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: Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:29 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:36 pm Also, as I explained at the beginning of this thread, there's a difference between the epistemological stance that commits to the view that we cannot now HOW things really are and the one that is committed to the view that we cannot know WHAT things really are, i.e. whether they truly exist outside of minds or not (it is common knowledge that it is still debated whether Kant embraced one or the other or if he remained ambiguous on that matter).
Anyway, I have argued extensively about how the implications of the mentioned first stance ultimately defeats anti-realism in its own grounds.
You are ignorant on the above.
Kant’s position is very clear based on his Copernican Revolution as a 180 degree turn from that of traditional metaphysics and philosophical realism.
The exchange above is a perfect illustration of the pattern that has taken over this thread for a long time. It exemplifies your incompetence at doing philosophy, unable to leave the dogmatism in which you're stuck. You see, while I presented an argument that contains clear elements of falsifiability, your reply (as always) is only concerned with doctrinal compliance ("this is not what the sacred texts suggest"), instead of trying to prove the argument wrong. Compatible with that approach is the common claim: "you're ignorant of the sacred texts". Add to that the (silly) idea that the sacred texts are so sacred that their secrets are revealead only to the lucky few who dare to take the mystical path towards conversion. Note that academic accreditations are summarily dismissed, they are not even relevant, and scholarly references only work as confirmation of the sacred doctrine in purely canonical fashion, ignoring anything else that does not belong to your philosophical Karaoke list. Bunge? Bhaskar? Sellars? Meillassoux? They are not part of the canon, so why bother. If they were, they would be sacred texts, too, but they have not been officialy accepted.

All the Kantian dogma in the world will not make you, however, competent to settle the debate between realists and anti-realists. For the simple reason that you have to hear the other side, too, but you have explicitly stated that you're not interested. Fine, keep up your dogmatism, but it will not yield better results than what is possible from it, which amounts to almost nothing. About your straw man, the claim that I endorse secondary sources as the only reliable sources to get a fair understanding of philosophical doctrines, is easily refuted by the literal statement I made on the contrary: "BOTH by directly reading Kant's CPR AND relying on scholarly sources, one can get a good understanding of the relevant aspects of Kant's main doctrines".

Worth noticing too is how you dodged the argument I made against the implications of this statement of yours: "realism treat external objects as existing outside the mind as things-in-themselves". Your reply? As expected, nothing related to the argument itself, but whether your understanding of realism complied or not with a standard definition of realism, even though that was not the point. You missed it completely.

And finally, you pretend to suffer from amnesia by demanding that "to counter Kant you have first to present his argument about the self accordance to the CPR", even though two pages were already produced in this thread dealing especifically with the problems that ensued from this statement you brought: "One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" is only ever encountered as appearance, never as it is in itself." As always, you managed to dodge the issue along the way with your usual fallacious strategies. My arguments, however, are still there, unrefuted.
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 Aug 24, 2021 3:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:29 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:36 pm Also, as I explained at the beginning of this thread, there's a difference between the epistemological stance that commits to the view that we cannot now HOW things really are and the one that is committed to the view that we cannot know WHAT things really are, i.e. whether they truly exist outside of minds or not (it is common knowledge that it is still debated whether Kant embraced one or the other or if he remained ambiguous on that matter).
Anyway, I have argued extensively about how the implications of the mentioned first stance ultimately defeats anti-realism in its own grounds.
You are ignorant on the above.
Kant’s position is very clear based on his Copernican Revolution as a 180 degree turn from that of traditional metaphysics and philosophical realism.
The exchange above is a perfect illustration of the pattern that has taken over this thread for a long time. It exemplifies your incompetence at doing philosophy, unable to leave the dogmatism in which you're stuck. You see, while I presented an argument that contains clear elements of falsifiability, your reply (as always) is only concerned with doctrinal compliance ("this is not what the sacred texts suggest"), instead of trying to prove the argument wrong. Compatible with that approach is the common claim: "you're ignorant of the sacred texts". Add to that the (silly) idea that the sacred texts are so sacred that their secrets are revealead only to the lucky few who dare to take the mystical path towards conversion. Note that academic accreditations are summarily dismissed, they are not even relevant, and scholarly references only work as confirmation of the sacred doctrine in purely canonical fashion, ignoring anything else that does not belong to your philosophical Karaoke list.
Bunge? Bhaskar? Sellars? Meillassoux? They are not part of the canon, so why bother. If they were, they would be sacred texts, too, but they have not been officialy accepted.
Your above is intellectually atrocious.
Why do you bring in 'sacred texts' in relation to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? This is crazy.

In the Commentary of Guyer-Wood translation of the CPR, they wrote as their first statement the following; [read up the link you quoted earlier]
  • Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one of the seminal and monumental works in the history of Western philosophy.
To have intellectual integrity and honesty, all you need to do is to read up Kant's CPR then you can critique my views on the SAME CPR. If you don't, then you have to recognize your limitation and thus the necessary humbleness.

Bunge? Bhaskar? Sellars? Meillassoux?
I am familiar with Sellar critique of Kant in certain areas of the CPR, and he is way off tangent to Kant's original intention. I read Meillassoux long time ago, cannot remember his views on Kant.
As for the others, you'll need to be specific.
All the Kantian dogma in the world will not make you, however, competent to settle the debate between realists and anti-realists. For the simple reason that you have to hear the other side, too, but you have explicitly stated that you're not interested. Fine, keep up your dogmatism, but it will not yield better results than what is possible from it, which amounts to almost nothing. About your straw man, the claim that I endorse secondary sources as the only reliable sources to get a fair understanding of philosophical doctrines, is easily refuted by the literal statement I made on the contrary: "BOTH by directly reading Kant's CPR AND relying on scholarly sources, one can get a good understanding of the relevant aspects of Kant's main doctrines".
Where did I state I am not interested to hear the other side.
I have done extensively research on the realists' views.

Note I raised this thread;
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
and I have raised many other threads related to 'realism' and 'realists'.

I am well aware of the limitations. I used to rely on secondary sources of Pro-Kantians to support my point until I realize [specific to CPR] theirs is not an effective strategy due the chasm between the anti-Kantians and the pro-Kantians [who do not even agree among themselves on critical issues].
That the is reason why I decided to focus on the Primary Sources and I could get a better grasp of the CPR with support and reinforcement from my knowledge Eastern Philosophy.
Worth noticing too is how you dodged the argument I made against the implications of this statement of yours: "realism treat external objects as existing outside the mind as things-in-themselves". Your reply? As expected, nothing related to the argument itself, but whether your understanding of realism complied or not with a standard definition of realism, even though that was not the point. You missed it completely.
I am not any coward to dodge anything. If you think so, it is due to your miscommunication or I did not understand your point.

I am not sure of what is your problem here.
Suggest you open a separate thread so we can trash out the issue in more details instead of struggling within this mountain of a haystack.
And finally, you pretend to suffer from amnesia by demanding that "to counter Kant you have first to present his argument about the self accordance to the CPR", even though two pages were already produced in this thread dealing especifically with the problems that ensued from this statement you brought: "One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" is only ever encountered as appearance, never as it is in itself." As always, you managed to dodge the issue along the way with your usual fallacious strategies. My arguments, however, are still there, unrefuted.
I noted you have a contorted view of the above.
That is why I raised a specific thread to trash out the issue, i.e.

A Kantian Person is NEVER a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33164

If you think the above thread do not address your question,
then open a new thread to raise your question.
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 »

Yes, dogmatism and treating philosophical works as if they were sacred texts is an intellectual atrocity. The problem is you're the big advocate of such atrocity in this thread, and I presume in all your threads.

But allow me to clarify, since you always twist my statements to give them the interpretation that is more convenient for you: I was not saying Kant saw his work as a sacred text. I'm not implying Guyer, Allison and others are dogmatic Kantians preaching the gospel. I have intellectual respect for these people, even though such respect is never necessarily translated as endorsement of all or any of their views. I have no doubt of the claim that Kant's CPR is a monumental work in the history of philosophy, but that's not because he got it all right and gave us the ultimate answers to our deepest philosophical inquiries, but because he brought up a thought-provoking problem, he changed the game of inquiry of his time and set the stage for future inquiries. He was not, of course, the only game-changer in the history of philosophy, before and after him, and besides, someone getting their name in the pantheon of intellectual legends does not guarante that they were right: they are certainly not exempt of ultimately being acknowledged as peddlers of nonsense.

So, don't confuse my challenge to Kantianism and anti-realism with my challenge to your views. The respected scholars are not necessarily the dogmatics, nor they are clueless about how to treat philosophical texts. It's only you, the layman with no accredited expertise writing opinions in philosophical forums, just as anyone else, who can be accused of such behavior.

I don't need to reemphasize your incompetence in providing key insights to the realism/anti-realism debate. You have confessed you're completely ignorant of key authors and their texts, relying only on your staunch obsession with Kant. And then you have the guts to claim you "have done extensively research on the realists' views." Pff, talk about intellectual honesty.

You insist in diverting to or opening up a new thread, ignoring again that I quoted from your OP in that separate thread to tackle the issue of the Kantian subject, which I have dealt with in the last few pages of this thread. In any case, I don't have a problem with dealing with the rest of your arguments here:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:For Kant, we cannot be hasty in jumping to conclusion as to what that "something" really is - depending on their state of mind.
For Kant the real 'something' is confined to the empirical and possible experience which is immanent. As such what is real is not mere appearance but the whole shebang of the cognitive processes that include the self within an environment, where the self is not independent of the environment.
Note here the word immanent. Empirical experience is immanent, you say that Kant said. It cannot transcend, therefore you cannot experience beyond what your own experience allows, which is, of course, yourself (the "I think" subject, if you like). Kant, therefore, could not admit that there is something to experience that is independent of his self, such as other subjects, nor any other realm in which such subjects dwelled. Note now the expression: "what is real [...] include[s] the self within an environment", which are exactly some things that are independent of Kant's self. Suddenly, the immanent experience transcends, just to allow for the existence of other subjects and attribute to them the objective universal property of carrying a cognitive apparatus which they use to experience immanently. By all accounts, "invented by [Kant] as an inherent and natural activity of the human mind [meaning all human minds existing independent of Kant's mind]". And therefore, whenever he claims that the realist is chasing an illusion when they insist there is something that is independent of the self, he's pointing at himself in the mirror.
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: Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:36 am Yes, dogmatism and treating philosophical works as if they were sacred texts is an intellectual atrocity. The problem is you're the big advocate of such atrocity in this thread, and I presume in all your threads.
Your approach is definitely of intellectual actrocity.
But allow me to clarify, since you always twist my statements to give them the interpretation that is more convenient for you: I was not saying Kant saw his work as a sacred text. I'm not implying Guyer, Allison and others are dogmatic Kantians preaching the gospel. I have intellectual respect for these people, even though such respect is never necessarily translated as endorsement of all or any of their views. I have no doubt of the claim that Kant's CPR is a monumental work in the history of philosophy, but that's not because he got it all right and gave us the ultimate answers to our deepest philosophical inquiries, but because he brought up a thought-provoking problem, he changed the game of inquiry of his time and set the stage for future inquiries. He was not, of course, the only game-changer in the history of philosophy, before and after him, and besides, someone getting their name in the pantheon of intellectual legends does not guarante that they were right: they are certainly not exempt of ultimately being acknowledged as peddlers of nonsense.
Noted
So, don't confuse my challenge to Kantianism and anti-realism with my challenge to your views. The respected scholars are not necessarily the dogmatics, nor they are clueless about how to treat philosophical texts. It's only you, the layman with no accredited expertise writing opinions in philosophical forums, just as anyone else, who can be accused of such behavior.
To bank on accreditations is ignorance.
What is critical are the arguments, evidence and references I provided in this case from Primary Sources in contrast to your reliance on Secondary Sources.
I don't need to reemphasize your incompetence in providing key insights to the realism/anti-realism debate. You have confessed you're completely ignorant of key authors and their texts, relying only on your staunch obsession with Kant. And then you have the guts to claim you "have done extensively research on the realists' views." Pff, talk about intellectual honesty.
Where did I confess complete ignorance of key authors re realism and anti-realism?
Your only twice mentioned 'Bunge' then Bhaskar are insignificant.
I have not touched Bunge.
I have read of Bhaskar and did extensive research on Meillassoux [long ago].
I don't remember Meillassoux [once popular via Speculative Realism] introducing anything significant that is a dent [other than making noises] to Kantianism. I did a quick refresh on Melliassoux and his attribution of 'correlationism' to Kantian CPR is a strawman.
You insist in diverting to or opening up a new thread, ignoring again that I quoted from your OP in that separate thread to tackle the issue of the Kantian subject, which I have dealt with in the last few pages of this thread. In any case, I don't have a problem with dealing with the rest of your arguments here:
I believe to be more thorough we need separate threads to deal with the specific issues instead of your preference to lump all the issues into one thread as a form of escapism to get to the truth of the matter.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:58 am, edited 2 times 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: Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:36 am Y In any case, I don't have a problem with dealing with the rest of your arguments here:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:For Kant, we cannot be hasty in jumping to conclusion as to what that "something" really is - depending on their state of mind.
For Kant the real 'something' is confined to the empirical and possible experience which is immanent. As such what is real is not mere appearance but the whole shebang of the cognitive processes that include the self within an environment, where the self is not independent of the environment.
Note here the word immanent.
Empirical experience is immanent, you say that Kant said.
It cannot transcend, therefore you cannot experience beyond what your own experience allows, which is, of course, yourself (the "I think" subject, if you like).
Kant, therefore, could not admit that there is something to experience that is independent of his self, such as other subjects, nor any other realm in which such subjects dwelled.

Note now the expression: "what is real [...] include[s] the self within an environment", which are exactly some things that are independent of Kant's self.
Suddenly, the immanent experience transcends, just to allow for the existence of other subjects and attribute to them the objective universal property of carrying a cognitive apparatus which they use to experience immanently.
By all accounts, "invented by [Kant] as an inherent and natural activity of the human mind [meaning all human minds existing independent of Kant's mind]".
And therefore, whenever he claims that the realist is chasing an illusion when they insist there is something that is independent of the self, he's pointing at himself in the mirror.
Nah!
You failed to understand Kant in this sense.

A. When Kant claimed any empirical object are 'independent' of the 'empirical' self, he is claiming that on the basis of Empirical Realism.

B. When he condemned realists [philosophical] as chasing illusions, he is not referring to the empirical basis [immanent] but rather the realist make an extra claim of 'Transcendent' that there is an independent self-in-itself on the basis of Transcendental Realism.
The extreme is the case of the theists claiming there is a soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

To understand the above two perspectives you have to refer to the CPR directly or secondary sources subject limitations and misinterpretations.

Btw, you still have not addressed the OP, i.e. Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists.
If you dig into this you will understand how you have conflated A and B.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Vitruvius »

Could poke you in the eye!
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: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:46 am To bank on accreditations is ignorance.
Formal accreditations are not necessary, UNLESS one wants to argue on the basis of intellectual authority and expertise in a discipline. That's the only way to substantiate such claims. You try to portray yourself as the Kant expert that owns the right to interpret his work in this forum, but you're just another board member writing stuff, a self-entitled layman relying on nothing but himself to dissect "one of the seminal and monumental works in the history of Western philosophy", while repudiating the contribution of scholarly sources. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Since you're still completely cynical to the fact that you have confessed, and keep confessing right in front of our eyes, your ignorance of key authors and their texts, I will ask you directly. OK then, since you "have done extensively research on the realists' views", tell us: which are those all authors and texts that exhaust the realists' views and allowed you to supposedly settle the realist/anti-realism debate? I'm biting my nails.

Talking about cynicism, let's not forget that the one who escaped to another thread with an issue that came up in this thread was you, not me.

Now, about that issue, you insist on your dogmatic, cult-like approach I explained recently. It's like responding to the objection that the communion wafer cannot be transformed into the body of Christ, with something like: "nah, you failed to understand, it's the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is possibilitated transcendentally by God's plan of salvation through the sacrifice of his Son". Yeah, sure. It's also the doctrine of Empirical Realism subsumed within the perspective of Transcendental Idealism. That solves nothing. The point is: can these two "perspectives" hold together? What Kant must allow to do so is where problems start: he must jump beyond the possibilities of experience with a transcendental deduction of the a priori conditions of experience that presupposes objects outside of the possibilities of Kant's own experience: the other subjects and their objective properties (their a priori conditions of experience) that Kant sets to discover as universally valid. They are presupposed only, because they are not deducted transcendentally. And then he repudiates the same method of deduction (the extra claim that he saves for himself) when used by everyone else in the name of realism. That is exactly what critical realists (aka transcendental realists) came back to challenge: things in themselves are a transcendental condition for science to be possible. Deny the reality of things in themselves if you like, but you are then obliged to deny the possibility of science altogether.
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: Thu Aug 26, 2021 4:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:46 am To bank on accreditations is ignorance.
Formal accreditations are not necessary, UNLESS one wants to argue on the basis of intellectual authority and expertise in a discipline. That's the only way to substantiate such claims. You try to portray yourself as the Kant expert that owns the right to interpret his work in this forum, but you're just another board member writing stuff, a self-entitled layman relying on nothing but himself to dissect "one of the seminal and monumental works in the history of Western philosophy", while repudiating the contribution of scholarly sources. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
What are you talking about??
I am claiming I am a reasonable expert on Kant's CPR having done sufficiently as an average person.
You as evident, on the other hand has a handicap on Kant's CPR, i.e. not having read the CPR thoroughly.

Whatever I claimed re the CPR, I always fall back on the CPR with direct references from the CPR based on what Kant intended.

Every time I quote Kant's CPR to support my point, you are unable to counter in the context of Kant's CPR other than you relying on contentious secondary sources.
You are an ultracrepidarian.
Since you're still completely cynical to the fact that you have confessed, and keep confessing right in front of our eyes, your ignorance of key authors and their texts, I will ask you directly. OK then, since you "have done extensively research on the realists' views", tell us: which are those all authors and texts that exhaust the realists' views and allowed you to supposedly settle the realist/anti-realism debate? I'm biting my nails.
Kant in the CPR define what is typical-realism [philosophical], i.e. transcendental realism and his rejection of such typical realism, thus as an anti-realist.
As I had stated, any rejection of the typical realist view [philosophical realism] is anti-realism.

Read this as a rough guide;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have tons of books and article re Realist versus Anti-Realism,

A notable one is,
A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism
by Lee Braver
At a time when the analytic/continental split dominates contemporary philosophy, this ambitious work offers a careful and clear-minded way to bridge that divide. Combining conceptual rigor and clarity of prose with historical erudition, A Thing of This World shows how one of the standard issues of analytic philosophy--realism and anti-realism--has also been at the heart of continental philosophy.

Using a framework derived from prominent analytic thinkers, Lee Braver traces the roots of anti-realism to Kant's idea that the mind actively organizes experience. He then shows in depth and in detail how this idea evolves through the works of Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. This narrative presents an illuminating account of the
history of continental philosophy by explaining how these thinkers build on each other's attempts to develop new concepts of reality and truth in the wake of the rejection of realism. Braver demonstrates that the analytic and continental traditions have been discussing the same issues, albeit with different vocabularies, interests, and approaches.
By developing a commensurate vocabulary, his book promotes a dialogue between the two branches of philosophy in which each can begin to learn from the other.
https://www.amazon.com/Thing-This-World ... 0810123800
Note Richard Rorty's Mirror of Nature,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

Putnam's pragmatism is also a sort of anti-realism.
Also note Dummnet's Verifications.

Etc. Etc. Etc.
Talking about cynicism, let's not forget that the one who escaped to another thread with an issue that came up in this thread was you, not me.
Escape to another thread?
As I had stated, I opened another thread so we can get into the specific details to expose your ignorance of the subject with your wishy-washy approach to the points as in the following post.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:07 am, edited 2 times 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: Thu Aug 26, 2021 4:20 am Now, about that issue, you insist on your dogmatic, cult-like approach I explained recently. It's like responding to the objection that the communion wafer cannot be transformed into the body of Christ, with something like: "nah, you failed to understand, it's the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is possibilitated transcendentally by God's plan of salvation through the sacrifice of his Son".

Yeah, sure. It's also the doctrine of Empirical Realism subsumed within the perspective of Transcendental Idealism. That solves nothing.
The point is: can these two "perspectives" hold together?
Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism do hold together.
The two of the three main sections of the CPR explain how they hold together and it is broken by Transcendental Realism [your sort of realism] which drives you to chase after errors and illusions [explain in 3rd section].
What Kant must allow to do so is where problems start: he must jump beyond the possibilities of experience with a transcendental deduction of the a priori conditions of experience that presupposes objects outside of the possibilities of Kant's own experience:
the other subjects and their objective properties (their a priori conditions of experience) that Kant sets to discover as universally valid.

They are presupposed only, because they are not deducted transcendentally.
And then he repudiates the same method of deduction (the extra claim that he saves for himself) when used by everyone else in the name of realism.
That is exactly what critical realists (aka transcendental realists) came back to challenge: things in themselves are a transcendental condition for science to be possible.
Deny the reality of things in themselves if you like, but you are then obliged to deny the possibility of science altogether.
You are spewing nonsense above, because you are ignorant of what Kant is writing in his CPR.

I did a quick search in the CPR for "Possible Experience" which occurred 173 times and in all such cases, the context is always a warning by Kant NEVER to transcend nor go beyond possible experience to determined any object with Objective Validity.
If you read the CPR thoroughly this warning will be ringing in every section of the CPR.

Kant would NEVER propose "he must jump beyond the possibilities of experience" to establish empirical reality.

Note a priori conditions are equivalent to inherent instincts of humans and therefore cannot be independent of human conditions in any way in relating to any empirical objects 'internally' or 'externally'.


Note I raised this thread where as a Transcendental [critical] Realist reality as claimed is inaccessible.
Reality is Inaccessible
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33478
Why because you claimed reality and objects are independent of the human conditions in opposition to the transcendental idealists' anti-realists' claims.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
You are mixing things. The things that you experience are created by your brain. The reality exists on its own. How could it affect you if it didn't exist? The very fact that you cannot know what is in my mind, me being a part of reality, means that there are things that are not created by your brain.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
You are mixing things. The things that you experience are created by your brain. The reality exists on its own. How could it affect you if it didn't exist? The very fact that you cannot know what is in my mind, me being a part of reality, means that there are things that are not created by your brain.
From the common and conventional sense, it is very obvious there are things not created by mine or your brain. But it is a different consideration at higher aspects of reality.
For example reality at the Newtonian level [independent of observer] is different from that of Einstein's [Observer's effect] and therefrom different from QM's reality [observer not independent].

Note the critical point here is 'existing IN-ITSELF' or BY-ITSELF meaning absolutely independent from human conditions.

Note [crudely];
Reality means ALL-There-Is, intricately connected.
All-there-is comprised of intricately connected parts.
Therefore the intricately connected parts of within ALL-There-Is cannot be independent from one another at the fundamental level.

Things whilst appearing independent at the common and conventional sense are merely independent relative to their respective sense, but at the ultimate sense of Reality is All-there-is, they [including humans] are not absolutely independent.
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: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:30 am Whatever I claimed re the CPR, I always fall back on the CPR with direct references from the CPR based on what Kant intended.
As anyone can see, you still claim you're a Kant expert. I don't believe it, I have good enough reasons for it and I explained my case. It would be irrelevant for this discussion if it were not the case that you make such belief a condition for settling the disputes between realism / anti-realism. It is clear now, by your own confession, that you think most, if not all that has to be said in regards to that debate, is confined to what is written in Kant's CPR, your sacred text. And then you just confirm and complement your dogmatic beliefs with other anti-realist sources. And so, when I challenged your claim that you "have done extensively research on the realists' views", by asking you directly which are those all authors and texts that exhaust the realists' views, you respond evasively with a handful of anti-realist literature. The realist views that you supposedly researched? Only the sound of crickets in an otherwise silent and dark night. Oh, well, you did look up in Wikipedia, because for a cult member, digging into heavy realist literature would be going too far and comitting sacrilege.

It is still funny how you reacted to my example of the doctrine of transubstantiation with exactly the same disposition I was criticizing. It's like saying: "I'm a staunch dogmatic believer, so what?" No "technical" arguments, just pointing at sections of the sacred text where all truths are to be found.

As if you were living in another dimension of reality, you always understand things completely different of how they have been exposed, completely missing the point and responding to your own straw man. Who cares if Kant warned "[...] NEVER to transcend nor go beyond possible experience to determined any object with Objective Validity", if he ultimately didn't comply with his own warning. That IS the point: what are the a priori conditions of experience if not universally, objectively valid properties, independent of Kant's mind? You still fail to see that in order for being consistent with his own doctrine, this statement:

"[...] a priori conditions are equivalent to inherent instincts of humans and therefore cannot be independent of human conditions in any way in relating to any empirical objects 'internally' or 'externally'."

Would need to be transformed to this statement (coming from Kant from his first-person point of view):

"[...] a priori conditions are equivalent to inherent instincts of my [Kantian] humanity and therefore cannot be independent of me in any way in relating to any empirical objects 'internally' or 'externally'."

Thus, subjective idealism and solipsism. Subjects carrying themselves a priori conditions of experience would be mere empirical objects within Kant's own experience, dependent of it and destined to evaporate as soon as Kant ceased to be a thinking subject.
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: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:30 am Whatever I claimed re the CPR, I always fall back on the CPR with direct references from the CPR based on what Kant intended.
As anyone can see, you still claim you're a Kant expert. I don't believe it, I have good enough reasons for it and I explained my case. It would be irrelevant for this discussion if it were not the case that you make such belief a condition for settling the disputes between realism / anti-realism. It is clear now, by your own confession, that you think most, if not all that has to be said in regards to that debate, is confined to what is written in Kant's CPR, your sacred text.
What are you talking about and making all those irrelevant noises?
Note this OP is centered on Kant's thing-in-itself.
Therefore the focus on topic MUST be on Kant's CPR which is the typical anti-realist. The other texts I gave are supporting texts to the point.
And then you just confirm and complement your dogmatic beliefs with other anti-realist sources. And so, when I challenged your claim that you "have done extensively research on the realists' views", by asking you directly which are those all authors and texts that exhaust the realists' views, you respond evasively with a handful of anti-realist literature. The realist views that you supposedly researched? Only the sound of crickets in an otherwise silent and dark night. Oh, well, you did look up in Wikipedia, because for a cult member, digging into heavy realist literature would be going too far and comitting sacrilege.
You are merely making noises again.
You are the one who was asking for references re my extensive research re realists versus anti-realist.
If you are sufficient intellectual enough you would have understood that those references I gave would have no substance if they did not define 'what is realism' before they can argue what they meant by anti-realism.

Btw, I don't think you understand 'Realism' [typically] thoroughly and how your own 'critical realism' is aligned with it.
It is still funny how you reacted to my example of the doctrine of transubstantiation with exactly the same disposition I was criticizing. It's like saying: "I'm a staunch dogmatic believer, so what?" No "technical" arguments, just pointing at sections of the sacred text where all truths are to be found.
No problem is you have not read the relevant text thoroughly, i.e. Kant's CPR.
Thus it is a waste of my time to quote technically at present until you dig into the texts. So In the meantime, I will just give a rough outline with quotes where only necessary.
As if you were living in another dimension of reality, you always understand things completely different of how they have been exposed, completely missing the point and responding to your own straw man. Who cares if Kant warned "[...] NEVER to transcend nor go beyond possible experience to determined any object with Objective Validity", if he ultimately didn't comply with his own warning. That IS the point: what are the a priori conditions of experience if not universally, objectively valid properties, independent of Kant's mind? You still fail to see that in order for being consistent with his own doctrine, this statement:

"[...] a priori conditions are equivalent to inherent instincts of humans and therefore cannot be independent of human conditions in any way in relating to any empirical objects 'internally' or 'externally'."

Would need to be transformed to this statement (coming from Kant from his first-person point of view):

"[...] a priori conditions are equivalent to inherent instincts of my [Kantian] humanity and therefore cannot be independent of me in any way in relating to any empirical objects 'internally' or 'externally'."

Thus, subjective idealism and solipsism. Subjects carrying themselves a priori conditions of experience would be mere empirical objects within Kant's own experience, dependent of it and destined to evaporate as soon as Kant ceased to be a thinking subject.
Nah you are arguing based on the ignorance of Kant's text and creating your own strawman.
What do you mean he did not comply with his own warning?

On this point, you have to be precise, where in Kant's text that indicate, he is exposed as not complying with his own warning, i.e. 'never to transcend beyond possible experience.'

The above would be the most dumbest claim for anyone who is familiar with Kant's CPR.
Thus, subjective idealism and solipsism. Subjects carrying themselves a priori conditions of experience would be mere empirical objects within Kant's own experience, dependent of it and destined to evaporate as soon as Kant ceased to be a thinking subject.
Still harping and accusing Kant of subjective idealism and solipsism? and exposing more of your ignorance in this matter.

Santayana [a notable philosopher] also accused Kant of subjective idealism and solipsism?

Here is a counter to Santayana from Dr. Samuel J.M. Kahn;
Abstract:
In this paper, I have argued that whatever might be said about his attack on other German philosophers, Santayana’s attack on Kant, despite its subtlety, its force and its intelligence, is fundamentally misguided.
Teasing out where Santayana’s attack rests on misunderstandings of Kant’s philosophy is a useful exercise:
it is useful for Kantians, for it gives us a chance to show Kant at his best:
it is useful for Santayana scholars, for it reminds us that Santayana, for all his brilliance, was not infallible;
and it is useful more generally, for the mistakes Santayana makes about Kant are, perhaps in part because of Santayana’s well-deservedly wide influence, still prevalent today.
https://philarchive.org/archive/KAHAKR
Suggest you read it since what is relevant is only a few pages [the rest re morality, etc.].

The above is a quickie search, there are loads of such similar counters to those [famous, not so famous and lay-philosophers like you] who ignorantly accused Kant of Subjectivism and Solipsism.
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: Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:44 am What are you talking about and making all those irrelevant noises?
Note this OP is centered on Kant's thing-in-itself.
Therefore the focus on topic MUST be on Kant's CPR which is the typical anti-realist. The other texts I gave are supporting texts to the point.
There you go. It can now be properly established, based in part on your own admissions, that:
  • 1. You're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism and whatever anti-realist literature says about realism. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • 2. While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
So, you will continue avoiding my arguments with your general, vague and dogmatic remarks. In the last post I made precise reference to literal statements made by you supposedly expressing faithfully Kant's views, yet you pretend as always to divert, look somewhere else and dismiss the whole issue with your dumb Ad Hominems. Notice that any reference to legitimate criticism of Kant, present among famous scholars (who one would suppose are not simply "ignorant and dumb"), and acknowledged, for example, in Allison's introduction of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, is not countered with arguments, but with the typical grumpy dismissals of an old dogmatic fundamentalist. According to you, it is not open to debate, yet you debate in order to show-off your self-perceived authority on the matter, which is obviously pure delusion.
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: Sun Aug 29, 2021 5:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:44 am What are you talking about and making all those irrelevant noises?
Note this OP is centered on Kant's thing-in-itself.
Therefore the focus on topic MUST be on Kant's CPR which is the typical anti-realist. The other texts I gave are supporting texts to the point.
There you go. It can now be properly established, based in part on your own admissions, that:
  • 1. You're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism and whatever anti-realist literature says about realism. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
  • 2. While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
You are speaking from a very ignorant vantage point.

Re Kant it is very regular we hear of the following;
  • What Alfred North Whitehead said about Plato (that all of Western philosophy was merely a footnote to Plato) could easily be said about Kant in regard to modern philosophy.
    a quickie search
Thus it is justify to ground the realist versus anti-realist to Kant. I have also cover sufficiently those of the related literatures subsequent to Kant to the present day.

This realist versus anti-realist is traceable to its grounds in Greek philosophy way back to >600BC and Eastern Philosophy, >5000 years ago.
I can track it to 4 billion years to the days our one-celled animals emerge to differentiate what is food and not food not there "independent" of their body.

Show me your Critical Realism literatures and their arguments you think I have missed out?
So, you will continue avoiding my arguments with your general, vague and dogmatic remarks. In the last post I made precise reference to literal statements made by you supposedly expressing faithfully Kant's views, yet you pretend as always to divert, look somewhere else and dismiss the whole issue with your dumb Ad Hominems. Notice that any reference to legitimate criticism of Kant, present among famous scholars (who one would suppose are not simply "ignorant and dumb"), and acknowledged, for example, in Allison's introduction of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, is not countered with arguments, but with the typical grumpy dismissals of an old dogmatic fundamentalist. According to you, it is not open to debate, yet you debate in order to show-off your self-perceived authority on the matter, which is obviously pure delusion.
I am not running away from any of your propositions nor challenge.

For whatever you think I have missed out is purely due to miscommunication or a lack of.

Note the separate threads I have raised in order to understand your arguments and to get to the bottom of the issues.

You are making too much noises based in ignorance rather than on precise arguments.

I suggest whatever you think is not resolved, that you present [in a separate thread] what you understand as Kant's position in point forms and then present your counter to each specific point then on a overall basis. You can pick them from this thread of jumbled and off tangent posts.

I am familiar with most of the notable counters by 'famous' scholars [mostly of the analytic kind] who has a confirmation bias issue and who cannot see the 500 pound gorilla right in front of them due to the fact that they are dogmatically stuck with their inherent Transcendental Realism.

They are like fundamentalist theists who are unable to understand [not necessary agree] with the non-theists' point of view.
Post Reply