Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 am 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.[/color]
It's very odd your assertion that you were just starting to read an online reference that you submitted yourself as an authoritative evidence that would support your points. I am very cautious about evidence from authority, but in this case it was one you submitted, and which clearly sides with me and not with you. That you recant now is just an indication of how bad it makes your stance look and you need to take distance from that authoritative source. Your disagreeing opinion is not enough, you have to show evidence that yours is the most accepted interpretation and not Stang's.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 am 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:

2. Stang's lack of confidence

3. Article not focused on the essence of Transcendental Realism

From the above, you cannot rely upon Stang's article to counter that I am wrong.
You are now not only debating Kant with me, but clashing with a scholar that has written mostly about Kant, and which you submitted as evidence that Transcendental Idealism was alive and well, meaning its doctrines still relevant, yet those doctrines go in opposite direction of what you claim is the general consensus. So, you either acknowledge that there's no academic consensus on the interpretation of Kant's CPR, or that you were simply wrong about Kant. Your choice. In any case, you will have to recant once again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 am
Btw, I wonder whether you have read the whole article and understood it thoroughly? Looks like you did not.
By now, it has become very obvious that you resort to that fallacy quite often, every time any source quarrels with your views. Your reaction is always of this sort: "I suspect you didn't interpret the text correctly" or "I suspect you did not read the entire text". It is to expect that any new refutation that comes from authorative sources or the authors themselves, will meet that fallacious wall. You simply appropriate yourself the authority over Kant's texts, even above known academics, without providing much evidence on why we should grant you that title. Perhaps you can convince your pals with that story, but not me, not here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 am 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.
Whether Kant's critics were right or wrong and what stance they took on realism/idealism is somehow irrelevant. The point is that they identified Kant with subjective idealists, that is, with those who claim that "only minds and mental contents exist:"
Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental [...] Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience [...] This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.

[...] Subjective idealism made its mark in Europe in the 18th-century writings of George Berkeley, who argued that the idea of mind-independent reality is incoherent, concluding that the world consists of the minds of humans and of God [...] Immanuel Kant responded by rejecting Berkeley's immaterialism and replacing it with transcendental idealism, which views the mind-independent world as existent but incognizable in itself.
(Wikipedia)
And so, Kant distanced himself from subjective idealism. His reaction in the Prolegomena was something like: "don't put me among subjective idealists, those who claim only minds and mental contents exist, don't identify my stance with that which denies the existence of a mind-independent world, don't ask me to claim such world to be an illusion, don't put me along Berkeley and Descartes". He was decisively on the side of "things in themselves, as mind-independent objects, do exist". And yet, that is exactly the opposite of what you're doing, claiming things in themselves only exist empirically, not independent of minds. This puts you right among subjective idealists, showing your contradictory stance, since you want to side with Kant.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

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.
What you are saying here is that Kant denied the existence of things in themselves, which is completely false. Conditioning existence of things to minds is just the same as saying they don't exist as mind-independent things.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:02 am Note the point from the above,
(Affection) Things-in-themselves causally affect us

Kant would never agree with the above literally.
Actually, he would, depending on which edition of the CPR one is looking at, and which section. If one is looking to the Aesthetics, or the Prolegomena, or the Refutation of Idealism, different interpretations might emerge. It is well known that this tension inside Kant's own system was the basis of Jacobi's criticism of Transcendental Idealism, which accurately describes the major problem of this philosophy: either accept things in themselves or solipsism. Most philosophers try to deny solipsism, but in order to remain faithful to idealism, assume positions such as yours, where things do exist (to keep realism), but they also don't (to keep idealism). An absurd, incoherent philosophy.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 am
Note I'll repeat, I DO NOT AGREE with
'the universe does not exist if there are no humans'.
Let's put it this way: you used to agree that the 'universe does not exist if there are no humans' Then I argued against it and now you don't agree with it anymore.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 am 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.
Then you're advocating subjective idealism, exactly what Kant tried to distance himself from.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 am 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?
I hope you get that Transcendental Idealism cannot conclude categorically that things as appearances can't be real as things in themselves. At best, it can only say we don't know. It can't be said that they are illusions, and Kant himself addressed this claim to take the position that they are not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 am 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...
So in the end you're actually saying humans don't exist as mind-independent things, as things in themselves. Not only I would be an illusion for you, you would be an illusion for yourself. Then, how do you know anything? Who or what is having the illusion of you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: 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.
No, the context of the response was your claim about materialism being different than physicalism. I quoted two credible sources of basic definitions of philosophical terms. They support my statements, but not yours.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:49 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.
Conde Lucanor wrote: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.
Perhaps your fasting has somehow damaged your reading comprehension skills, I hope only momentarily. We were not talking about Stang's article there, but about your claim about quantum theory being some sort of theory of immaterialism. I cited a credible source that shows that quantum physics, as of being a theory of the physical, material world, is not a contentious issue.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:30 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:44 pm
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.
I am surprised you asked since what is 'sense' is implied in the above, i.e. perspective.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:09 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.
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.
You did not differentiate relative independent existence from Independent Reality-in-Itself.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 am 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.[/color]
It's very odd your assertion that you were just starting to read an online reference that you submitted yourself as an authoritative evidence that would support your points.

I am very cautious about evidence from authority, but in this case it was one you submitted, and which clearly sides with me and not with you.

That you recant now is just an indication of how bad it makes your stance look and you need to take distance from that authoritative source.

Your disagreeing opinion is not enough, you have to show evidence that yours is the most accepted interpretation and not Stang's.
Your above is a strawman.

I'll repeat again my position on this issue,

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.


Note the original sequence of our discussion on this issue;

1. You started with this accusing Transcendental Idealism [TI] is a defunct doctrine.
Conde Lucanor wrote:Transcendental Idealism by all means is now a defunct doctrine.
viewtopic.php?p=508005#p508005
2. In a counter that TI is not a defunct doctrine I posted the following to show that TI is still being actively discussed and adopted by various philosophers.
I did not agree with Stang's view but merely implied the discussion on the topic of TI. If TI is defunct, there would be no such discussion and if mentioned would have qualified TI is defunct.

Note I specifically mentioned below i.e. Allison, H 2004, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism who is a strong proponent [supporter] of TI [epistemic reading].
And if I had resort to any secondary authority I would definitely refer to Allison.
But I would prefer to use Kant to support my views on what is transcendental idealism rather than on secondary sources.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Transcendental Idealism by all means is NOT a defunct doctrine but adopted by many neo-Kantians who agree with it.
Note this article on TI and the long list of bibliography therein.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
Note this;
Allison, H 2004, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, New Haven: Yale University Press. Revised and Enlarged Edition.
viewtopic.php?p=508036#p508036
If I had resort to and secondary authority I would definitely refer to Allison, NOT Stang's view.

3. Despite my explanation, you continued to condemn TI re neo-Kantian. 4. So my position is as below;
  • 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.
    viewtopic.php?p=508236#p508236
The main point started and is still hinges on 1 above.

I NEVER claim I relied on Stang as an authority nor AGREED with Stang on Transcendental Idealism [which is actually a discussion and not specifically his conclusive views on what is TI] and then changed my views when you responded.
Stang concluded;
  • 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
I have read Allison, H 2004, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, New Haven: Yale University Press. Revised and Enlarged Edition and agree with Allison.

ps: I'll address your other points later.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:30 am
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.
I am surprised you asked since what is 'sense' is implied in the above, i.e. perspective.
So you aren't capable of giving explicit definitions of the different senses?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:44 pm
So provide the definitions of the different senses.
I am surprised you asked since what is 'sense' is implied in the above, i.e. perspective.
So you aren't capable of giving explicit definitions of the different senses?
Here is the different sense you are unable to reflect upon,

Kant's Copernican Revolution
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32906

I posted the below therein;
In your case of philosophical realism you are independent and divorced from the objects and reality out there.
What you can connect with reality and object is merely via sense data and you are not acquainted with what is supposedly real.

In Kant's Copernican Revolution the reality is the human person is INTIMATELY bonded [not independent and divorced] with the supposedly external objects and reality.

Because there is a sense of bonding, intimacy, dynamic entanglement and ONENESS with reality and external objects, the human person is in a better position to relate to external reality and enable the potential for him [& others] to ensure the well-being of external reality, e.g. take better care of the environment, global warming, and other positive moves.

Actually we have been on this for ages,
You are stuck in the philosophical realist paradigm and is unable to shift to understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-philosophical-realist position [sense, paradigm, perspective model,], i.e. the external world 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: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:06 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:52 am
I am surprised you asked since what is 'sense' is implied in the above, i.e. perspective.
So you aren't capable of giving explicit definitions of the different senses?
Here is the different sense you are unable to reflect upon,

Kant's Copernican Revolution
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32906

I posted the below therein;
In your case of philosophical realism you are independent and divorced from the objects and reality out there.
What you can connect with reality and object is merely via sense data and you are not acquainted with what is supposedly real.

In Kant's Copernican Revolution the reality is the human person is INTIMATELY bonded [not independent and divorced] with the supposedly external objects and reality.

Because there is a sense of bonding, intimacy, dynamic entanglement and ONENESS with reality and external objects, the human person is in a better position to relate to external reality and enable the potential for him [& others] to ensure the well-being of external reality, e.g. take better care of the environment, global warming, and other positive moves.

Actually we have been on this for ages,
You are stuck in the philosophical realist paradigm and is unable to shift to understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-philosophical-realist position [sense, paradigm, perspective model,], i.e. the external world is not independent of the human conditions.
Did you not understand that I'm asking you for what you're claiming are two different definitions of "mind-independent" (or "human condition independent" or "external" or whatever exactly you're going to wind up claiming that there are two different senses of in order to make "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" not contradictory).

Give the definitions of the different senses in question if you're able to do so, or admit that it's beyond your capabilities (which wouldn't necessarily imply that they're aren't different senses, only that you're not capable of articulating them).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

You are ignoring:

"What was not observed exists as observed through the change within observation. The thing in itself is a point of change as it manifests the unobserved phenomenon as the point of change within observation. What is unobserved then observed is the manifestation of change within observation.

Because observations change we know the thing in itself exists."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:06 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:49 am
So you aren't capable of giving explicit definitions of the different senses?
Here is the different sense you are unable to reflect upon,

Kant's Copernican Revolution
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32906

I posted the below therein;
In your case of philosophical realism you are independent and divorced from the objects and reality out there.
What you can connect with reality and object is merely via sense data and you are not acquainted with what is supposedly real.

In Kant's Copernican Revolution the reality is the human person is INTIMATELY bonded [not independent and divorced] with the supposedly external objects and reality.

Because there is a sense of bonding, intimacy, dynamic entanglement and ONENESS with reality and external objects, the human person is in a better position to relate to external reality and enable the potential for him [& others] to ensure the well-being of external reality, e.g. take better care of the environment, global warming, and other positive moves.

Actually we have been on this for ages,
You are stuck in the philosophical realist paradigm and is unable to shift to understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-philosophical-realist position [sense, paradigm, perspective model,], i.e. the external world is not independent of the human conditions.
Did you not understand that I'm asking you for what you're claiming are two different definitions of "mind-independent" (or "human condition independent" or "external" or whatever exactly you're going to wind up claiming that there are two different senses of in order to make "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" not contradictory).

Give the definitions of the different senses in question if you're able to do so, or admit that it's beyond your capabilities (which wouldn't necessarily imply that they're aren't different senses, only that you're not capable of articulating them).
Btw, I am the one who is making the claims and you are one who is misunderstanding my claims.

I don't get how you arrive at "me claiming two different definitions of 'mind-independent' "

This is what I have been claiming;
  • 1. There is an external independent world from my self, i.e. empirical realism. In this case, I see tables, chairs, trees, etc. as independent from my mind, i.e. empirical realism.

    2. But at the same time, the above external_ness in 1 is NOT ultimately independent when it is viewed as subsumed within the human conditions.
    In this case, the reality is the human person cannot never extricate himself from the reality he is part and parcel of - thus cannot be fully independent.
There is only one perspective of independence i.e. 1.

Perhaps you stick to the above 1 and 2 then show me where are there 2 different definition of 'mind independent'?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:08 am You are ignoring:

"What was not observed exists as observed through the change within observation. The thing in itself is a point of change as it manifests the unobserved phenomenon as the point of change within observation. What is unobserved then observed is the manifestation of change within observation.

Because observations change we know the thing in itself exists."
I tried but the above make no sense to the OP.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:08 am You are ignoring:

"What was not observed exists as observed through the change within observation. The thing in itself is a point of change as it manifests the unobserved phenomenon as the point of change within observation. What is unobserved then observed is the manifestation of change within observation.

Because observations change we know the thing in itself exists."
I tried but the above make no sense to the OP.
Actually it makes sense. The change in observation begins with a phenomenon being unobserved then observed. Change necessitates a thing in itself existing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:19 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.


I NEVER claim I relied on Stang as an authority nor AGREED with Stang on Transcendental Idealism..

ps: I'll address your other points later.
...........
..........
I would like to establish the truth as posted in this article,
viewtopic.php?p=508929#p508929
before I proceed to answer your other points [otherwise wasting effort].

I have also open a thread re;
Kant's Transcendental Idealism: SEP: By Stang
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32940
so we can zoom into the specifics with reference to the contents,

Therein I have also introduced some excepts by Allison whose views I agree with.
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: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:15 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:06 am
Here is the different sense you are unable to reflect upon,

Kant's Copernican Revolution
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32906

I posted the below therein;




Actually we have been on this for ages,
You are stuck in the philosophical realist paradigm and is unable to shift to understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-philosophical-realist position [sense, paradigm, perspective model,], i.e. the external world is not independent of the human conditions.
Did you not understand that I'm asking you for what you're claiming are two different definitions of "mind-independent" (or "human condition independent" or "external" or whatever exactly you're going to wind up claiming that there are two different senses of in order to make "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" not contradictory).

Give the definitions of the different senses in question if you're able to do so, or admit that it's beyond your capabilities (which wouldn't necessarily imply that they're aren't different senses, only that you're not capable of articulating them).
Btw, I am the one who is making the claims and you are one who is misunderstanding my claims.

I don't get how you arrive at "me claiming two different definitions of 'mind-independent' "

This is what I have been claiming;
  • 1. There is an external independent world from my self, i.e. empirical realism. In this case, I see tables, chairs, trees, etc. as independent from my mind, i.e. empirical realism.

    2. But at the same time, the above external_ness in 1 is NOT ultimately independent when it is viewed as subsumed within the human conditions.
    In this case, the reality is the human person cannot never extricate himself from the reality he is part and parcel of - thus cannot be fully independent.
There is only one perspective of independence i.e. 1.

Perhaps you stick to the above 1 and 2 then show me where are there 2 different definition of 'mind independent'?
When I said that "x is mind-independent" and "x cannot be 'human condition' independent" are contradictory,and you responded that they're not contradictory because they're employing two different senses of a term, what term were you referring to? Mind-independent? Independent? External? What?

Tell me what term you were referring to, and then give the two different definitions.
Post Reply