack of confidence
All throughout the article, there is Stang’s frequent use of ‘seems’ might be, unclear, not clear, suspicion, could be, this gloss, hesitant -terms, and the likes.
So it is either Stang did not understand Kant completely [which I am sure he is] or he is merely presenting a discussion on transcendental idealism.

3. Article not focused on the essence of Transcendental Realism
The Title of the article should be "Is Kant's Transcendental Idealism also Phenomenalism?"
The most the article got close is Kant's Transcendental Idealism is Qualified Phenomenalism, not Identity nor Strong Phenomenalism. 3.2.
Then there is a section '3.3 Criticisms of Phenomenal readings.'

From the above, you cannot rely upon Stang's article to counter that I am wrong.

Btw, I wonder whether you have read the whole article and understood it thoroughly? Looks like you did not.

Why there is the confusion with Kant's relation with Berkeley Idealism was the original critiques who raised the issue, i.e. Feder-Garve did not understand Kant whole project thoroughly and thus critiqued Kant's CPR from a realist's perspective. Those who continue to disagree with Kant and labelled Kant as an idealist similar to Berkeley are also realists who are dogmatic with an independent substance, the thing-in-itself.

What prevails over all the confusions raised in the article is this,
Kant in CPR 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.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
The above and similar points are not highlighted [mere semblance of it only] in the article. If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, then it cannot be any of substance nor ground for any appearances or phenomenon.
Where it is taken beyond the field of sensibility, then it will be considered positively, it is as an illusion [not substance in any sense] which may be useful for certain purposes.

In addition the above must align and cohere with Kant's ultimate purpose for his total philosophies.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
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 22, 2021 12:38 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:38 am Again, you should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
Kant is committed to both of the following theses:

(Existence) There are things in themselves.

(Humility) We know nothing about things in themselves.

...Kant does not merely claim that things in themselves exist, he also asserts that,

(Non-spatiality) Things in themselves are not in space and time.

(Affection) Things in themselves causally affect us.[31]

What affect us need not necessary be really real.
Illusions do causally affect us.
Things-in-themselves as illusions also can effect us.
You're avoiding the point.
The quote above acknowledges that Kant accepted the real existence of things in themselves as mind-independent objects.
It doesn't say he accepted them as mere illusions, as not actually existing.
For Kant then, the universe exists as a mind-independent reality, even though he also thinks we can't say anything else about how it actually is, for all we know (so he says) is its appearance.
Yes, Kant accepted the universe exists a mind-independent reality, but that is within his empirical realism perspective which is subsumed within his transcendental realism, thus ultimately whatever is external cannot be independent of the human conditions.

This point is supported by Kant's Copernican Revolution, i.e. to understand 'what is' from the human perspective, thus what-is is always conditioned within the human conditions.

Note the point from the above,
(Affection) Things-in-themselves causally affect us

Kant would never agree with the above literally.
The above is only presented from the realists point of view and from their ignorance of Kant's central theme.
I have stated above, the things-in-themselves as noumenon are in general a limiting factor. Therefore a limiting factor do not causally affect us.

From Kant's Copernican Revolution, Kant's exploration of reality starts with the most obvious, i.e. our experience of objects from there he dug into how objects came into being.
The obvious question [at least to realist] is, is there an intrinsic substance to the object of experience or appearance that causally affect us.
In digging in [via his Copernican Revolution], Kant found there is no intrinsic substance and for any one to insist there is an intrinsic substance in the positive sense, then they are clinging onto an illusion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
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 22, 2021 12:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am The basic requirement is you need to read the 884 pages of the CPR understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.
Understand in this case, I do not meant one will understand fully [100% or 99%] but at least 80%.
Not at all. I can get my gardener to read the 884 pages of the CPR and that will not make him understand what Kant is really talking about better than anyone else.
It is very CRITICAL that one need to read the 884 pages of the CPR or 732 comprising the main argument.
Kant CPR is one sequence of a long argument from the origin to page 732 comprising all the loads of connected premises.
If one were to pick and choose specific premises only then one will be immediately strayed off course.

If one do not understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR main argument, how can one ever critique his work, that would be intellectually dishonest.

Kant reminded readers after the hasty critiques he encountered with the 1st edition,
Kant in CPR wrote: A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.

If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
CPR-Bxliv
Previously I was defending Kant like you [very ignorantly], i.e. based on points here and there from secondary sources but was unable to go far and embarrassed at times by dogmatic realists. That was why I decided to spent 3 years full time studying Kant so that I can expressed Kant's views with confidence.

ps. I'll address the rest of your points later.
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: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:02 am
Yes, Kant accepted the universe exists a mind-independent reality, but that is within his empirical realism perspective which is subsumed within his transcendental realism, thus ultimately whatever is external cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Which is incoherent, thus why maybe it would be a good idea to try to think for yourself rather than being focused on being a follower of some other philosopher.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:02 am
Yes, Kant accepted the universe exists a mind-independent reality, but that is within his empirical realism perspective which is subsumed within his transcendental realism, thus ultimately whatever is external cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Which is incoherent, thus why maybe it would be a good idea to try to think for yourself rather than being focused on being a follower of some other philosopher.
You find it incoherent because you are stuck in the realists' paradigm which is unrealistic in addition to being dogmatic as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
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 22, 2021 3:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 am Yet, according to the doctrine you advocate, in the transcendental sense, humans either do not exist (they are illusions) or can't be known to exist as things in themselves. Then how come you found your entire argument about the 'universe not existing without humans' on such risky premises? Clearly humans and the universe are on the same side, don't you think?
Note I don't agree with your perspective, i.e. "humans do not exists" in the current state.
What I asserted is 'humans cannot exist independent of the external world.' Because there are load of nuances involved you cannot change my views to suit yours.
We are trying to clarify what is your position, which seems to be contradictory, not mine.

I am a realist who thinks objects exist independently of human minds, in every sense that one can think of.

What is it that Veritas Aequitas thinks?
We don't know, because you said things that exist in the empirical sense do not exist in the transcendental sense.
And so you stated that 'the universe does not exist if there are no humans', which is apparently a statement in the empirical sense, giving ground (supposedly) to the claim that the universe is a mere illusion.
Since all things empirical are ultimately appearances, not things in themselves, so you say, they are not ultimately real in the transcendental sense.
Note I'll repeat, I DO NOT AGREE with
'the universe does not exist if there are no humans'.

I am claiming what is "real" is only in the empirical sense [plus philosophical, rational] but what is real is not ultimately appearances.
Appearances are merely one of the effects of reality in the empirical sense.
What is real is a whole-schema [the whole shebang] of "experience" without any claim of the thing-in-itself as real.

I don't agree with 'appearances are not ultimately real in the transcendental sense.'
Rather what I implied is if you are chasing beyond the whole-schema [sensibility] of experience, for something real [thing-in-itself] transcendentally, then you are chasing an illusion.

Hope you get that?
But then when it comes to humans, to be consistent with your point of views, you would have to endorse the notion that humans only exist in the empirical sense, but not in the transcendental sense. They also would be illusions.
But since this easily becomes quite problematic, you refuse to acknowledge it, and you always come back with the answer: "humans are real (in the empirical sense), just as the universe and everything else". Are they actual, real, mind-independent objects? You will not tell.
Yes, humans only exists as real [verifiable and justifiable] in the empirical and philosophical sense.

So if you are chasing beyond the whole-schema [sensibility] of experience, for a real "I AM" [thing-in-itself] transcendentally, then you are chasing an illusion, i.e. the permanent soul that survives physical death.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am I have already stated, no humans are empirical illusions, what is is a transcendental illusion is when it is claimed the real human is the human-soul that can survive physical death. Kant spent a lot of pages explain why the insistence on the soul is an illusion.
Note also Hume's view that there is no soul that survives physical death.
Do you believe your soul that survives physical death?
You're deviating the subject to avoid the issue that is creating problems to your argument. Forget about souls, whatever. We are talking about simple flesh and bone beings called humans. You have to answer the very simple question: do they exist for real as mind-independent objects? Yes or no.
Repeating the above;
Yes, humans exist as real [verifiable and justifiable] in the empirical and philosophical sense.

The issue of the soul is very critical for Kant to contrast against real empirical humans.
So, if you are chasing beyond the whole-schema [sensibility] of experience, for a real "I AM" [thing-in-itself] transcendentally, then you are chasing an illusion, i.e. the permanent soul that survives physical death.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am Since you countered Berkeley strongly I supposed you have the materials to support your counter.
So, I would prefer to hear your arguments first.
We are focused on Kant now, and I prefer to bring closure to this case, which seems to be approaching its end anyway. You can start a new thread if you like, but I'm pretty sure that if Kant is a hard bite, Berkeley is a piece of cake.
Not sure it will be the end for you when there are so many holes for you to close.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am Note the above mentioned,
  • But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s ......
That is perfectly OK and consistent with my claims and does not support your claim that materialism and physicalism are different things. One word did not replace the other, it was added to the vocabulary as a synonym.
I'll leave it to your opinion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am which if you are informed more thoroughly will give you a clue they are different significantly within certain contexts.
I just cited two credible sources of basic definitions of philosophical terms. They support my statements, but not yours.
Unfortunately I believe you did not read the whole article nor understood the full context of the article which is mainly a discussion on whether Kant is a phenomenalist.
Since it is in line with my current project, I went through the article line by line for over 3 days.
I commented about the article in an earlier post and I dare say Stang [re SEP on Transcendental Realism] do not full understand Kant's intention CPR.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am In this case, to be objective you just cannot rely on one source written by a specific author to support this particular contentious issue, you need to read more articles or books on the issue.
Again, I cited a credible source which precisely shows that this is not a contentious issue. Perhaps it is only controversial in the mystical circles of idealist philosophers, a well-known source of speculative nonsense these days, but the ones who actually deal with quantum theory are physicists and they invariably speak of quantum physics in terms of physical states of the material world at the level of subatomic particles, for which there's a whole field (quantum mechanics) where predictions of their behavior are mathematically precise and spectacularly successful. It is not in any way a theory of "immateriality".
From my thorough reading of the SEP article, Stang is not a credible source to represent Kant's view fully.

Don't be too sure with "in the mystical circles of idealist philosophers, a well-known source of speculative nonsense these days,"
the above point is more likely to fall back on your realist views.
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: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:02 am
Yes, Kant accepted the universe exists a mind-independent reality, but that is within his empirical realism perspective which is subsumed within his transcendental realism, thus ultimately whatever is external cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Which is incoherent, thus why maybe it would be a good idea to try to think for yourself rather than being focused on being a follower of some other philosopher.
You find it incoherent because you are stuck in the realists' paradigm which is unrealistic in addition to being dogmatic as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.
No, it's incoherent because it can't be the case that it's both mind-independent and that it cannot be independent of "human conditions."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:07 am
Which is incoherent, thus why maybe it would be a good idea to try to think for yourself rather than being focused on being a follower of some other philosopher.
You find it incoherent because you are stuck in the realists' paradigm which is unrealistic in addition to being dogmatic as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.
No, it's incoherent because it can't be the case that it's both mind-independent and that it cannot be independent of "human conditions."
As I had stated you are stuck in a fixed paradigm.

It like some tribal person [in the middle of the Amazon not exposed to ice] who is naturally stuck in one paradigm of reality, thus cannot accept H20 as both soft and hard in different perspectives.
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: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:38 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:12 am
You find it incoherent because you are stuck in the realists' paradigm which is unrealistic in addition to being dogmatic as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.
No, it's incoherent because it can't be the case that it's both mind-independent and that it cannot be independent of "human conditions."
As I had stated you are stuck in a fixed paradigm.

It like some tribal person [in the middle of the Amazon not exposed to ice] who is naturally stuck in one paradigm of reality, thus cannot accept H20 as both soft and hard in different perspectives.
It has nothing to do with anything aside from what's being conjointly claimed.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:38 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:51 am
No, it's incoherent because it can't be the case that it's both mind-independent and that it cannot be independent of "human conditions."
As I had stated you are stuck in a fixed paradigm.

It like some tribal person [in the middle of the Amazon not exposed to ice] who is naturally stuck in one paradigm of reality, thus cannot accept H20 as both soft and hard in different perspectives.
It has nothing to do with anything aside from what's being conjointly claimed.
I understand why you cannot see it, is because you, like the tribal person, is stuck in one paradigm i.e. the realist paradigm.
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: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:39 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:38 am
As I had stated you are stuck in a fixed paradigm.

It like some tribal person [in the middle of the Amazon not exposed to ice] who is naturally stuck in one paradigm of reality, thus cannot accept H20 as both soft and hard in different perspectives.
It has nothing to do with anything aside from what's being conjointly claimed.
I understand why you cannot see it, is because you, like the tribal person, is stuck in one paradigm i.e. the realist paradigm.
So you'd need to explain how "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" can be compatible, because they appear to be contradictory.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:39 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:00 am
It has nothing to do with anything aside from what's being conjointly claimed.
I understand why you cannot see it, is because you, like the tribal person, is stuck in one paradigm i.e. the realist paradigm.
So you'd need to explain how "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" can be compatible, because they appear to be contradictory.
To give you an analogy.

Take a prisoner in a prison cell.
The prisoner is 'free' i.e. has the freedom to do what he is allowed to within his prison cell.
But ultimately he is not free in the sense he is imprisoned within the overall prison.
Thus the prisoner is free on one sense but ultimately not-free in a different sense at the same time.

Similarly within common and the convention sense, I understand the table out there and the whole external world is independent of my body and self, [empirical realism]
BUT in another sense [which you are unable to reflect upon] I know what is external in the common and conventional sense is not independent of the human conditions.
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: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:30 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:39 am
I understand why you cannot see it, is because you, like the tribal person, is stuck in one paradigm i.e. the realist paradigm.
So you'd need to explain how "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" can be compatible, because they appear to be contradictory.
To give you an analogy.

Take a prisoner in a prison cell.
The prisoner is 'free' i.e. has the freedom to do what he is allowed to within his prison cell.
But ultimately he is not free in the sense he is imprisoned within the overall prison.
Thus the prisoner is free on one sense but ultimately not-free in a different sense at the same time.

Similarly within common and the convention sense, I understand the table out there and the whole external world is independent of my body and self, [empirical realism]
BUT in another sense [which you are unable to reflect upon] I know what is external in the common and conventional sense is not independent of the human conditions.
So provide the definitions of the different senses.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by RCSaunders »

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.
I thought this was going to be a serious question. Then I saw who posted it.

Nevertheless, though no one in the world cares what he, "claims," and it is pointless to attempt to, "prove," what is beyond some fool's ability to understand (you can't prove the Calculus is correct to someone who cannot understand simple algebra), here's the proof:

All one has to do is attempt to defy the independent existence one doubts, and when the independent existence kills you, you will have your proof--a little too late.
Post Reply