No, you misunderstand the issue. Kant didn't challenge us to prove that 'external reality' exists. Rather, he thought it a scandal that, given empiricist skepticism, we supposedly can't prove it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:25 amYou are merely shortsighted, thus unable to see the point.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:02 amThis is a false analogy. What the electron camera shows us is the atomic structure of what we call reality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:28 am
As I had always stated, your views are too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
The illusion of a mirage is that of an empirical illusion.
The one like you who claimed there is a real independent thing-in-itself is infected with a Transcendental Illusion.
Here is where Kant differentiated between empirical and transcendental illusion;
When I refer to co-created means what is reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
Kant does recognize an "independent reality" necessarily within the common sense perspective BUT this is only a subset of a reality that is entangled within the human conditions from a deeper more refined perspective.
Here is a clue which hopefully you can get an insight.
Under normal conventional perspective most things are by themselves separated [independent] from other things.
If there are two persons standing two feet apart they are definitely separated by a space.
But if we have an electron camera looking at them, we don't see they are separately distinct but rather both are in a 'soup' of atoms and molecules and are not distinctly independent of each other. The two persons in that 'soup' of atoms are merely denser clusters of atoms and molecules.
If we look at things like tables and chairs from the electron perspectives they are not independent of each other and also the observers.
And this knowledge is not 'entangled with the human conditions'. We don't co-create what we call reality at any level, from the macro 'Newtonian' down to the quantum mechanical. (Who observes the observer effect?) Kant's argument about knowledge is about all knowledge: what can be known. And the claim that what can be known can't be separate or different from our way of knowing it is false - or at least not shown to be true.
What is the reality of the atomic structure?
What are the real substance that make up atoms?
Ans: Electrons, protons and neutrons.
What are the real substance that make up electrons, protons and neutrons?
Quarks and sub-atomic particles?
What are the real substance Quarks and sub-atomic particles
Physicists: we are not sure, could be particles or waves depending on the conditions of the humans who engage with them.
Physicists had already surrendered and resigned to the fact that it is meaningless to seek the true-reality of reality.
Kant and others [Buddhism >2500 years ago] had already been convinced that to chase for an independent real thing of reality is a lost cause since what the realists are chasing is merely an illusion [transcendental not empirical] driven by psychological impulses.
- It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
What you are claiming as an absolute independent real thing is merely an assumption, opinion and belief.
I have challenged you [as Kant had challenged others] to prove that such a thing exists but you have not provided any justifications but merely making more noises.
My analogy above has two perspectives to it;
First, you cannot deny the separated things or person are absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera.
Second, you also cannot deny the thing and the person observing the thing are also absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera. The entanglement part is when this interdependent is stretch to the time of our ancestors since >4 billion years ago all existing within the same electron soup of the universe.
But his solution - the supposed Copernican revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - the object orbits the subject - doesn't solve anything, because it assumes the mind/body dualism-delusion that informed empiricist skepticism in the first place.
And meanwhile, this has no bearing on the possibility of moral facts, and so moral objectivity.