Fja1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am
Fja1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm
I've thought about this theme a lot, the confrontation of the subject with the real and the rational, and the only thing to come out of it is:
Is reality transcendent to the subject / Why is reality transcendent to the subject?
The question you need to ask is WHY you are driven to think of such a theme, i.e.
"
Is reality transcendent to the subject /
Why is reality transcendent to the subject?"
I think the motivation, as in the course of this thread, is not because I verifiably believe that a transcendent subject exists, but because I've been asking myself 'what would the optimal argument for a transcendent subject look like''? My mental constructions of a subject that is transcendent to reality or phenomena having not been satisfactory, I've thought how the optimal argument would look like if one turns the problem on its head, asking 'conversely, is there a reality or phenomena which is transcendent to the subject?' Also by successfully refuting such an argument, one might potentially produce a simplified and more accessible argument against the thing-in-itself.
This theme is in a germinal stage and I wish I had the time to reread Kant's CPR.
Noted your neutral position.
Nevertheless, you can still ask, i.e.
Why are so many believing in the thing-in-itself, one example is a soul-in-itself that survives physical death.
You can reread the Chapter on Paralogism [faulty inferences of the soul],
In the first kind of Syllogism [paralogism]
I conclude from the Transcendental Concept of the Subject,
which contains nothing Manifold,
[to] the Absolute Unity of this Subject itself,
of which, however, even in so doing, I possess no Concept whatsoever.
This Dialectical Inference I shall entitle the Transcendental Paralogism.
CPR 397
You read the Third Paralogism, where the dualist argued for the soul-in-itself as such.
That which is conscious of the Numerical Identity of itself at different times is in so far a person.
Now the Soul is conscious, etc.
Therefore it [the Soul] is a person.
CPR A362
Kant critiqued the above syllogism of an illusory soul-in-itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am
It is not that you must stop asking the above questions but more necessary to understand what is driving you to ask those questions.
Kant had stated, it is the very nature and inherent of human nature and reason that one is DRIVEN and compelled, forced or seduced to ask the above questions that naturally lead one to transcendent illusions:
These conclusions [transcendent ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
Prerational? While for Hegel, I believe the real is that which is rational, or that which is rational
becomes real, but for others (e. g. Adorno) the real also encompasses things which are not rational, or at least temporarily irrational.
'Real' is a very loose term, so we have to be very precise in the usage of the term 'real'.
What is real is 'what-is.'
One cannot simply claim something is real arbitrarily without any basis or on any irrational basis.
Thus "what is real" must verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], thus rationally claimed to be real.
The confidence level of the claim of what is real will depend on the credibility of the FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am
They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
CPR B397
This fallacy [of the Transcendent] is not, however, an artificial one; a quite natural Illusion of our common Reason leads us,
B528
And secondly, both it and its opposite must involve no mere artificial Illusion such as at once vanishes upon detection,
but a natural and unavoidable Illusion,
which even after it has ceased to beguile still continues to delude though not to deceive us,
and which though thus capable of being rendered harmless can never be eradicated. B450
CPR B449
The Transcendent Illusions are as natural as the Empirical Optical Illusions, e.g. seeing the Moon or Sun larger at the horizon than overhead, and other illusions.
While most are able to understand most [not all] of the empirical illusion quite easily, the majority 99% are unaware they are subjected to TRANSCENDENT Illusions which are related to thinking and thoughts [not empirical].
So we need to ask why and how humans are driven to question about the TRANSCENDENT which are more often ended with illusions [they think is really real].
I don't know, maybe to inquire on the state of things before they're filtered into perception. Why did Thomas Aquinas conceive such a duality.
I believe Aquinas would have argued for the dualistic soul-in-itself based on the above unsound syllogism.
To understand WHY he [& others of the likes] did so, we would need to resort to evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, anthropology, neuro-psychology plus supported by critical philosophy.