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.