Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 Apr 18, 2021 7:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:07 am Thus to Kant what is objective reality is confined to cognition and experiences, i.e. whatever is empirical only.
Kant never asserted the thing-in-itself is objectively real.
see the B397 quote from CPR in the later part of this post.
That is the opposite of what he said. His writing in the CPR gives ground to the strong phenomenalism interpretation, which he despised and proceeded to clarify in other writings and editions of the CPR.
He does claim the thing in itself is objectively real, that its existence outside of us is guaranteed and it affects our sensibility, making phenomena foundationally grounded and possible, but we only know its form or appearance, contributing ourselves (so Kant thought) with space and time.
So, there are real objects, they are not illusions. He uses very straight words to clarify his doctrine, he says he does not agree with the idealist interpretation about representations that "no object external to them corresponds in fact". He says that "things... existing outside us are given", that "there are bodies without us".
The quote B397 is from the 2nd Edition of the CPR published in 1787. The Prolegomena was published in 1783 i.e. before the 2nd Edition but after the 1st edition [1781]. There is nothing thereafter the above where Kant published corrections.

Where Kant stated things are real and external [not illusions], that is within his empirical realism which is subsumed with his Transcendental Idealism [TI] where TI stated things-in-themselves are illusions.
In the Transcendental Aesthetic (2nd edition) he goes on to say:
III. If I say: in space and time intuition represents both outer objects as well as the self-intuition of the mind as each affects our senses, i.e., as it appears, that is not to say that these objects would be a mere illusion. ... Thus I do not say that bodies merely seem to exist outside me or that my soul only seems to be given ... It would be my own fault if I made that which I should count as appearance into mere illusion.
As I had stated above, things that appear are real and not illusion but that is within Kant's empirical realism.

Note Kant stated the following;
  • "What the Things-in-Themselves may be, I do not know, nor do I need to know, since a Thing can never come before me except in Appearance. A277 B333"
The above confirmed my point, things that appear are real and external, thus not illusion, but other than appearance i.e. as things-in-themselves and they cannot be known. In the whole of the CPR, Kant represent things-in-themselves as intelligible entities & illusions, i.e. transcendental ideas or transcendental illusions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:07 am The above passage was Kant's explanation on the conflation of Kant's idealism with the rest of idealism. That is why he used "contrary" explicit and impliedly.
The above passage is not an explanation of what the thing-in-itself really is which is explained in context within 834 pages in the CPR.
I'm not saying that this was an explanation of what the thing in itself really is, Kant clearly says we cannot know. What he is saying is that regardless of they merely appearing to us in one way, they are actual objects independent of us, "outside of us". He always talks about the ideality of space and time and of all the relations and properties attributed to objects, but that these objects are actually existing, not mere illusions.
Note my point above with reference to empirical realism versus transcendental idealism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:07 am When Kant used the phrase "I grant by all means that there are bodies without us" he was using that within Empirical Realism.
I have stated many times [here? and elsewhere] the empirical realism of Kant recognized the reality of the independent external world within sensibility and experience, BUT this empirical realism is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [as defined by Kant]. The grounding of Transcendental Idealism is grounded by human conditions, e.g. space and time.
The reality of the independent external world within sensibility and experience can only mean, in order to be a coherent statement, merely the reality of its appearance as forms in our sensibility.
By definition, being real only in our sensibility would categorically deny the existence of the independent external world, which Kant says would put his doctrine along with Berkeley's (or how he interpreted Berkeley's), entailing the idea that the external world is an illusion, which Kant denies. Appearance, he says, does not entail illusion. The grounding by human conditions is what gives phenomena (according to Kant), but not the noumena:
You got it wrong with Berkeley.
Berkeley supposedly claimed all of reality are in the mind, thus there is no sense of externality, i.e. external world.
Kant did not claim all of reality is in the mind.
Kant also did not claim being real is only with sensibility, but entails the Understanding as well.
Kant wrote:For if the senses merely represent something to us as it appears, then this something must also be in itself a thing, and an object of a non-sensible intuition, i.e., of the understanding, i.e., a cognition must be possible in which no sensibility is encountered, and which alone has absolutely objective reality, through which, namely, objects are represented to us as they are, in contrast to the empirical use of our understanding, in which things are only cognized as they appear...

...This was the result of the entire Transcendental Aesthetic, and it also follows naturally from the concept of an appearance in general that something must correspond to it which is not in it­self appearance, for appearance can be nothing for itself and outside of our kind of representation; thus...the word "appearance" must already indicate a relation to something...which in itself, without this constitution of our sensibility (on which the form of our intuition is grounded), must be something, i.e., an object independent of sensibility.


That "an object independent of sensibility" is the noumenon which in the subsequent pages of the CPR is demonstrated to be an illusion. Note again,
  • "What the Things-in-Themselves may be, I do not know, nor do I need to know, since a Thing can never come before me except in Appearance. A277 B333"
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:07 am The something which we know is the supposed 'thing-in-itself' you are referring to above, but it has no qualities of sensibilities and experience.
But due to psychological desperations, the majority of humans, speculated and REIFY that inevitable illusion [the thing-in-itself] which they ascribe Objective Reality even when there are no empirical elements nor empirical concepts.
This Illusion will unceasingly mocks and torments him. This is why some realists like Peter, Sculptor, PantFlashers and their likes [not you] are so desperate and aggressive to condemn others who do not agree with them, with venom, just like the arrogant logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers of old.
You are just misrepresenting Kant's view, which is not necessarily a huge mistake, given that he gave good grounds himself for being misrepresented, specially along the lines of strong phenomenalism, a view that he tried to correct from his interpreters. Things are for him only illusions in the sense of the properties related to time and space that we attribute them, but not illusions in the sense of their existence. So, following Kant's view, they are not "ultimately" illusions, but realities of which we supposedly know nothing else.
Kant specifically stated in the CPR, the things-in-themselves do not have any objective validity [see B397 quote above] outside the sphere of sensibility with the understanding.
When you claim ultimate reality, that is with the PURE Understanding [naked of sensible concepts] thus are illusions.

Here is a remark from Caygill;
  • The fundamental illegitimate use of noumena is to attribute Objectivity to them, to move from
    • 'a mode of determining the Object by thought alone - a merely logical Form without content'
      to
      what 'seems to us to be a mode in which the Object exists in-itself (noumenon) without regard to Intuition' [sensibility]
    (CPR A289/B345).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:07 am You will not have any credibility to represent nor express Kant's view accurately unless you are very familiar [not necessary agree] with what are in the 834 pages of Kant's CPR.
Being very familiar with what is entailed in Kant's Critique and his whole philosophical project means being familiar, among other things, with the scholarship on Kant. Since I don't claim expertise myself, nor you claim expertise by yourself either, we are left with our better of worse informed opinions on the matter. That, of course, at best would only settle how is Kant to be interpreted, but will leave still open the full critique of his work, including the refutations that came along later. Transcendental Idealism by all means is now a defunct doctrine.
I told you I researched Kant's CPR [main focus] and his other works for 3 years full time thus I am very familiar [not an expert] with his main themes. My knowledge is on par with the notable Kant scholars [all the main principles] except I am rusty and will not be able to retrieve the knowledge in the CPR as fast as them, since they are specialists and teach Kant's works day in day out.

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.
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 Apr 18, 2021 9:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:54 pm
No, you didn't. I derived the logical consequences of your answer to the question 'does the universe exists if there are no humans?'. Saying "none of the above" is not a response.
Then that is a straw man.
I never agreed to your 'does the universe exists if there are no humans?'.
There are a lot of difference in the manner of phrasing the issue.

Well, no, I took care of quoting your exact words. It should be reminded also that you said this was the point to address:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: The contention here is 'does the universe exists if there are no humans'. Your claim is 'yes' while I claim 'no'

And so, I proceeded to derive the logical consequences of that statement of yours, which you said yourself was the point to address. And right up to this moment, you have simply evaded the argument. We can go back to it anytime, it is a simple question: do humans exist?
OK.
That was a quickie response but seriously, I do not accept that which is normally transposed by realists for their rhetoric.
As I had said no to brush it off since I do not agree with such a statement.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Mine is;
"reality is never independent of the human conditions"
the above has to be considered within transcendental idealism and empirical realism.

Is there a reality of humans actually existing?
Note sure of your point?
To me it is obvious within empirical realism there are humans existing at present.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Thereafter no philosopher can accuse Kant's work as the same as Berkeley version of idealism nor any Kantian should do the same.
The fact is that Kant took on the task of clarifying his position to distance himself from Berkeley, and that was as a response to his critics.
So you should not associate Kant's view with Berkeley.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: While you say you endorse Kant's idealism, your words point to Berkeley's.
Didn't you read your own quote from the Prolegomena where Kant rejected Berkeley's type of idealism as problematic-idealism?
You're assuming that I'm assuming that you're accurately representing Kant's position, but I'm not.
Nope, I was asking you to refer to your own quote.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Berkeley had debunked 'materialism' in the first of his two phase argument in rejecting the existence of matter.
That is why the current view is not 'matter' but' physical' defined as anything that is studied by Physics. [Have you read Berkeley's argument?]
Not only Berkeley never debunked materialism, but it is still a pending project for idealists.
The point that the term 'materialism' is rarely used at present is evidence Berkeley had debunked materialism. This is why the present term is 'physicalism'.

You need to read these objection;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiali ... objections.

I asked you did not response,
Have you read Berkeley's argument which is in two phases, i.e.
1. Debunking materialism - successful
2. Bringing in God - failed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Philosophical Realism is not ultimately realistic - note the "ism".
Natural science is most useful but at best scientific knowledge are merely polished conjectures.
Science simply would not work without its materialistic foundation. Materialism is the ontology of science and realism its epistemology. Idealism, on the other hand, only has mysticism in all its varieties.
For modern science it is based on physicalism not materialism.
BUT science in general merely assumed physicalism, i.e. there is an independent objective reality out there to be discovered. This assumption is not imperative for science which is based on observations and experiments on the empirical and inference therefrom.

Not all scientists are philosophical realists.

Explain how science will not work without physicalism [your materialistic foundation].
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 Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am The quote B397 is from the 2nd Edition of the CPR published in 1787. The Prolegomena was published in 1783 i.e. before the 2nd Edition but after the 1st edition [1781]. There is nothing thereafter the above where Kant published corrections.
After the 1st edition Kant received critiques that motivated him to include a response in the Prolegomena and corrections in the 2nd edition of the CPR. This is not even controversial.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Where Kant stated things are real and external [not illusions], that is within his empirical realism which is subsumed with his Transcendental Idealism [TI] where TI stated things-in-themselves are illusions.
No. You're saying Kant believed things are real within the limits of cognition, but not real outside of it. That is, they would ultimately be mere illusions, the strong phenomenalist stance, but that's precisely why he consistently clarifies that objects do exist for real, outside of us. They cannot be both illusions (non-existent) and real at the same time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am You got it wrong with Berkeley.
Berkeley supposedly claimed all of reality are in the mind, thus there is no sense of externality, i.e. external world.
Kant did not claim all of reality is in the mind.
Kant also did not claim being real is only with sensibility, but entails the Understanding as well.
As I clearly stated, the quoted passages reflect Kant's position on Berkeley's, not mine. It is very likely, however, that Kant got his Berkeley wrong.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Kant specifically stated in the CPR, the things-in-themselves do not have any objective validity [see B397 quote above] outside the sphere of sensibility with the understanding.
When you claim ultimate reality, that is with the PURE Understanding [naked of sensible concepts] thus are illusions.
I'll say it once again: only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant. He couldn't say they are ultimately illusions as noumena because he also says we cannot know what they are as noumena. So he says we can only remain agnostic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am I told you I researched Kant's CPR [main focus] and his other works for 3 years full time thus I am very familiar [not an expert] with his main themes. My knowledge is on par with the notable Kant scholars [all the main principles]
I applaud your interest in the subject, but I'm afraid your assertion that you are "on par with the notable Kant scholars" would require more than your opinion to be credible. You should provide your contribution to Kant's scholarship. Other than that, anyone can feel entitled to claim familiarity with his main themes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Transcendental Idealism by all means is NOT a defunct doctrine but adopted by many neo-Kantians who agree with it.
Neo-Kantians are just carrying a dead corpse. Ever since non-Euclidean geometry.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Note this article on TI and the long list of bibliography therein.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
I remember that article from a couple of years ago while in another debate. You should read it yourself, it actually supports my understanding of Kant and would help yours.
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 Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:15 pm
Well, no, I took care of quoting your exact words. It should be reminded also that you said this was the point to address:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: The contention here is 'does the universe exists if there are no humans'. Your claim is 'yes' while I claim 'no'

And so, I proceeded to derive the logical consequences of that statement of yours, which you said yourself was the point to address. And right up to this moment, you have simply evaded the argument. We can go back to it anytime, it is a simple question: do humans exist?
OK.
That was a quickie response but seriously, I do not accept that which is normally transposed by realists for their rhetoric.
As I had said no to brush it off since I do not agree with such a statement.
Are you saying you don't agree with your own statement?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am To me it is obvious within empirical realism there are humans existing at present.
So humans, as any other empirical thing, are ultimately illusions?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Thereafter no philosopher can accuse Kant's work as the same as Berkeley version of idealism nor any Kantian should do the same.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:15 pmThe fact is that Kant took on the task of clarifying his position to distance himself from Berkeley, and that was as a response to his critics.
So you should not associate Kant's view with Berkeley.
It was Kant''s critics which associated him with Berkeley and so he tried to distance himself from what he thought were Berkeley's doctrines.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am The point that the term 'materialism' is rarely used at present is evidence Berkeley had debunked materialism. This is why the present term is 'physicalism'.
The term materialism is very much alive and synonymous of physicalism. Berkeley's solipsism is no contention to materialism, despite the wishful thinking of idealists. Idealism itself was alive only in the mysticism of the phenomenological project, which committed suicide. Religion keeps being its only safe harbor.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am You need to read these objection;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiali ... objections.

I asked you did not response,
Have you read Berkeley's argument which is in two phases, i.e.
1. Debunking materialism - successful
2. Bringing in God - failed.
I have debated all this nonsense for years. Is there any new argument?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am For modern science it is based on physicalism not materialism.
They are the same. Interchangeable terms.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am Explain how science will not work without physicalism [your materialistic foundation].
Do you know of any "immaterial" science? You tell me how it works.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Sure, idealists saw there the opportunity to leverage their nonsense. Unfortunately for them, undermining the materialist project has always implied an anti-foundationalism that ultimately kills their own project. They cannot peddle any type of physics, classical or quantum, without assuming the key principles of materialism and scientific realism.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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 »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am The quote B397 is from the 2nd Edition of the CPR published in 1787. The Prolegomena was published in 1783 i.e. before the 2nd Edition but after the 1st edition [1781]. There is nothing thereafter the above where Kant published corrections.
After the 1st edition Kant received critiques that motivated him to include a response in the Prolegomena and corrections in the 2nd edition of the CPR. This is not even controversial.
It seems from what you stated, you claimed that Kant made corrections after the 2nd edition. So I provided the necessary chronology.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Where Kant stated things are real and external [not illusions], that is within his empirical realism which is subsumed with his Transcendental Idealism [TI] where TI stated things-in-themselves are illusions.
No. You're saying Kant believed things are real within the limits of cognition, but not real outside of it. That is, they would ultimately be mere illusions, the strong phenomenalist stance, but that's precisely why he consistently clarifies that objects do exist for real, outside of us. They cannot be both illusions (non-existent) and real at the same time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am You got it wrong with Berkeley.
Berkeley supposedly claimed all of reality are in the mind, thus there is no sense of externality, i.e. external world.
Kant did not claim all of reality is in the mind.
Kant also did not claim being real is only with sensibility, but entails the Understanding as well.
As I clearly stated, the quoted passages reflect Kant's position on Berkeley's, not mine. It is very likely, however, that Kant got his Berkeley wrong.
Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Kant specifically stated in the CPR, the things-in-themselves do not have any objective validity [see B397 quote above] outside the sphere of sensibility with the understanding.
When you claim ultimate reality, that is with the PURE Understanding [naked of sensible concepts] thus are illusions.
I'll say it once again: only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant. He couldn't say they are ultimately illusions as noumena because he also says we cannot know what they are as noumena. So he says we can only remain agnostic.
Nope, that is really a crazy idea.
That is totally wrong in saying, only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant.

What Kant stated was, when philosophical realists [not Kant] insist the noumena aka thing-in-itself [independent of the human conditions] is really real, they [realists] are chasing an illusion.

You have to read the 834 pages of the CPR to understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.

Here is a relevant point to the above [taken randomly from the CPR], i.e. appearance is real in perception [sensibility] and there is no other way which appearance of the object can be real.
  • Kant in CPR wrote:
    The real of Outer Appearances is therefore real in Perception only, and can be real in no other way. A376
If you claim appearance are represented by a real noumena [things-in-themselves], then it is impossible to establish their external reality.
  • If we treat Outer Objects as Things-in-Themselves, it is quite impossible to understand how we could arrive at a Knowledge of their Reality outside us,
    since we have to rely merely on the Representation which is in us.
    For we cannot be sentient [of what is] outside ourselves, but only [of what is] in us, and the whole of our Self-Consciousness therefore yields nothing save merely our own Determinations.
    A378
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am I told you I researched Kant's CPR [main focus] and his other works for 3 years full time thus I am very familiar [not an expert] with his main themes. My knowledge is on par with the notable Kant scholars [all the main principles]
I applaud your interest in the subject, but I'm afraid your assertion that you are "on par with the notable Kant scholars" would require more than your opinion to be credible. You should provide your contribution to Kant's scholarship. Other than that, anyone can feel entitled to claim familiarity with his main themes.
I have read the major works of Kant and have read hundreds of [books and articles] related to Kant, so I know where I stand.
My 'Kant' directory in my computer has over 2000 files [books, articles, charts].
I am also a member of the North American Kant Society.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Transcendental Idealism by all means is NOT a defunct doctrine but adopted by many neo-Kantians who agree with it.
Neo-Kantians are just carrying a dead corpse. Ever since non-Euclidean geometry.
Where is your evidence and argument?

Note: I am referring to the very current philosophers who are followers of Kant's philosophies.

I am not referring to the then-neo-Kantians of the likes of Schelling, Hegel, Fichte and others who were active during the next 50-100 years after Kant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Note this article on TI and the long list of bibliography therein.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
I remember that article from a couple of years ago while in another debate. You should read it yourself, it actually supports my understanding of Kant and would help yours.
You are likely to be mistaken.
Which point in the article support your argument?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:48 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: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:15 pm
Well, no, I took care of quoting your exact words. It should be reminded also that you said this was the point to address:

And so, I proceeded to derive the logical consequences of that statement of yours, which you said yourself was the point to address. And right up to this moment, you have simply evaded the argument. We can go back to it anytime, it is a simple question: do humans exist?
OK.
That was a quickie response but seriously, I do not accept that which is normally transposed by realists for their rhetoric.
As I had said no to brush it off since I do not agree with such a statement.
Are you saying you don't agree with your own statement?
I meant I do not agree with your statement.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am To me it is obvious within empirical realism there are humans existing at present.
So humans, as any other empirical thing, are ultimately illusions?
Humans within Kantian empirical realism are objectively real empirical things, i.e. the empirical-I, which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically, thus objectively real.

It is an illusion when people [realists] insist the I-in-itself [noumenom-I], i.e. the 'I-AM' which is the soul that can survive physical death.
Do you claim there is a soul that survives physical death that could be taken to a heaven or hell?

It is also an illusion when people [realists] insist the thing-in-itself [noumenom], i.e. the thing independent of human conditions, is really real and which will exists even if all humans are dead. [note plural is noumena or things-in-themselves]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 am Thereafter no philosopher can accuse Kant's work as the same as Berkeley version of idealism nor any Kantian should do the same.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:15 pmThe fact is that Kant took on the task of clarifying his position to distance himself from Berkeley, and that was as a response to his critics.
So you should not associate Kant's view with Berkeley.
It was Kant''s critics which associated him with Berkeley and so he tried to distance himself from what he thought were Berkeley's doctrines.
As I had stated in the other post you misunderstood Kant's correct interpretation of Berkeley.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am The point that the term 'materialism' is rarely used at present is evidence Berkeley had debunked materialism. This is why the present term is 'physicalism'.
The term materialism is very much alive and synonymous of physicalism. Berkeley's solipsism is no contention to materialism, despite the wishful thinking of idealists. Idealism itself was alive only in the mysticism of the phenomenological project, which committed suicide. Religion keeps being its only safe harbor.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am You need to read these objection;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiali ... objections.

I asked you did not response,
Have you read Berkeley's argument which is in two phases, i.e.
1. Debunking materialism - successful
2. Bringing in God - failed.
I have debated all this nonsense for years. Is there any new argument?
Give me some ideas why Berkeley was wrong in his argument against materialism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am For modern science it is based on physicalism not materialism.
They are the same. Interchangeable terms.
There is a big difference between materialism and physicalism which the latter has to account for the weird things within Quantum physics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am Explain how science will not work without physicalism [your materialistic foundation].
Do you know of any "immaterial" science? You tell me how it works.
Quantum Physics is "immaterial" science, it deals with Physicalism, i.e. probabilities based quarks and wave-particle, not solid matter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:35 am
Sure, idealists saw there the opportunity to leverage their nonsense. Unfortunately for them, undermining the materialist project has always implied an anti-foundationalism that ultimately kills their own project. They cannot peddle any type of physics, classical or quantum, without assuming the key principles of materialism and scientific realism.
You are so sure of foundationalism is the sole pivot to reality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
Note the criticism to Foundationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... Criticisms

Btw, you noted there are different types of idealism.
I do not accept most of the idealists' view but only Transcendental Idealism [Kantian].

Don't be hasty and simply condemned 'idealism' in general.
Your views of philosophical realism is Empirical Idealism.
Therefore if you condemn idealism in general without qualification, you are also condemning your own philosophical views, i.e. Empirical Idealism.

Here is how Kant view your Empirical Idealism; [mine]
The Transcendental Idealist is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
On such a view as this [Empirical Realism], however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.

In our System [Transcendental Idealism aka Empirical Realism], on the other hand, these External Things, namely Matter, are in all their Configurations and Alterations nothing but mere Appearances, that is, Representations in us, of the Reality of which we are Immediately Conscious. A371
What Kant implied above is the Philosophical Realist also a Transcendental Realist, Empirical Idealist is only acquainted with the sense-data of a supposedly real object, thus
"it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it".
Where the philosophical realist [you] reify that supposedly-real-object, then you are clinging onto an illusion.

As I had stated, why philosophical realists [like you] are reifying, chasing and clinging on to the illusion is due to desperate psychology within.

On the other hand for the Transcendental Idealist aka empirical realists, external matters are the the Reality of which we are Immediately Conscious and entangled and embraced as one in unity with reality.
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: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am The quote B397 is from the 2nd Edition of the CPR published in 1787. The Prolegomena was published in 1783 i.e. before the 2nd Edition but after the 1st edition [1781]. There is nothing thereafter the above where Kant published corrections.
After the 1st edition Kant received critiques that motivated him to include a response in the Prolegomena and corrections in the 2nd edition of the CPR. This is not even controversial.
It seems from what you stated, you claimed that Kant made corrections after the 2nd edition. So I provided the necessary chronology.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Where Kant stated things are real and external [not illusions], that is within his empirical realism which is subsumed with his Transcendental Idealism [TI] where TI stated things-in-themselves are illusions.
No. You're saying Kant believed things are real within the limits of cognition, but not real outside of it. That is, they would ultimately be mere illusions, the strong phenomenalist stance, but that's precisely why he consistently clarifies that objects do exist for real, outside of us. They cannot be both illusions (non-existent) and real at the same time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am You got it wrong with Berkeley.
Berkeley supposedly claimed all of reality are in the mind, thus there is no sense of externality, i.e. external world.
Kant did not claim all of reality is in the mind.
Kant also did not claim being real is only with sensibility, but entails the Understanding as well.
As I clearly stated, the quoted passages reflect Kant's position on Berkeley's, not mine. It is very likely, however, that Kant got his Berkeley wrong.
Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Kant specifically stated in the CPR, the things-in-themselves do not have any objective validity [see B397 quote above] outside the sphere of sensibility with the understanding.
When you claim ultimate reality, that is with the PURE Understanding [naked of sensible concepts] thus are illusions.
I'll say it once again: only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant. He couldn't say they are ultimately illusions as noumena because he also says we cannot know what they are as noumena. So he says we can only remain agnostic.
Nope, that is really a crazy idea.
That is totally wrong in saying, only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant.

What Kant stated was, when philosophical realists [not Kant] insist the noumena aka thing-in-itself [independent of the human conditions] is really real, they [realists] are chasing an illusion.

You have to read the 834 pages of the CPR to understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.

Here is a relevant point to the above [taken randomly from the CPR], i.e. appearance is real in perception [sensibility] and there is no other way which appearance of the object can be real.
  • Kant in CPR wrote:
    The real of Outer Appearances is therefore real in Perception only, and can be real in no other way. A376
If you claim appearance are represented by a real noumena [things-in-themselves], then it is impossible to establish their external reality.
  • If we treat Outer Objects as Things-in-Themselves, it is quite impossible to understand how we could arrive at a Knowledge of their Reality outside us,
    since we have to rely merely on the Representation which is in us.
    For we cannot be sentient [of what is] outside ourselves, but only [of what is] in us, and the whole of our Self-Consciousness therefore yields nothing save merely our own Determinations.
    A378
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am I told you I researched Kant's CPR [main focus] and his other works for 3 years full time thus I am very familiar [not an expert] with his main themes. My knowledge is on par with the notable Kant scholars [all the main principles]
I applaud your interest in the subject, but I'm afraid your assertion that you are "on par with the notable Kant scholars" would require more than your opinion to be credible. You should provide your contribution to Kant's scholarship. Other than that, anyone can feel entitled to claim familiarity with his main themes.
I have read the major works of Kant and have read hundreds of [books and articles] related to Kant, so I know where I stand.
My 'Kant' directory in my computer has over 2000 files [books, articles, charts].
I am also a member of the North American Kant Society.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Transcendental Idealism by all means is NOT a defunct doctrine but adopted by many neo-Kantians who agree with it.
Neo-Kantians are just carrying a dead corpse. Ever since non-Euclidean geometry.
Where is your evidence and argument?

Note: I am referring to the very current philosophers who are followers of Kant's philosophies.

I am not referring to the then-neo-Kantians of the likes of Schelling, Hegel, Fichte and others who were active during the next 50-100 years after Kant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Note this article on TI and the long list of bibliography therein.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
I remember that article from a couple of years ago while in another debate. You should read it yourself, it actually supports my understanding of Kant and would help yours.
You are likely to be mistaken.
Which point in the article support your argument?
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."
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: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am You got it wrong with Berkeley.
Berkeley supposedly claimed all of reality are in the mind, thus there is no sense of externality, i.e. external world.
Kant did not claim all of reality is in the mind.
Kant also did not claim being real is only with sensibility, but entails the Understanding as well.
As I clearly stated, the quoted passages reflect Kant's position on Berkeley's, not mine. It is very likely, however, that Kant got his Berkeley wrong.
Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong.
You should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
First of all, it should be noted that the Feder-Garve view... is not without a basis in claiming that there is a deep similarity between Berkeley and the Critique...Since “representation” [Vorstellung] is Kant’s term for what Berkeley calls “ideas”, this seems at least perilously close to the Berkeleyan view that bodies are collections of ideas.

...However, Kant’s attempts to distance himself from Berkeley may not cut as deep as he seems to think. Regarding the first point, Kant’s definition of idealism in the Appendix (quoted above) does not apply to Berkeley.

That Kant would describe Berkeley as an idealist in this sense (what he elsewhere designates a “dogmatic idealist”) raises the suspicion that has misread Berkeley.[13] Since the misinterpretation of Berkeley as holding that sense perception is illusory and that bodies do not exist was widespread in Germany in the eighteenth-century (again, see Beiser 2002), it is quite possible that Kant shares it. It may be that Kant is more similar to Berkeley than he realizes because he is not familiar with Berkeley’s actual theory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Kant specifically stated in the CPR, the things-in-themselves do not have any objective validity [see B397 quote above] outside the sphere of sensibility with the understanding.
When you claim ultimate reality, that is with the PURE Understanding [naked of sensible concepts] thus are illusions.
I'll say it once again: only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant. He couldn't say they are ultimately illusions as noumena because he also says we cannot know what they are as noumena. So he says we can only remain agnostic.
Nope, that is really a crazy idea.
That is totally wrong in saying, only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant.

What Kant stated was, when philosophical realists [not Kant] insist the noumena aka thing-in-itself [independent of the human conditions] is really real, they [realists] are chasing an illusion.
Again, you should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
Kant is committed to both of the following theses:

(Existence) There are things in themselves.

(Humility) We know nothing about things in themselves.

...Kant does not merely claim that things in themselves exist, he also asserts that,

(Non-spatiality) Things in themselves are not in space and time.

(Affection) Things in themselves causally affect us.[31]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am You have to read the 834 pages of the CPR to understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.
I suppose you agree that the author of the Stanford article on Transcendental Idealism that you posted yourself, did read the CPR and the extensive bibliography that you mentioned. The author does seem to know what Kant is really talking about, yet it is not the same you're talking about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am I have read the major works of Kant and have read hundreds of [books and articles] related to Kant, so I know where I stand.
My 'Kant' directory in my computer has over 2000 files [books, articles, charts].
I am also a member of the North American Kant Society.
I don't mean to downplay your interest in the subject, but all of this would only demonstrate that you're a big fan of Kant, not that you are on par with Kant's scholars. Being a scholar requires many other competences and knowledge acquired through specialized training, so that one can use those tools when approaching texts. One way to show proficiency in a given subject is to publish on that subject, put one's interpretations in contrast with the publications of the most widely recognized experts in the field, and being recognized among them as a contributor to the field. Or perhaps, at a lower level of competence, one might be an average academic or a professor, which still involves some systematic training and research. But even if you were any of these things, Kant's writings have many obscurities and even among renowned scholars there are several interpretations, there's no perfect consensus about what he meant to say.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm Transcendental Idealism by all means is NOT a defunct doctrine but adopted by many neo-Kantians who agree with it.
Neo-Kantians are just carrying a dead corpse. Ever since non-Euclidean geometry.
Where is your evidence and argument?
Non-Euclidean geometry. It's a well known instance in which Kant was proven to be dead wrong.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
I am referring to the very current philosophers who are followers of Kant's philosophies.

I am not referring to the then-neo-Kantians of the likes of Schelling, Hegel, Fichte and others who were active during the next 50-100 years after Kant.
Both neo-Kantians, then and now, are victims of the same failed philosophical project.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:06 am Note this article on TI and the long list of bibliography therein.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
I remember that article from a couple of years ago while in another debate. You should read it yourself, it actually supports my understanding of Kant and would help yours.
You are likely to be mistaken.
Which point in the article support your argument?
The question should be inverted: what points support yours?
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: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Humans within Kantian empirical realism are objectively real empirical things, i.e. the empirical-I, which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically, thus objectively real.
Yet, according to the doctrine you advocate, in the transcendental sense, humans either do not exist (they are illusions) or can't be known to exist as things in themselves. Then how come you found your entire argument about the 'universe not existing without humans' on such risky premises? Clearly humans and the universe are on the same side, don't you think?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am It is an illusion when people [realists] insist the I-in-itself [noumenom-I], i.e. the 'I-AM' which is the soul that can survive physical death.
Do you claim there is a soul that survives physical death that could be taken to a heaven or hell?
What relevance do you find in a doctrine about something happening to an illusion? In what sense a non-real thing, an illusion, can 'survive'? Oh, now you will say: "well, no, humans are not illusions". Will you ever make up your mind?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am It is also an illusion when people [realists] insist the thing-in-itself [noumenom], i.e. the thing independent of human conditions, is really real and which will exists even if all humans are dead. [note plural is noumena or things-in-themselves]
Haven't you realized yet that for the purpose of cognition as being discussed, and according to the doctrines you say you advocate, humans are purported objects in space, too? So, any talk about humans would be about illusions, too, coming from other illusory beings. Isn't that interesting?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Give me some ideas why Berkeley was wrong in his argument against materialism.
If you want to discuss Berkeley, make a new thread.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am There is a big difference between materialism and physicalism which the latter has to account for the weird things within Quantum physics.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Physicalism and materialism are the same.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), both of whom were key members of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians active in Vienna prior to World War II.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Quantum Physics is "immaterial" science, it deals with Physicalism, i.e. probabilities based quarks and wave-particle, not solid matter.
Gimme a break!!! Absolute nonsense. Quantum physics is still physics and still about material reality, the only reality we know of.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quan ... cs-physics
Quantum mechanics, science dealing with the behaviour of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale. It attempts to describe and account for the properties of molecules and atoms and their constituents—electrons, protons, neutrons, and other more esoteric particles such as quarks and gluons. These properties include the interactions of the particles with one another and with electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light, X-rays, and gamma rays).

The behaviour of matter and radiation on the atomic scale often seems peculiar, and the consequences of quantum theory are accordingly difficult to understand and to believe. Its concepts frequently conflict with common-sense notions derived from observations of the everyday world. There is no reason, however, why the behaviour of the atomic world should conform to that of the familiar, large-scale world. It is important to realize that quantum mechanics is a branch of physics and that the business of physics is to describe and account for the way the world—on both the large and the small scale—actually is and not how one imagines it or would like it to be.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Don't be hasty and simply condemned 'idealism' in general.
Your views of philosophical realism is Empirical Idealism.
Therefore if you condemn idealism in general without qualification, you are also condemning your own philosophical views, i.e. Empirical Idealism.
I simply do not adhere to Kant's views and classifications. I have nothing to do with idealism, which is no more than mysticism and superstition.
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 Apr 21, 2021 3:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
As I clearly stated, the quoted passages reflect Kant's position on Berkeley's, not mine. It is very likely, however, that Kant got his Berkeley wrong.
Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong.
You should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
First of all, it should be noted that the Feder-Garve view... is not without a basis in claiming that there is a deep similarity between Berkeley and the Critique...Since “representation” [Vorstellung] is Kant’s term for what Berkeley calls “ideas”, this seems at least perilously close to the Berkeleyan view that bodies are collections of ideas.

...However, Kant’s attempts to distance himself from Berkeley may not cut as deep as he seems to think. Regarding the first point, Kant’s definition of idealism in the Appendix (quoted above) does not apply to Berkeley.

That Kant would describe Berkeley as an idealist in this sense (what he elsewhere designates a “dogmatic idealist”) raises the suspicion that has misread Berkeley.[13] Since the misinterpretation of Berkeley as holding that sense perception is illusory and that bodies do not exist was widespread in Germany in the eighteenth-century (again, see Beiser 2002), it is quite possible that Kant shares it. It may be that Kant is more similar to Berkeley than he realizes because he is not familiar with Berkeley’s actual theory.
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.

My point was;
"Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong."

I hope this point from Kant will settle the issue that Kant's idealism is different from Berkeley's;
Kant in Prolegomena wrote:I have myself given this my theory the name of Transcendental Idealism,
but that cannot authorize any one to confound [confuse] it
either with the Empirical Idealism of Descartes, (indeed, his was only an insoluble problem, owing to which he thought everyone at liberty to deny the Existence of the corporeal world, because it could never be proved satisfactorily),
or with the Mystical and Visionary Idealism of Berkeley, against which and other similar phantasms our Critique contains the proper antidote.

Prolegomena First Part - Remark
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:37 pm
I'll say it once again: only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant. He couldn't say they are ultimately illusions as noumena because he also says we cannot know what they are as noumena. So he says we can only remain agnostic.
Nope, that is really a crazy idea.
That is totally wrong in saying, only the appearance of objects with properties of time and space are illusions for Kant.

What Kant stated was, when philosophical realists [not Kant] insist the noumena aka thing-in-itself [independent of the human conditions] is really real, they [realists] are chasing an illusion.
Again, you should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
Kant is committed to both of the following theses:

(Existence) There are things in themselves.

(Humility) We know nothing about things in themselves.

...Kant does not merely claim that things in themselves exist, he also asserts that,

(Non-spatiality) Things in themselves are not in space and time.

(Affection) Things in themselves causally affect us.[31]
What affect us need not necessary be really real.
Illusions do causally affect us.
Things-in-themselves as illusions also can effect us.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am You have to read the 834 pages of the CPR to understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.
I suppose you agree that the author of the Stanford article on Transcendental Idealism that you posted yourself, did read the CPR and the extensive bibliography that you mentioned. The author does seem to know what Kant is really talking about, yet it is not the same you're talking about.
The basic requirement is you need to read the 884 pages of the CPR understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.
Understand in this case, I do not meant one will understand fully [100% or 99%] but at least 80%.
I know of Kant scholars like Henry Allison, Paul Guyer and others who apparently has spent their whole academic career focusing on Kant but yet still have not understood Kant fully to say 95%. One of Allison's student discovered some principles in the CPR where Alison has missed out.

I believe I have additional knowledge when I superimposed relevant Eastern philosophies into Kant's philosophies.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am I have read the major works of Kant and have read hundreds of [books and articles] related to Kant, so I know where I stand.
My 'Kant' directory in my computer has over 2000 files [books, articles, charts].
I am also a member of the North American Kant Society.
I don't mean to downplay your interest in the subject, but all of this would only demonstrate that you're a big fan of Kant, not that you are on par with Kant's scholars. Being a scholar requires many other competences and knowledge acquired through specialized training, so that one can use those tools when approaching texts. One way to show proficiency in a given subject is to publish on that subject, put one's interpretations in contrast with the publications of the most widely recognized experts in the field, and being recognized among them as a contributor to the field. Or perhaps, at a lower level of competence, one might be an average academic or a professor, which still involves some systematic training and research. But even if you were any of these things, Kant's writings have many obscurities and even among renowned scholars there are several interpretations, there's no perfect consensus about what he meant to say.
I agree I am not on par with Kant's scholars in a scholarship way but I have claimed I am on par with them in terms of understanding Kant's philosophies.
You yourself or you can get any notable Kant scholar to test my knowledge of Kant's philosophies and principles.
Non-Euclidean geometry. It's a well known instance in which Kant was proven to be dead wrong.
I am not an expert in Non-Euclidean geometry and Kant may be wrong in some of his points mainly due to the lack of modern knowledge during his times but the main theme of his philosophy i.e. Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism remained intact.

I don't agree with Kant totally and I believe Kant got it wrong as being a declared deist, but such a stance had no impact on the main theme of his philosophy toward the value of philosophy.
Maybe that was necessary for him to do so due the political conditions during his time.
Both neo-Kantians, then and now, are victims of the same failed philosophical project.
How so? details?

I started from Eastern Philosophy and progressed to Western Philosophy.
One reason why I got interested in Kant is Kant's philosophy is parallel to Buddhism in the main theme.
Both Buddhism and Kantian are very aligned to what is really real; Buddhism in addition provided principles and practices to enable one to live life optimally. Kant on the other hand is very systematic in presenting his argument.
Kant's CPR is one long argument from beginning to end, thus if one were to cherry pick parts, one will be off target.

Note,
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Thus Kantian is coherent with many other realistic and practical philosophies.
The question should be inverted: what points support yours?
Note my comment above on how I referenced the article as a quickie to justify Transcendental Idealism is not dead at present.

The intellectual protocol is one need to substantiate one's point specifically and in terms of Kant, you are handicapped because you have not read the 884 pages of the CPR thoroughly.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:56 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 Apr 21, 2021 4:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Humans within Kantian empirical realism are objectively real empirical things, i.e. the empirical-I, which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically, thus objectively real.
Yet, according to the doctrine you advocate, in the transcendental sense, humans either do not exist (they are illusions) or can't be known to exist as things in themselves. Then how come you found your entire argument about the 'universe not existing without humans' on such risky premises? Clearly humans and the universe are on the same side, don't you think?
Note I don't agree with your perspective, i.e. "humans do not exists" in the current state.
What I asserted is 'humans cannot exist independent of the external world.' Because there are load of nuances involved you cannot change my views to suit yours.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am It is an illusion when people [realists] insist the I-in-itself [noumenom-I], i.e. the 'I-AM' which is the soul that can survive physical death.
Do you claim there is a soul that survives physical death that could be taken to a heaven or hell?
What relevance do you find in a doctrine about something happening to an illusion? In what sense a non-real thing, an illusion, can 'survive'? Oh, now you will say: "well, no, humans are not illusions". Will you ever make up your mind?
I have already stated, no humans are empirical illusions, what is is a transcendental illusion is when it is claimed the real human is the human-soul that can survive physical death. Kant spent a lot of pages explain why the insistence on the soul is an illusion.
Note also Hume's view that there is no soul that survives physical death.
Do you believe your soul that survives physical death?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am It is also an illusion when people [realists] insist the thing-in-itself [noumenom], i.e. the thing independent of human conditions, is really real and which will exists even if all humans are dead. [note plural is noumena or things-in-themselves]
Haven't you realized yet that for the purpose of cognition as being discussed, and according to the doctrines you say you advocate, humans are purported objects in space, too? So, any talk about humans would be about illusions, too, coming from other illusory beings. Isn't that interesting?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Give me some ideas why Berkeley was wrong in his argument against materialism.
If you want to discuss Berkeley, make a new thread.
I am very familiar with the main themes' of Berkeley argument but since
I read Berkeley long ago, so I will have to brush up.

Since you countered Berkeley strongly I supposed you have the materials to support your counter.
So, I would prefer to hear your arguments first.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am There is a big difference between materialism and physicalism which the latter has to account for the weird things within Quantum physics.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Physicalism and materialism are the same.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), both of whom were key members of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians active in Vienna prior to World War II.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
Note the above mentioned,
  • But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s ......
which if you are informed more thoroughly will give you a clue they are different significantly within certain contexts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Quantum Physics is "immaterial" science, it deals with Physicalism, i.e. probabilities based quarks and wave-particle, not solid matter.
Gimme a break!!! Absolute nonsense. Quantum physics is still physics and still about material reality, the only reality we know of.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quan ... cs-physics
Quantum mechanics, science dealing with the behaviour of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale. It attempts to describe and account for the properties of molecules and atoms and their constituents—electrons, protons, neutrons, and other more esoteric particles such as quarks and gluons. These properties include the interactions of the particles with one another and with electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light, X-rays, and gamma rays).

The behaviour of matter and radiation on the atomic scale often seems peculiar, and the consequences of quantum theory are accordingly difficult to understand and to believe. Its concepts frequently conflict with common-sense notions derived from observations of the everyday world. There is no reason, however, why the behaviour of the atomic world should conform to that of the familiar, large-scale world. It is important to realize that quantum mechanics is a branch of physics and that the business of physics is to describe and account for the way the world—on both the large and the small scale—actually is and not how one imagines it or would like it to be.
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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Don't be hasty and simply condemned 'idealism' in general.
Your views of philosophical realism is Empirical Idealism.
Therefore if you condemn idealism in general without qualification, you are also condemning your own philosophical views, i.e. Empirical Idealism.
I simply do not adhere to Kant's views and classifications. I have nothing to do with idealism, which is no more than mysticism and superstition.
Kant definition of what is idealism is literally and realistically true.

Btw the term 'realism' was hijacked by the philosophically realists and their claim of "realism" is not realistic nor true.

Note my challenge to realists and Kant also made the same challenge in this OP;
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

Moore tried to take up Kant's challenge but failed,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_o ... nd_replies

Objections_and_replies
Some subsequent philosophers (especially those inclined to skeptical doubts) have found Moore's method of argument unconvincing.[4]

One form of refutation contends that Moore's attempted proof fails his second criterion for a good proof (i.e. the premises are not demonstrable in the required sense) by pointing out the difference between demonstrating the perception that his hands exist and demonstrating the knowledge that his hands exist. Moore may be doing the former when he means to be doing the latter.[4]

Another form of refutation simply points out that not everyone shares Moore's intuition. If a person finds the skeptical possibility sp more intuitively likely than the knowledge claim q, then for that person Moore's own defense of intuition provides a basis for their skepticism.[4]

Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty (see below). Considering "I know..", he said "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.
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 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:
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.
2) You even challenged me to prove that the article supported my understanding of Kant, instead of yours. Supposedly, you knew what was at stake:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:You are likely to be mistaken.
Which point in the article support your argument?
3) Now that I have showed that the article actually does not support your views on Kant, you are recanting.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am My point was;
"Kant did not get Berkeley wrong but you did get 'Kant on Berkeley' wrong."

I hope this point from Kant will settle the issue that Kant's idealism is different from Berkeley's;
You got it all wrong by asserting that I was making my own assertions about Berkeley, but I was only mentioning what Kant thought of Berkeley in the context of responding to the critics who considered that his views and Berkeley's were the same. That goes to my point that Kant thought he needed to clarify his views in the CPR and distance himself from the strong phenomenalism interpretation. I have now shown from a competent, published academic, which you brought to this thread as an authority on Transcendental Idealism, that my statements are well justified in academic research, but yours aren't.

Actually, I don't care myself if Kant's views on Berkeley are right or wrong, so there's no relevance in settling that issue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:41 am What Kant stated was, when philosophical realists [not Kant] insist the noumena aka thing-in-itself [independent of the human conditions] is really real, they [realists] are chasing an illusion.
Again, you should read more carefully the articles you post:
Kant's Transcendental Idealism
Kant is committed to both of the following theses:

(Existence) There are things in themselves.

(Humility) We know nothing about things in themselves.

...Kant does not merely claim that things in themselves exist, he also asserts that,

(Non-spatiality) Things in themselves are not in space and time.

(Affection) Things in themselves causally affect us.[31]
What affect us need not necessary be really real.
Illusions do causally affect us.
Things-in-themselves as illusions also can effect us.
You're avoiding the point. The quote above acknowledges that Kant accepted the real existence of things in themselves as mind-independent objects. It doesn't say he accepted them as mere illusions, as not actually existing. For Kant then, the universe exists as a mind-independent reality, even though he also thinks we can't say anything else about how it actually is, for all we know (so he says) is its appearance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am The basic requirement is you need to read the 884 pages of the CPR understand [not necessary agree with] what Kant is really talking about.
Understand in this case, I do not meant one will understand fully [100% or 99%] but at least 80%.
Not at all. I can get my gardener to read the 884 pages of the CPR and that will not make him understand what Kant is really talking about better than anyone else.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am I believe I have additional knowledge when I superimposed relevant Eastern philosophies into Kant's philosophies.
You can have your beliefs for your personal use, but that is merely anecdotal and means nothing in the context of this discussion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am I agree I am not on par with Kant's scholars in a scholarship way but I have claimed I am on par with them in terms of understanding Kant's philosophies.
That's a contradictory statement. Being on par with Kant's scholarship is to be on par with them in understanding Kant's philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am You yourself or you can get any notable Kant scholar to test my knowledge of Kant's philosophies and principles.
How about Nickolas F. Stang, the young professor at the University of Toronto, who has published mostly about Kant. BTW, Stang is the author of the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that you cited as support of your views on Transcendental Idealism.
https://philosophy.utoronto.ca/directory/nick-stang/
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am Non-Euclidean geometry. It's a well known instance in which Kant was proven to be dead wrong.
I am not an expert in Non-Euclidean geometry and Kant may be wrong in some of his points mainly due to the lack of modern knowledge during his times but the main theme of his philosophy i.e. Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism remained intact.
It is actually very simple: if Kant's views on what geometry entailed for his system are wrong, his whole system failed. How could it "remain intact".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am I don't agree with Kant totally and I believe Kant got it wrong as being a declared deist,
At last we can agree on something.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am Both neo-Kantians, then and now, are victims of the same failed philosophical project.
How so? details?
That's a long discussion. Start a new thread if you like.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:28 am The intellectual protocol is one need to substantiate one's point specifically and in terms of Kant, you are handicapped because you have not read the 884 pages of the CPR thoroughly.
I have done something even better and more effective: I have learned from those who studied Kant, for and against his philosophy, and had the proper competences to submit an informed assessment. I'm sorry to inform you that you would not get admitted in that club.
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 Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:15 am Humans within Kantian empirical realism are objectively real empirical things, i.e. the empirical-I, which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically, thus objectively real.
Yet, according to the doctrine you advocate, in the transcendental sense, humans either do not exist (they are illusions) or can't be known to exist as things in themselves. Then how come you found your entire argument about the 'universe not existing without humans' on such risky premises? Clearly humans and the universe are on the same side, don't you think?
Note I don't agree with your perspective, i.e. "humans do not exists" in the current state.
What I asserted is 'humans cannot exist independent of the external world.' Because there are load of nuances involved you cannot change my views to suit yours.
We are trying to clarify what is your position, which seems to be contradictory, not mine. I am a realist who thinks objects exist independently of human minds, in every sense that one can think of. What is it that Veritas Aequitas thinks? We don't know, because you said things that exist in the empirical sense do not exist in the transcendental sense. And so you stated that 'the universe does not exist if there are no humans', which is apparently a statement in the empirical sense, giving ground (supposedly) to the claim that the universe is a mere illusion. Since all things empirical are ultimately appearances, not things in themselves, so you say, they are not ultimately real in the transcendental sense. But then when it comes to humans, to be consistent with your point of views, you would have to endorse the notion that humans only exist in the empirical sense, but not in the transcendental sense. They also would be illusions. But since this easily becomes quite problematic, you refuse to acknowledge it, and you always come back with the answer: "humans are real (in the empirical sense), just as the universe and everything else". Are they actual, real, mind-independent objects? You will not tell.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am I have already stated, no humans are empirical illusions, what is is a transcendental illusion is when it is claimed the real human is the human-soul that can survive physical death. Kant spent a lot of pages explain why the insistence on the soul is an illusion.
Note also Hume's view that there is no soul that survives physical death.
Do you believe your soul that survives physical death?
You're deviating the subject to avoid the issue that is creating problems to your argument. Forget about souls, whatever. We are talking about simple flesh and bone beings called humans. You have to answer the very simple question: do they exist for real as mind-independent objects? Yes or no.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am Since you countered Berkeley strongly I supposed you have the materials to support your counter.
So, I would prefer to hear your arguments first.
We are focused on Kant now, and I prefer to bring closure to this case, which seems to be approaching its end anyway. You can start a new thread if you like, but I'm pretty sure that if Kant is a hard bite, Berkeley is a piece of cake.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am Note the above mentioned,
  • But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s ......
That is perfectly OK and consistent with my claims and does not support your claim that materialism and physicalism are different things. One word did not replace the other, it was added to the vocabulary as a synonym.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 am which if you are informed more thoroughly will give you a clue they are different significantly within certain contexts.
I just cited two credible sources of basic definitions of philosophical terms. They support my statements, but not yours.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:45 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.
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".
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 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.

Note I'll get back to this post and other posts of yours later.
Nb: [I am doing a 5 day water fast [now 5th day] so not on tip top conditions.]
Post Reply