Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

[Skepdick]

The "Socratic conceit" from him. Now there's something novel . . . not.

Heh. Neomania.

Now there's something novel... not.

[tillingborn]

So incel with anger issues and a huge ego. You must be a magnet for the ladies.

My wife and children are an anti-magnet.

Presumably because they are as repulsive as you. Frankly, I don't believe you have a wife, much less children; if you do, they have my sympathy, and I retract any suggestion that anyone could be as horrible as you.

[Skepdick]

Presumably because they are as repulsive as you.

Presumably you are attacking people you've never even interacted with.

That sure speaks to your character being even worse than mine... And we know I am a piece of shit.

Frankly, I don't believe you have a wife, much less children; if you do, they have my sympathy, and I retract any suggestion that anyone could be as horrible as you.

If you don't believe I have a wife and kids who is it that you are accusing of being "as repulsive as me"?

Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. P and not-P.

How non-committal.

[Terrapin Station]

So incel with anger issues and a huge ego. You must be a magnet for the ladies.

My wife and children are an anti-magnet.

Presumably because they are as repulsive as you. Frankly, I don't believe you have a wife, much less children; if you do, they have my sympathy, and I retract any suggestion that anyone could be as horrible as you.

He's already said that other people are figments of his imagination anyway.

[Skepdick]

He's already said that other people are figments of his imagination anyway.

What an idiot! Accuses me of lacking reading comprehension an then he demonstrates this exact disability.

What I have said is that the imaginary/real distinction is practically and empirically useless.

Somehow you've misunderstood that to mean that others are figments of my imagination.

I bet you don't even understand what this sentence means: Solipsism and Realism are identical up to isomorphism.

[Atla]

The attention saddens me.

After fishing for attention all day every day for years, on 5+ different accounts, you must be pretty sad by now.

[Skepdick]

After fishing for attention all day every day for years, on 5+ different accounts, you must be pretty sad by now.

What saddens me isn't your "attention" - it's where you keep directing it.

Always at the player - never at the ball.

You have every opportunity to be charitable. And you keep choosing not to be
If your example is anything to go by Philosophy is basically poop-flinging contest.

You win.

[Atla]

After fishing for attention all day every day for years, on 5+ different accounts, you must be pretty sad by now.

What saddens me isn't your "attention" - it's where you keep directing it.

Always at the player - never at the ball.

You have every opportunity to be charitable. And you keep choosing not to be
If your example is anything to go by Philosophy is basically poop-flinging contest.

You win.

Except you're a player in a game that's only going on inside your head. It's a game of one, and your ball is shaped like a cube. The real game is over at the stadium.

[Skepdick]

Except you're a player in a game that's only going on inside your head. It's a game of one, and your ball is shaped like a cube. The real game is over at the stadium.

You don't even. know where the stadium is

You've mistaken the ivory tower of academia/publication/citations (a false economy) for "the stadium".

[tillingborn]

What saddens me isn't your "attention" - it's where you keep directing it.

Always at the player - never at the ball.

Self pity as well. Grow up, fuck off or be a wanker all your life.

[Terrapin Station]

I like how Skepdick tries to imply that he's "charitable" lol

[Conde Lucanor]

So you mean this: that in order for the universe to exist, it cannot be disentangled, separate from humans.

Then at a certain point in time, homo-sapiens gradually emerged out to the original soup of star dusts but they are still deterministically connected [entangled] with the all of reality.

Jesus!! That was fast...I never thought my points would be so effective as to change your stance of "the universe exists only if there are humans" in one post to "the universe started and then humans gradually emerged out" in the very next post.

4. The only reason why humans think they are disentangled is when they are endowed with a higher consciousness of self-awareness and it was only around 500+ years ago that Descartes' heavy influence that separate the mind from the body and made everything else of reality independent of the mind.

Which humans think they are disentangled from reality? Dualists?

5. Fundamentally humans are connected [entangled] with all the things of reality as parts of the whole.

"Humans" in an abstraction of the set composed by every human, but every human is a contingent being that begins to exist and then ceases to exist. Therefore, all entanglements/disentanglements with the reality of the universe are contingent, dependent of each being coming to existence. No matter the nature of entanglements, it is the universe that brings about human existence, not vice versa.

What is critical here is from point 1 [believe the big bang is true] to point 5, all the above are conditioned upon the human conditions.

First, belief in the big bang is not necessary for acknowledging the universe exists. It is a theory of how it came to exist as we know it and experience it.

Secondly, your use of words in not appropriate. "Conditioned upon the human conditions" is ambiguous and sometimes you use it to mean "existence determined (therefore caused) by humans" and sometimes "knowledge of its existence determined (therefore caused) by humans". You have a confusion between the metaphysical aspect of the problem and the epistemological aspect of it.

Thus whatever you claim, i.e. humans are independent of the universe which could be true in the common and conventional sense, this claim is subsumed within the ultimate entanglement.

What ultimate entanglement? You mean between the abstract concept of humans and the universe, which boils down to nothing meaningful.

There is no way you can take any independent objective stance [i.e. God's eye view] to make any objective independent claim.

All claims about the world are propositions of knowledgeable states of the world, and all claims come from subjects. Objectivity, having an independent objective stance, has nothing to do with "God's eye view", but with propositions that arising from the subject's point of view, acknowledge the existence of real objects independent of that subject, so that the subject itself is part of the set of all real objects, and such domain and other objects will continue to exist even when the subject is not present anymore. It takes subjectivity to reach objectivity.

[Conde Lucanor]

Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.

Your phenomenalism is one that inevitably leads to solipsism, even if you are not aware of it. I just explained to you why, you can deal with the arguments if you want to, but plainly denying your solipsism will not do.

While most realists acknowledge indirect realism, they insist there is a real physical object that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data in the brain. This thing-in-itself to realists is real and is independent of the human conditions, or human mind.

Note Transcendental idealism is also empirical realism, i.e. the empirical external reality exists independently within the common and conventional sense.

So, basically, according to you, while some realists find the justification of their beliefs, you just embrace an unjustified belief.

There are few passages in the Critique that led many people to believe Kant was agnostic with things-in-themselves.
But in the whole context of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is very firm things-in-themselves are illusory when reified as real.

I'm afraid that's not the case and it was exactly the opposite. The first interpretation of his work that came out put him among the deniers of the thing in itself, and then he came back with an appendix to the Prolegomena to correct them (he also accused Berkeley of being one of the deniers), so that it was made clear that he only presented as illusory the forms of the thing in itself, but not the matter of the thing in itself, in other words, that we know there are things in themselves, but we know nothing about how they actually are, just how they appear to us, and they must appear to us as they do because of what they actually are, combined with our a priori concepts.

Note Kant wrote,

Unfortunately, something that we find consistently in Kant is his inconsistency. You can quote him saying something and then something else that seems to convey exactly the opposite. That's one reason of the multiple interpretations out of the mess that the Critique is, and one way to conciliate this is the view that he was simply agnostic about the thing in itself.

[Atla]

Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.

Your phenomenalism is one that inevitably leads to solipsism, even if you are not aware of it. I just explained to you why, you can deal with the arguments if you want to, but plainly denying your solipsism will not do.

While most realists acknowledge indirect realism, they insist there is a real physical object that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data in the brain. This thing-in-itself to realists is real and is independent of the human conditions, or human mind.

Note Transcendental idealism is also empirical realism, i.e. the empirical external reality exists independently within the common and conventional sense.

So, basically, according to you, while some realists find the justification of their beliefs, you just embrace an unjustified belief.

There are few passages in the Critique that led many people to believe Kant was agnostic with things-in-themselves.
But in the whole context of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is very firm things-in-themselves are illusory when reified as real.

I'm afraid that's not the case and it was exactly the opposite. The first interpretation of his work that came out put him among the deniers of the thing in itself, and then he came back with an appendix to the Prolegomena to correct them (he also accused Berkeley of being one of the deniers), so that it was made clear that he only presented as illusory the forms of the thing in itself, but not the matter of the thing in itself, in other words, that we know there are things in themselves, but we know nothing about how they actually are, just how they appear to us, and they must appear to us as they do because of what they actually are, combined with our a priori concepts.

Note Kant wrote,

Unfortunately, something that we find consistently in Kant is his inconsistency. You can quote him saying something and then something else that seems to convey exactly the opposite. That's one reason of the multiple interpretations out of the mess that the Critique is, and one way to conciliate this is the view that he was simply agnostic about the thing in itself.

A few of us already tried to hammer home these very points, but we found him to be almost perfectly impervious to any input. Maybe you'll have more luck.

[Skepdick]

Self pity as well. Grow up, fuck off or be a wanker all your life.

Well no, actually. I am the wanker who funds (some of) your research grants.

So if you like to do research on other people's dime you best believe that you actually need a fucking story as to why your intellectual circle-jerk is worth the investment and what positive impact you expect it to have on other people's lives, coupled with some predictions on when you plan to deliver.

God forbid you actually had to figure out how to make academic research financially self-sustainable.