Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 12:47 pm
Forget the mind - a non-physical fiction for the actual existence of which there's no evidence - and the need to synthesise realism and idealism - and to solve the mind/body problem - evaporates. If we're just objects among objects - Wittgenstein's prophylactic - then how we can perceive, know and describe objects isn't such a hard question.
Suggest you read the related article before you condemn Kant's view [provided you can understand (not necessary agree with it) Kant thoroughly].
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4
Otherwise you are merely making noises.
Suggest you read and think about these quoted passages, because they don't support you conclusion about the significance of Kant's work. Here they are again.
'Kant is an
empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us.
He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about
the mind’s role in making nature.
All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues.
And the table of categories is derived from the most basic, universal forms of logical inference, Kant believes.
Therefore, it must be shared by all rational beings.
So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects.
Hence, objective knowledge of the scientific or natural world is possible.
Indeed, Kant believes that the examples of Newton and Galileo show it is actual.
So Berkeley’s claims that we do not know objects outside of us and that such knowledge is impossible are both mistaken.'
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
It is rather shameful that you made the above assertions without thorough knowledge of Kant's work.
Note the following statements re Kant from above;
- 1. the mind’s role in making nature
2. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects
Kant is an Empirical Realist as such he believes in the external world in one sense, but ultimately, the whole of the external world is entangled with the human conditions as implied in the above statement.
If you read the whole article, you will realize that is Kant's view which support my understanding of Kant's view.
On the
standard view, idealism and realism are incompatible philosophical theories. For Kant, however, they are not.
He rather claims that transcendental idealism and empirical realism form a unity, i.e., only in combination they demonstrate that objects of external perception are real:
Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves.
This, according to Kant,
implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us.
Whereas transcendental idealism lays out the way we represent objects, i.e., the transcendental conditions of our cognition of them, empirical realism expounds that objects, although cognizable only under these conditions, exist independently of us in space and time.
Therefore, Kant argues, the combination of transcendental idealism and empirical realism avoids sceptical consequences with respect to the existence of the external world.'
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4
Typically idealism and realism are incompatible, especially subjective idealism [e.g. Berkeley's] with metaphysical/philosophical realism [your views regardless of your denial].
Kant's Empirical Realism is a special type of realism which is more realistic, not the norm.
Note my point above,
Kant is an Empirical Realist as such he believes in the external world in one sense, but ultimately, the whole of the external world is entangled with the human conditions as implied in the above statement.
My objection to Kant's approach is that he felt the need to overcome or re-form empiricist skepticism by synthesising it with transcendental idealism. To put it simply: if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And Kant's solution - his supposed Copernican Revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - his 'critique of pure reason' - creates its own problems, which have plagued philosophy ever since. We've been haunted by the ghost of 'things-in-themselves' - the infamous 'objects' - which don't and can't exist, but still need to be exorcised.
I know this is deep stuff, and that there are Kantians here who rightly reject VA's misuse of Kant's ideas. But I think the ideas themselves invite misuse. (And as for Kant on morality - the 'moral law within' - that's up at the shallow end - sadly unimpressive.)
Kant's purpose for his 'Copernican Revolution' in the Critique is to overcome this scandal to Philosophy;
Kant in CPR wrote:However .......,
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. B54
The above
scandal is related to your 'Metaphysical Realism' of an independent external world of facts, thus no moral facts.
GE Moore tried to take the above challenge but failed miserably. Even Wittgenstein critique Moore severely for his ineffective challenge.
So far you have not produced any 'proof' [justification and sound argument'] to justify your 'fact-in-itself'.
The "
the mind’s role in making nature" as attributed to Kant in the link above, is implication that humans are the "co-creator" of reality.
Kant wrote this (which will make you go berserk!!);
Kant wrote in CPR wrote:Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
CPR A126
What counters do you have for all of the above?
Don't shame yourself by making any assertion related to Kant until you have spent the necessary time and effort in understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's work.