The in-it-self thing cannot exist

[Impenitent]

the vat-in-itself said the evil demon was forcing you to make inferences...

-Imp

[Belinda]

Sculptor wrote:

The phrase "thing in itself" is used to indicate the limits of perception such that any thing has qualities beyond which our limited perception allows. There no implication of complete independence from other things, and these connections could well be outside the limits of perception too.
to indicate the limits of perception such that any thing has qualities beyond which our limited perception allows. There no implication of complete independence from other things, and these connections could well be outside the limits of perception too.

The phrase "thing in itself" is used to indicate the limits of perception. Yes, but also to indicate there are things in themselves. That perception is limited is not a reason to believe things in themselves exist.

[Belinda]

Btw, you are not likely to agree - to Kant the Father of thing-in-itself is God which cannot be real and thus is illusory.

If the in-it-self doesn't exist, you in-yourself don't exist.

Your existence is illusory.

The Father of the in-it-self thing, therefore your Father, is the father of that which does not exist, including you.

You appear to exist only because of what you are not.
And what makes you exist, in turn owes its existence to something other than itself.
In a continuous reference until we reach the in-it-self thing that cannot exist.

If you truly admit the non-existence of the in-it-self thing, the whole castle collapses, and you with it.

However, you have a Father.
That doesn't exist, because it is.

And you are that.

The self is a construct. What is not and cannot be a construct is experience. Take way all constructs including pronouns and what remains is experience.

[bobmax]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

You have zero justification for saying that. And its not even wrong; since the thing-in-itself does not even imply complete independence. Regardless then of what you say, you are off beam on two accounts.

I did not understand your criticism.

The existence of a thing derives from something other than that thing.

Could you give me an example of the opposite?
I'm curious.

[Sculptor]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

You have zero justification for saying that. And its not even wrong; since the thing-in-itself does not even imply complete independence. Regardless then of what you say, you are off beam on two accounts.

I did not understand your criticism.

The existence of a thing derives from something other than that thing.

This is of no consequence. There is still such a thing as the sun. Why does the fact that it might have derived from a cloud of hydrogen mean that it does not exist in itself?

Could you give me an example of the opposite?
I'm curious.

Then is no opposite.
You just made a false claim.
You are trying to say that my tea cup cannot exist in itself without something else, yet you fail to support this assertion in any way.
But the main problem is that your objection is not relevant to the meaning of Ding an sich, which I explained to you in some detail.

[bobmax]

The self is a construct. What is not and cannot be a construct is experience. Take way all constructs including pronouns and what remains is experience.

Yes, but what is the experience alone without any construct?
Can it still be "something"?

[Age]

In my opinion this consideration can be useful if we let it enter into ourselves.

That is, if we really live it.
Without relegating it to the strangeness of the world, but addressing it as a question of meaning addressed to ourselves.

Because it is the experience of the limit.
The non-existence of the in-it-self is about what we love, what we are.

It is a silent question of what is really worth in this life.

I sometimes think I just don't have the intellectual capacity for philosophy. I don't understand a word of that.

'you' VERY MUCH have the intellectual capacity for 'philosophy'. But just like I am using my own very specific definition for the word 'philosophy' here, and so it makes what I say true, right, or correct, so too what you say could be true, right, or correct. This is because of the very specific definition you use for the 'philosophy' word here.

Now, this type of contradiction can happen with ALL discussions.

The reason why people argue for or against, what this topic is about for example, is because people use their own very specific definitions or meanings for the words being used in the discussion. But if NOT always, then just about always, people NEVER actually, spell out what they actually mean in what they say, and just assume the "other" WILL KNOW, and, people just do NOT clarify what the "other" is actually saying nor meaning either.

What this one is actually meaning is correct. But this is just because it is using its own very specific usage and definitions for the words there.

[Age]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

I don't think that's what someone means when they talk about a thing in itself, but I could be wrong. I don't think they're talking about the thing outside of the context it exists in.

It is precisely the context, in the broad sense, that implies the existence of the in-it-self thing.

The in-it-self thing is taken for granted, otherwise the whole context would falter.

I think anyone dealing with something thinks it exists as an in-it-self thing.
But actually ... that thing can't exist.

If 'you', people, would provide examples, then this would help "others" to see and understand what 'you' actually are saying, and meaning.

I touch something and I am in contact with it with my fingers.
But it is that contact that makes that thing is.

Did you mean to add the words 'what it' between the 'thing' word and the 'is' word here?

If yes, then WHY does physical contact, through nerve endings, make another thing what it is?

In turn, the contact refers to interacting electromagnetic fields.
Which are the manifestation of relativistic effects.
And so on.
But each of these things in themselves do not exist.

Will you provide any examples?

And, if 'they' do not even exist, then WHY call 'them' 'things'.

The word 'thing' usually refers to something that actually exists.

[Age]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.

Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.

While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.

Therefore it does not exist.

And what use can we make of this "knowledge"?

I struggle to make sense of bobmax's answer.
I'd rather answer Harbal as follows.
It matters what we think exists, as at least one theory of existence , Cartesian dualism, is actually immoral besides being badly argued in one important respect.

Another theory of existence, that of Heidegger, is based on a concept that leads to tolerance and forgiveness.
Enough about existence!

What we know without any possible doubt is that experience is happening.It's happening right now as I type this, and right now as you read this. Experience is therefore real and there is no need whatsoever to posit "things in themselves" which is nonsensical compared with experiences
and contexts of experiences. Experiences are always experiences in contexts or, if you prefer, experiences in environments.

But how do you KNOW you are 'experiencing'?

As someone was pointing out and alluding to before, when asleep and dreaming it can 'feel' like one is 'experiencing' things? But are they REALLY?

So, how do you KNOW that ALL-OF-THIS is NOT just 'a dream'?

Oh, and by the way, there is One thing ONLY that one can be Truly SURE of and KNOW.

I think bobmax goes on to explain that love is caring about the contexts.

[Age]

What we know without any possible doubt is that experience is happening.It's happening right now as I type this, and right now as you read this. Experience is therefore real and there is no need whatsoever to posit "things in themselves" which is nonsensical compared with experiences
and contexts of experiences. Experiences are always experiences in contexts or, if you prefer, experiences in environments.

Experiences would be rather empty without things, so, even though there are no things, it is fortunate that we can still experience them.

Yes, but I believe we are the creators of differentiated things, which, until someone came along and saw or felt them, had no forms only possibilities. That's absolute idealism.

When you say, 'someone', do you refer to a human being, or to any sentient being?

[Age]

The in-it-self thing cannot exist.
Because there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself.
While the in-it-self thing should only be based on itself.
Therefore it does not exist.

What you present above is very obvious and logical but there is more to it in perspectives and contexts where the idea of 'thing-in-itself' is discussed philosophically.

What do you mean by, 'discussed philosophically'?

Or, are you just trying to sound like you know more and thus are more intellectual?

It is so evident that everything that exist are interconnected and interdependent on other things, as such as you stated, "there exists only that which owes its very existence to something other than itself."
Since it is obvious, it should not be contentious in general.

Have either of you two explained what the other thing is, exactly, that thee Universe, Itself, supposedly owes Its very existence to?

If no, then WHY NOT?

The contentious issue is with the thing-in-itself that was introduced by Kant to counter the
Metaphysical Realists' claims and beliefs, i.e.

Philosophical [Metaphysical] Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
[Metaphysical] Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
[Metaphysical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
Philosophers who profess [Metaphysical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Instead of dealing with a various views of the points below,
1. this kind of thing has mind-independent existence
2. exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding
3. reality exists independent of the mind
Kant categorized them as things-in-themselves, or a thing-in-itself aka noumenom.

Kant claimed that such a thing-in-itself cannot exists as real [empirically & scientifically], i.e. they are useful beliefs but essentially are illusory.

These things-in-themselves [sing. thing-in-itself] aka noumenon are what PH and other metaphysical realists are claiming, i.e. there are facts and things that exist independent of the individual human's opinion and beliefs.

Btw, you are not likely to agree - to Kant the Father of thing-in-itself is God which cannot be real and thus is illusory.

[bobmax]

There is still such a thing as the sun. Why does the fact that it might have derived from a cloud of hydrogen mean that it does not exist in itself?

Could you give me an example of the opposite?
I'm curious.

Then is no opposite.
You just made a false claim.
You are trying to say that my tea cup cannot exist in itself without something else, yet you fail to support this assertion in any way.
But the main problem is that your objection is not relevant to the meaning of Ding an sich, which I explained to you in some detail.

What exists exists because it is distinct from all the rest.
It is this distinction that makes the thing exist.

Without distinction there is no thing.
And the distinction happens because there is more to it than that thing.

Even what appears to be intrinsic to a thing is never the thing itself.
It characterizes it but it is not.

Characteristics are in fact things distinct from the thing itself.
They make it exist but they are not it.

There are many things that make the sun exist. But none of these things are the sun itself.
There is its light that reaches us, the sky that surrounds it, the gravitational effect of its mass, etc.
The existence of all these things make the sun exist.
But the sun does not exist by itself.

The cup of tea exists because you feel its consistency with your fingers, you see its shape, the decorations, that unmistakable mark on one side...
The cup exists for all of these things. Never for itself.

However, there are many reasons why the in-it-self thing cannot exist.

One of these is the becoming.
Which is only possible because there is no thing in itself.
If it existed, movement would not be possible either.

Another reason is ethics.
In fact the division, the distinction is the source of all evil.

[Sculptor]

There is still such a thing as the sun. Why does the fact that it might have derived from a cloud of hydrogen mean that it does not exist in itself?

Could you give me an example of the opposite?
I'm curious.

Then is no opposite.
You just made a false claim.
You are trying to say that my tea cup cannot exist in itself without something else, yet you fail to support this assertion in any way.
But the main problem is that your objection is not relevant to the meaning of Ding an sich, which I explained to you in some detail.

What exists exists because it is distinct from all the rest.

only according to our perception and definition.

It is this distinction that makes the thing exist.

NO. it is this distinction that is of interest to us.

Without distinction there is no thing.

no

And the distinction happens because there is more to it than that thing.

No the distinction "happens" regardless.

Even what appears to be intrinsic to a thing is never the thing itself.
It characterizes it but it is not.

It's pointless if you are going to be wilfully ignorant of the Ding ah Sich
Please educate yourself

Characteristics are in fact things distinct from the thing itself.
They make it exist but they are not it.
...(delete) source of all evil.

You are just repeating a mantra.
Are you of a religious disposition?

[bobmax]

It is this distinction that makes the thing exist.

NO. it is this distinction that is of interest to us.

Without distinction there is no thing.

no

And the distinction happens because there is more to it than that thing.

No the distinction "happens" regardless.

Even what appears to be intrinsic to a thing is never the thing itself.
It characterizes it but it is not.

It's pointless if you are going to be wilfully ignorant of the Ding ah Sich
Please educate yourself

It seems to me that you appeal to Kant without having grasped the problem that Kant poses.

And the problem is the unknowability of the thing itself.

You call me ignorant, but it does not seem to me that you have grasped that Kant does not give answers, he only tries to clarify the impossibility of knowing the thing itself.

You deny that things arise from the distinction.
From what else do things arise then?
And don't tell me things are just there.
Because in that case we can close it here.

[Sculptor]

It is this distinction that makes the thing exist.

NO. it is this distinction that is of interest to us.

Without distinction there is no thing.

no

And the distinction happens because there is more to it than that thing.

No the distinction "happens" regardless.

Even what appears to be intrinsic to a thing is never the thing itself.
It characterizes it but it is not.

It's pointless if you are going to be wilfully ignorant of the Ding ah Sich
Please educate yourself

It seems to me that you appeal to Kant without having grasped the problem that Kant poses.

There is no problem.

And the problem is the unknowability of the thing itself.

Seriously??
Then why is it that you say such a thing cannot exist.
Kant divides the noumena from the phenomena.
The unknown from the known. You are trying to say that there is no noumena, because you do not seem to have a clue what Kant is talking about.

You call me ignorant, but it does not seem to me that you have grasped that Kant does not give answers, he only tries to clarify the impossibility of knowing the thing itself.

Have you ever opened up Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?

You deny that things arise from the distinction.
From what else do things arise then?
And don't tell me things are just there.
Because in that case we can close it here.

Do you really think the world came into existence when you were born??
Really???
Yeah we can close it there. It's pointless bantering with a solipsist.