Kant's Copernican Revolution

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

When I debate with philosophical realists [an independent external world exists objectively as real] on the reality of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself, they always insist that,
Kant had argued the b]noumenon[/b] aka thing-in-itself exists as a real thing[s] objectively within an independent external world.
Example among the typical;
viewtopic.php?p=508005#p508005

To convince philosophical realists otherwise is too tedious given that Kant's CPR is intrinsically complex and difficult to understand.
However a clue to the overriding theme that Kant believed there is NO ultimate independent external world is from his Copernican Revolution which goes like this;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

    CPR Preface Bxvi
What Kant meant above is philosophical realists assumed there are pre-existing objects which exist external to the human conditions, thus independent.
But all attempts to nail what is the real external object existing independent of human conditions has ended in failure.
Even Science would never succeed, leaning towards infinite regression, i.e. what is the ultimate things after quarks, and so on.
In philosophy note Substance Theory and all its criticisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Kant in a way, 'mocked' the realists who, based on ignorance of his complete view, had the arrogance to insist Kant was following Berkeley's idealism;
  • However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
    it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
    and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B55


Kant challenged the realist that they cannot prove their philosophical realism is true.

So Kant suggested the alternative,
  • We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

    We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis.
    Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.
    ibid
Thus Kant proposed the following as with Copernicus;
  • A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
    If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
    but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

    CPR Preface Bxvii
In the above 'metaphysics' refer to ontology, i.e. what is the ultimate beings of things.
Kant only mentioned sensibility in the above, but throughout the CPR the Understanding is also involved used in tandem with his Critical Philosophy.

The current position of the philosophical realist is they merely ASSUMED there is a real physical object beyond what what they can only be acquainted with their sense data.
Then they use the BOTTOM-UP approach with all sort of concepts, language, science in an attempt to prove and validate the ASSUMED real object is really real.
But because since humans can ONLY be acquainted with the sense-data of the assumed object, humans will never be able to realize what the assumed object really is.

As Russell doubted, 'perhaps there is no [real] table at all'.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... /Chapter_1

In Kant's Copernican Revolution, he used the TOP-DOWN approach.
This meant Kant starts from what is Given empirically via experience and the human cognitive faculties [human conditions] and made the attempt to understand what is the ultimate real object.

Since Kant started with the human conditions, ultimately whatever the conclusion, it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

Kant's final conclusion is whatever that is ASSUMED by the philosophical realists to be ultimately real and is external and independent of the human conditions is an illusion when reified.

Since reality is ultimately conditioned upon the human conditions, philosophical realism, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions cannot be true. Idealism [especially Kant Transcendental Idealism] is more realistic.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Moore took up Kant's challenged and tried with his
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
but failed.

Note;
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_o ... nd_replies
    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.
  • 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]
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Terrapin Station »

I'm almost never interested in arguing about what any other philosopher "was really saying" or "what they really believed" or anything like that. That's not something I'd spend time on. So when we're talking about stuff like realism vs. antirealism, I'm never doing so in the context of trying to straighten out what Kant (for example) was saying or what he believed.

Re comments like this, "But all attempts to nail what is the real external object existing independent of human conditions has ended in failure," that's very trivially false. There's no controversy, aside from perhaps when we're talking to select crazy people, about things like, say, trees and rocks and so on. Or even things like toast and shoes (despite those needing to originate from "human conditions"; they exist independent of "human conditions" once they're created.)

This doesn't imply that we know "everything" about anything, but the very idea of "knowing everything" is problematic and would rest on a misconception about what epistemology is in relation to what the world is like. That doesn't mean that we don't know anything about the external world and what it's really like (keeping in mind as always that knowledge doesn't imply certainty (whether we're talking about realism, antirealism, or in whatever context), and certainty is stupid to worry about).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:22 pm I'm almost never interested in arguing about what any other philosopher "was really saying" or "what they really believed" or anything like that. That's not something I'd spend time on. So when we're talking about stuff like realism vs. antirealism, I'm never doing so in the context of trying to straighten out what Kant (for example) was saying or what he believed.

Re comments like this, "But all attempts to nail what is the real external object existing independent of human conditions has ended in failure," that's very trivially false. There's no controversy, aside from perhaps when we're talking to select crazy people, about things like, say, trees and rocks and so on. Or even things like toast and shoes (despite those needing to originate from "human conditions"; they exist independent of "human conditions" once they're created.)

This doesn't imply that we know "everything" about anything, but the very idea of "knowing everything" is problematic and would rest on a misconception about what epistemology is in relation to what the world is like. That doesn't mean that we don't know anything about the external world and what it's really like (keeping in mind as always that knowledge doesn't imply certainty (whether we're talking about realism, antirealism, or in whatever context), and certainty is stupid to worry about).
That is why I always insist your philosophical knowledge is too shallow and narrow.
In philosophy one has to be very familiar with the notable philosophies of the old and the current so that one can know where one's own philosophy stand.

Note I posted a thread of hermeneutics.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32650
Therefore you have to use hermeneutics to understand why Kant stated the following;
"But all attempts to nail what is the real external object existing independent of human conditions has ended in failure,"

The point of the OP for philosophical realists [like you] is, realists claim reality exist independent of the human conditions in opposition to Kantian Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism.

If your pivot is philosophical realism [there is an external independent world/reality ] is the central pivot of all your philosophies, then you have to justify it.
The OP above is an intro to the argument against your philosophical realism.
Ignoring it is like avoiding to justify your position.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:49 am In philosophy one has to be very familiar with the notable philosophies of the old and the current so that one can know where one's own philosophy stand.
Not getting into discussions about what someone was "really saying," what they "really believed" etc. in no way implies (advocating) not being familiar with their work. It's just that discussions about what someone was "really" saying," what they "really believed" etc. are pointless in my view, because (a) nothing depends on this information, aside from Philosopher X scholarship issues as such--that is, where we're interested in doing biographical work/analysis of that philosopher because we're primarily interested in being a Philosopher X scholar for its own sake. Just like we might want to delve into Da Vinci scholarship, or Mozart scholarship or whatever, because we enjoy historical personality immersion for its own sake, and (b) I don't think those questions are very well answerable in general, because of the nature of interpretation.

So again, I'm just not going to get into those sorts of conversations. That doesn't mean that I haven't read the works in question or that I'm saying that folks shouldn't read the works.
The point of the OP for philosophical realists [like you] is, realists claim reality exist independent of the human conditions in opposition to Kantian Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism.
Which is completely irrelevant to anything. We have a different view than Kant. So what? Different people have different views. If Kant were here to speak for himself we could try to get into a discussion with him, just as we're trying to do with you. Since he can't answer questions we have for him, it's pointless to try to get into a conversation with him.
If your pivot is philosophical realism [there is an external independent world/reality ] is the central pivot of all your philosophies, then you have to justify it.
Simple observation justifies it. Meanwhile, there's zero justification for antirealism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:49 am In philosophy one has to be very familiar with the notable philosophies of the old and the current so that one can know where one's own philosophy stand.
Not getting into discussions about what someone was "really saying," what they "really believed" etc. in no way implies (advocating) not being familiar with their work.
It's just that discussions about what someone was "really" saying," what they "really believed" etc. are pointless in my view, because (a) nothing depends on this information, aside from Philosopher X scholarship issues as such--that is, where we're interested in doing biographical work/analysis of that philosopher because we're primarily interested in being a Philosopher X scholar for its own sake.
Just like we might want to delve into Da Vinci scholarship, or Mozart scholarship or whatever, because we enjoy historical personality immersion for its own sake, and (b) I don't think those questions are very well answerable in general, because of the nature of interpretation.

So again, I'm just not going to get into those sorts of conversations. That doesn't mean that I haven't read the works in question or that I'm saying that folks shouldn't read the works.
You forgot that philosophy is FUNDAMENTALLY about the quest on what is life about and everything that is to know about life and how to live it optimally.
Note Russell's view [similar other notable philosophers] on the value of philosophy;
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, ...... for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions
enlarge our conception of what is possible,
enrich our intellectual imagination and
diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates,
the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
The point is the past notable philosophers has various bits [significant or lesser] that are positive to the purpose of philosophy as per Russell and others.

Thus if you ignore the works of the notable philosophers you will not know what you have missed and thus to be optimal in knowing [& practicing] what you have not known yet.
This is your present state, where I asserted your philosophies are narrow, shallow, and worst is being influenced by the bastardized philosophies and ideologies of the LPs and CAPs.
The point of the OP for philosophical realists [like you] is, realists claim reality exist independent of the human conditions in opposition to Kantian Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism.
Which is completely irrelevant to anything. We have a different view than Kant. So what? Different people have different views. If Kant were here to speak for himself we could try to get into a discussion with him, just as we're trying to do with you. Since he can't answer questions we have for him, it's pointless to try to get into a conversation with him.
By reading and understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly you will definitely be exposed to your ignorance of what reality really is.
If your pivot is philosophical realism [there is an external independent world/reality ] is the central pivot of all your philosophies, then you have to justify it.
Simple observation justifies it. Meanwhile, there's zero justification for antirealism.
It is true simple observation and habitual association merely enable one to be convinced one's knowledge of the external world is true.
Note Hume Problem of Causation, i.e. it is true merely from constant conjunction, customs and habits, i.e. which is fundamentally psychological. [I don't think you understand the psychological basis for that?]
As such even a child [any Tom, Dick or Harry] can assert the world to him is an external independent world from himself.

Zero justification for antirealism??
Anti-realism i.e. there is no independent external world which is against the default cognition would need a greater mind than a child or simple-minded person to deliberate on.
Thus to be anti-realist one will have to swim upstream against the currents of one inherent realism.

Right from the beginning humans would be realists and the majority still are, but it takes a lot for say, Protagoras to swim against the currents of his default realism to come up with his statement 'Man is the measure of all things'.
Logically this is very true because there is no way humans can be extricated and disentangled from the reality which they are part and parcel of.
Even if humans were to conclude and assert 'there were no humans before the moon existed' that conclusion is qualified to the human conditions. That is the basis of anti-realism.

Note there are many types of anti-realism and unfortunately some do stray off into the absurd.
One example of anti-realism proper is Kantian Transcendental Idealism aka empirical realism.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 am
You forgot that philosophy is FUNDAMENTALLY about the quest on what is life about and everything that is to know about life and how to live it optimally.
Aside from this having nothing to do with what you just quoted from me above, that's not at all the gist of philosophy in my view.

For me, philosophy is essentially the same as science, only with a different epistemic methodology. Science isn't focused on "What life is about" or "how to live optimally." It's focused on what there is and how it happens to be, how it works, etc.
Thus if you ignore the works of the notable philosophers
It's as if you're incapable of understanding what I write, even though it's written very plainly.

I had just said, and you just quoted me saying "That doesn't mean that I haven't read the works in question or that I'm saying that folks shouldn't read the works."

I'm just not going to get into discussions about what anyone "really said," "really meant," "really believes" etc., and I explained why.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 am
You forgot that philosophy is FUNDAMENTALLY about the quest on what is life about and everything that is to know about life and how to live it optimally.
Aside from this having nothing to do with what you just quoted from me above, that's not at all the gist of philosophy in my view.

For me, philosophy is essentially the same as science, only with a different epistemic methodology. Science isn't focused on "What life is about" or "how to live optimally." It's focused on what there is and how it happens to be, how it works, etc.
If philosophy is the same as science [etymologically 'to know'] why was science separated from philosophy.

I have done extensive research and surveyed almost everywhere [Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern] on the various definitions of 'what is philosophy' and therefrom abstracted the generic essense of 'what is philosophy'.

Philosophy is about "What life is about" or "how to live optimally" using whatever the various tools [science being one of them] in ensuring the well being of the individual and that of humanity.

This is why we have the overriding 'Philosophy of X[whatever]' including the Philosophy of Science.

I had quoted Russell on the value of Philosophy, i.e. [repeat]
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy:
Philosophy is to be studied, ... for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... Chapter_15
The 'highest good' is the optimality well being of the individuals and that of humanity taking into account the whole universe.
Thus if you ignore the works of the notable philosophers
It's as if you're incapable of understanding what I write, even though it's written very plainly.

I had just said, and you just quoted me saying "That doesn't mean that I haven't read the works in question or that I'm saying that folks shouldn't read the works."

I'm just not going to get into discussions about what anyone "really said," "really meant," "really believes" etc., and I explained why.
Ok, noted.

Note I insisted, regardless of your reasons, from the philosophical perspective it is imperative for anyone on the philosophical bandwagon [since you are in a philosophy forum] to get into discussions about what anyone [notable philosophers] "really said," "really meant," "really believes" etc.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:48 am If philosophy is the same as science [etymologically 'to know'] why was science separated from philosophy.
READ, man. I just wrote, and you just quoted: philosophy is essentially the same as science, only with a different epistemic methodology.

The separation grew out of the hankering to focus on the alternate methodology.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:30 am When I debate with philosophical realists [an independent external world exists objectively as real] on the reality of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself, they always insist that,
Kant had argued the b]noumenon[/b] aka thing-in-itself exists as a real thing[s] objectively within an independent external world.
Example among the typical;
viewtopic.php?p=508005#p508005

To convince philosophical realists otherwise is too tedious given that Kant's CPR is intrinsically complex and difficult to understand.
However a clue to the overriding theme that Kant believed there is NO ultimate independent external world is from his Copernican Revolution which goes like this;
  • Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
    But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

    CPR Preface Bxvi
What Kant meant above is philosophical realists assumed there are pre-existing objects which exist external to the human conditions, thus independent.
But all attempts to nail what is the real external object existing independent of human conditions has ended in failure.
Even Science would never succeed, leaning towards infinite regression, i.e. what is the ultimate things after quarks, and so on.
In philosophy note Substance Theory and all its criticisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Kant in a way, 'mocked' the realists who, based on ignorance of his complete view, had the arrogance to insist Kant was following Berkeley's idealism;
  • However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
    it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
    and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B55


Kant challenged the realist that they cannot prove their philosophical realism is true.

So Kant suggested the alternative,
  • We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

    We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis.
    Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.
    ibid
Thus Kant proposed the following as with Copernicus;
  • A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
    If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
    but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

    CPR Preface Bxvii
In the above 'metaphysics' refer to ontology, i.e. what is the ultimate beings of things.
Kant only mentioned sensibility in the above, but throughout the CPR the Understanding is also involved used in tandem with his Critical Philosophy.

The current position of the philosophical realist is they merely ASSUMED there is a real physical object beyond what what they can only be acquainted with their sense data.
Then they use the BOTTOM-UP approach with all sort of concepts, language, science in an attempt to prove and validate the ASSUMED real object is really real.
But because since humans can ONLY be acquainted with the sense-data of the assumed object, humans will never be able to realize what the assumed object really is.

As Russell doubted, 'perhaps there is no [real] table at all'.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... /Chapter_1

In Kant's Copernican Revolution, he used the TOP-DOWN approach.
This meant Kant starts from what is Given empirically via experience and the human cognitive faculties [human conditions] and made the attempt to understand what is the ultimate real object.

Since Kant started with the human conditions, ultimately whatever the conclusion, it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

Kant's final conclusion is whatever that is ASSUMED by the philosophical realists to be ultimately real and is external and independent of the human conditions is an illusion when reified.

Since reality is ultimately conditioned upon the human conditions, philosophical realism, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions cannot be true. Idealism [especially Kant Transcendental Idealism] is more realistic.
So Kant is walking a line between total idealism and total realism.
He insists there is an external objective world the "thing-in-itsefl", not perfectly perceiveable. But we simply do not need to rely wholly on the faith of the idealist if we want to apprehend it.
Instead he proposes that ewe simply accept that we can only know the world though the human metric of the senses, with the knoweldge of its partiality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:13 pm So Kant is walking a line between total idealism and total realism.
He insists there is an external objective world the "thing-in-itsefl", not perfectly perceiveable. But we simply do not need to rely wholly on the faith of the idealist if we want to apprehend it.
Instead he proposes that ewe simply accept that we can only know the world though the human metric of the senses, with the knoweldge of its partiality.
In your case of philosophical realism you are independent and divorced from the objects and reality out there.
What you can connect with reality and object is merely via sense data and you are not acquainted with what is supposedly real.

In Kant's Copernican Revolution the reality is the human person is INTIMATELY bonded [not independent and divorced] with the supposedly external objects and reality.

Because there is a sense of bonding, intimacy, dynamic entanglement and ONENESS with reality and external objects, the human person is in a better position to relate to external reality and enable the potential for him [& others] to ensure the well-being of external reality, e.g. take better care of the environment, global warming, and other positive moves.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant's Copernican Revolution

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:09 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:13 pm So Kant is walking a line between total idealism and total realism.
He insists there is an external objective world the "thing-in-itsefl", not perfectly perceiveable. But we simply do not need to rely wholly on the faith of the idealist if we want to apprehend it.
Instead he proposes that ewe simply accept that we can only know the world though the human metric of the senses, with the knoweldge of its partiality.
In your case of philosophical realism you are independent and divorced from the objects and reality out there.
What you can connect with reality and object is merely via sense data and you are not acquainted with what is supposedly real.

In Kant's Copernican Revolution the reality is the human person is INTIMATELY bonded [not independent and divorced] with the supposedly external objects and reality.

Because there is a sense of bonding, intimacy, dynamic entanglement and ONENESS with reality and external objects, the human person is in a better position to relate to external reality and enable the potential for him [& others] to ensure the well-being of external reality, e.g. take better care of the environment, global warming, and other positive moves.
FFS. Can you even read.
Try and read what I said and actually respond to that. Not some bollocks that you want to talk about.
This is how a discussion works.
Post Reply