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.