Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:03 am
So you simply ignore the fact that today we know that the mind doesn't make nature, the mind makes its experience of nature inside the head? So there is no such shared field?
The point was Peter Holmes tried to use the above that Kant disagreed with my views of Kant.

In addition, with your point, you are so ignorant.

Note I have explained elsewhere the above does not imply in the literal sense, but the point is reality cannot be independent but rather is entangled with the human conditions.

I show you a link where Kant is touted as the "Godfather of Cognitive Science."

Since Kant's time to the present, there was and is stronger and stronger realization that reality is entangled with the human conditions, .e.g.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Also the imputation of such principle in the progress from Newtonian to Eisteinian to QM in Physics.

There are tons of literatures which are going into the direction Kant was proposing [human entanglement with reality].
It is nothing new anyway, the Buddhists, Jains and others had been proposing this principle long ago since >2500 years ago.

What is critical is the above views has a greater utility for the progress of mankind in contrast to your constipated view [useful and net-pros in the past but not for the future].
You are completely ignorant of the last 100 years of science, it was thoroughly debunked that mind makes nature. No, we aren't "hallucinating", that "hallucination" is the experience of reality constructed in the head.
Note my explanation 'mind make nature' is not to be taken literally but rather reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions; that is what Kant meant when he explained in detail in his CPR.

Show me the evidences from the last 100 years of science to counter the above?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:31 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am
The point was Peter Holmes tried to use the above that Kant disagreed with my views of Kant.

In addition, with your point, you are so ignorant.

Note I have explained elsewhere the above does not imply in the literal sense, but the point is reality cannot be independent but rather is entangled with the human conditions.

I show you a link where Kant is touted as the "Godfather of Cognitive Science."

Since Kant's time to the present, there was and is stronger and stronger realization that reality is entangled with the human conditions, .e.g.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Also the imputation of such principle in the progress from Newtonian to Eisteinian to QM in Physics.

There are tons of literatures which are going into the direction Kant was proposing [human entanglement with reality].
It is nothing new anyway, the Buddhists, Jains and others had been proposing this principle long ago since >2500 years ago.

What is critical is the above views has a greater utility for the progress of mankind in contrast to your constipated view [useful and net-pros in the past but not for the future].
You are completely ignorant of the last 100 years of science, it was thoroughly debunked that mind makes nature. No, we aren't "hallucinating", that "hallucination" is the experience of reality constructed in the head.
Note my explanation 'mind make nature' is not to be taken literally but rather reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions; that is what Kant meant when he explained in detail in his CPR.

Show me the evidences from the last 100 years of science to counter the above?
If reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions then mind has to make nature in some literal sense.

All of modern science counters your claim, it's up to you to show that it doesn't. Good luck.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:31 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:28 am
You are completely ignorant of the last 100 years of science, it was thoroughly debunked that mind makes nature. No, we aren't "hallucinating", that "hallucination" is the experience of reality constructed in the head.
Note my explanation 'mind make nature' is not to be taken literally but rather reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions; that is what Kant meant when he explained in detail in his CPR.

Show me the evidences from the last 100 years of science to counter the above?
If reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions then mind has to make nature in some literal sense.

All of modern science counters your claim, it's up to you to show that it doesn't. Good luck.
Bad Luck for your ignorance.

Reality = "all there is".
'All-there-is" thus comprised all including the mind, brain, body and the person.

In terms of time, there is reality [all there is] as a state-of-affairs as at t1, t2, t3 and so on.
Like it or not, as long as you are alive, you will be contributing to what is the new reality from t1 to t2 to t3 and so on.

Do you understand chaos theory? i.e. your cough [fart or whatever actions] in US [or UK] could contribute to a typhoon in China and the likes.
As such you can literally create nature [new states of affairs] if you want to. I am not going to bank on that.
But in general whatever the reality, you and all humans are entangled with reality - all there is.

Btw, you did not counter the points I made that modern science [QM, Chaos Theory, etc.] is recognizing that humans are entangled with reality - all there is?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:46 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:31 am
Note my explanation 'mind make nature' is not to be taken literally but rather reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions; that is what Kant meant when he explained in detail in his CPR.

Show me the evidences from the last 100 years of science to counter the above?
If reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions then mind has to make nature in some literal sense.

All of modern science counters your claim, it's up to you to show that it doesn't. Good luck.
Bad Luck for your ignorance.

Reality = "all there is".
'All-there-is" thus comprised all including the mind, brain, body and the person.

In terms of time, there is reality [all there is] as a state-of-affairs as at t1, t2, t3 and so on.
Like it or not, as long as you are alive, you will be contributing to what is the new reality from t1 to t2 to t3 and so on.

Do you understand chaos theory? i.e. your cough [fart or whatever actions] in US [or UK] could contribute to a typhoon in China and the likes.
As such you can literally create nature [new states of affairs] if you want to. I am not going to bank on that.
But in general whatever the reality, you and all humans are entangled with reality - all there is.

Btw, you did not counter the points I made that modern science [QM, Chaos Theory, etc.] is recognizing that humans are entangled with reality - all there is?
You're incompetent, you don't draw the distinction between being part of reality and having reality entangled with the human conditions. Those two positions are worlds apart.

You're amnesiac or dishonest, I specifically countered this point like 5 times in the past.

Also, the Newtonian/Kantian idea of absolute time was refuted a century ago (t1, t2, t3 as a neat linear progression, "new reality").
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:40 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:45 am
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.
Why does what we call reality or nature consist of 'appearances'? Appearances of what? We're back to Russell's table: empiricist skepticism. The scandal is a scandal only if the starting assumption is that all we can ever have is appearances - and never the things-in-themselves. But why is that the case? Why are things-in-themselves different from the way they appear? Why do we need to introduce order and regularity into appearances?

Kant was trying to solve a problem. But if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And as I've explained to you before, Wittgenstein was teasing Moore, and through him the absurdity of philosophers' thinking we can't 'prove' the existence of the 'external world', as though we're not part of it. Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:28 am Why does what we call reality or nature consist of 'appearances'?
Appearances of what?
We're back to Russell's table: empiricist skepticism.
The scandal is a scandal only if the starting assumption is that all we can ever have is appearances - and never the things-in-themselves.
But why is that the case?
Why are things-in-themselves different from the way they appear?
Why do we need to introduce order and regularity into appearances?
The Kantian approach can be broken down into 3 levels, i.e.
  • 1. Kindergarten
    2. High School
    3. Degree to PhD levels
Appearances of what?
At the kindergarten level [1], Kant acknowledged the following;
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]
Thus Kant acknowledge "logically" there must be some thing that appears as appearance, which we "cannot know" but at least can "think" of logically.
The sentence is tricky, "cannot know" and can think of do not imply that such a thing exists in the absolute sense as a real thing.

At the High School level [2] Kant introduce that thing we cannot know but can think of as the noumenon, i.e. there for any phenomenon there must be something it represent, thus the noumenon.
Then he advised,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note the point that the noumenon is merely a limiting concept of negative use and can never be views as real beyond the empirical.
Thus-that-which-appear in appearance cannot be real at all.

At level 3 Degree to PhD levels, Kant then demonstrated that-which-appear in appearance, the noumenon is ultimately an illusion and cannot be verified nor reified as real.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
    and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions 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.
    They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

    Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
    After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
Read the points above carefully and don't just ignore them because they are foundational.
Kant was trying to solve a problem. But if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And as I've explained to you before, Wittgenstein was teasing Moore, and through him the absurdity of philosophers' thinking we can't 'prove' the existence of the 'external world', as though we're not part of it. Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
I have already mentioned this a "million" times.

All humans are "programmed" innately to view external reality out there independent of human conditions which is critical for survival to look for food, threats, spouse, etc. and this impulse had been adapted from billion of years via our non-human and human ancestors.

That is why is it so ingrained and natural that there exists an external reality independent of the human conditions. This is the assumption of the 'thing-in-itself' or things-in-themselves giving rise to dualism.
Whilst this assumption is realistic at the kindergarten level [e.g. Newtonian Physics] the metaphysical realists like you [regardless of your denial] insist the external world independent of the human conditions is absolute real without exceptions!

But Kant countered there is no such real external world that is independent of the human conditions and no humans has ever been able to prove it, thus the scandal of philosophy.

Moore took up Kant's challenge but failed miserably and Wittgenstein critiqued Moore severely. But that did not imply W agreed with Kant, W had his own version in approach what is reality.
Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
Don't make such absurd claims when you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant.
Re the quotes above, Kant is an empirical realist and transcendental idealist which oppose Descartes dualism. Note:
..today I want to briefly touch on his critique of the man who began said tradition, Rene Descartes, in order to put Kant’s theory in context.

Kant sets his sights on Descartes’ rationalistic theory, but which Kant terms ‘idealistic’, which holds that the existence of external objects are doubtful and indemonstrable unless sufficient evidence can be given for them through reasoning. Kant calls this view ‘problematic idealism’.

It is worth making clear that Kant opposes this position because it entails that the existence of objects are not known immediately through perception, but only through reasoned reflection.
Link
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:28 am Why does what we call reality or nature consist of 'appearances'?
Appearances of what?
We're back to Russell's table: empiricist skepticism.
The scandal is a scandal only if the starting assumption is that all we can ever have is appearances - and never the things-in-themselves.
But why is that the case?
Why are things-in-themselves different from the way they appear?
Why do we need to introduce order and regularity into appearances?
The Kantian approach can be broken down into 3 levels, i.e.
  • 1. Kindergarten
    2. High School
    3. Degree to PhD levels
Appearances of what?
At the kindergarten level [1], Kant acknowledged the following;
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]
Thus Kant acknowledge "logically" there must be some thing that appears as appearance, which we "cannot know" but at least can "think" of logically.
The sentence is tricky, "cannot know" and can think of do not imply that such a thing exists in the absolute sense as a real thing.

At the High School level [2] Kant introduce that thing we cannot know but can think of as the noumenon, i.e. there for any phenomenon there must be something it represent, thus the noumenon.
Then he advised,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note the point that the noumenon is merely a limiting concept of negative use and can never be views as real beyond the empirical.
Thus-that-which-appear in appearance cannot be real at all.

At level 3 Degree to PhD levels, Kant then demonstrated that-which-appear in appearance, the noumenon is ultimately an illusion and cannot be verified nor reified as real.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
    and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions 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.
    They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

    Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
    After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
Read the points above carefully and don't just ignore them because they are foundational.
Kant was trying to solve a problem. But if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And as I've explained to you before, Wittgenstein was teasing Moore, and through him the absurdity of philosophers' thinking we can't 'prove' the existence of the 'external world', as though we're not part of it. Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
I have already mentioned this a "million" times.

All humans are "programmed" innately to view external reality out there independent of human conditions which is critical for survival to look for food, threats, spouse, etc. and this impulse had been adapted from billion of years via our non-human and human ancestors.

That is why is it so ingrained and natural that there exists an external reality independent of the human conditions. This is the assumption of the 'thing-in-itself' or things-in-themselves giving rise to dualism.
Whilst this assumption is realistic at the kindergarten level [e.g. Newtonian Physics] the metaphysical realists like you [regardless of your denial] insist the external world independent of the human conditions is absolute real without exceptions!

But Kant countered there is no such real external world that is independent of the human conditions and no humans has ever been able to prove it, thus the scandal of philosophy.

Moore took up Kant's challenge but failed miserably and Wittgenstein critiqued Moore severely. But that did not imply W agreed with Kant, W had his own version in approach what is reality.
Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
Don't make such absurd claims when you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant.
Re the quotes above, Kant is an empirical realist and transcendental idealist which oppose Descartes dualism. Note:
..today I want to briefly touch on his critique of the man who began said tradition, Rene Descartes, in order to put Kant’s theory in context.

Kant sets his sights on Descartes’ rationalistic theory, but which Kant terms ‘idealistic’, which holds that the existence of external objects are doubtful and indemonstrable unless sufficient evidence can be given for them through reasoning. Kant calls this view ‘problematic idealism’.

It is worth making clear that Kant opposes this position because it entails that the existence of objects are not known immediately through perception, but only through reasoned reflection.
Link
Think harder about what Kant says.

If there are no things-in-themselves (noumena), then there's no contrast between them and things-as-they-appear (phenomena). Noumena can't be a 'limiting concept', because they have no definition or properties that can act as 'limits'. So apply Occam's Razor.

Talk of appearance and reality has been around for millennia, and Kant merely recycled it with a tricky twist. And he was, most definitely, a mind/body dualist, which is why the fictitious problem of 'proving the existence of the external world' so exercised him.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:28 am Why does what we call reality or nature consist of 'appearances'?
Appearances of what?
We're back to Russell's table: empiricist skepticism.
The scandal is a scandal only if the starting assumption is that all we can ever have is appearances - and never the things-in-themselves.
But why is that the case?
Why are things-in-themselves different from the way they appear?
Why do we need to introduce order and regularity into appearances?
The Kantian approach can be broken down into 3 levels, i.e.
  • 1. Kindergarten
    2. High School
    3. Degree to PhD levels
Appearances of what?
At the kindergarten level [1], Kant acknowledged the following;
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]
Thus Kant acknowledge "logically" there must be some thing that appears as appearance, which we "cannot know" but at least can "think" of logically.
The sentence is tricky, "cannot know" and can think of do not imply that such a thing exists in the absolute sense as a real thing.

At the High School level [2] Kant introduce that thing we cannot know but can think of as the noumenon, i.e. there for any phenomenon there must be something it represent, thus the noumenon.
Then he advised,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note the point that the noumenon is merely a limiting concept of negative use and can never be views as real beyond the empirical.
Thus-that-which-appear in appearance cannot be real at all.

At level 3 Degree to PhD levels, Kant then demonstrated that-which-appear in appearance, the noumenon is ultimately an illusion and cannot be verified nor reified as real.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
    and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions 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.
    They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

    Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
    After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
Read the points above carefully and don't just ignore them because they are foundational.
Kant was trying to solve a problem. But if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And as I've explained to you before, Wittgenstein was teasing Moore, and through him the absurdity of philosophers' thinking we can't 'prove' the existence of the 'external world', as though we're not part of it. Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
I have already mentioned this a "million" times.

All humans are "programmed" innately to view external reality out there independent of human conditions which is critical for survival to look for food, threats, spouse, etc. and this impulse had been adapted from billion of years via our non-human and human ancestors.

That is why is it so ingrained and natural that there exists an external reality independent of the human conditions. This is the assumption of the 'thing-in-itself' or things-in-themselves giving rise to dualism.
Whilst this assumption is realistic at the kindergarten level [e.g. Newtonian Physics] the metaphysical realists like you [regardless of your denial] insist the external world independent of the human conditions is absolute real without exceptions!

But Kant countered there is no such real external world that is independent of the human conditions and no humans has ever been able to prove it, thus the scandal of philosophy.

Moore took up Kant's challenge but failed miserably and Wittgenstein critiqued Moore severely. But that did not imply W agreed with Kant, W had his own version in approach what is reality.
Kant was a Cartesian dualist through-and-through, in my opinion - like everyone else - a man of his time.
Don't make such absurd claims when you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant.
Re the quotes above, Kant is an empirical realist and transcendental idealist which oppose Descartes dualism. Note:
..today I want to briefly touch on his critique of the man who began said tradition, Rene Descartes, in order to put Kant’s theory in context.

Kant sets his sights on Descartes’ rationalistic theory, but which Kant terms ‘idealistic’, which holds that the existence of external objects are doubtful and indemonstrable unless sufficient evidence can be given for them through reasoning. Kant calls this view ‘problematic idealism’.

It is worth making clear that Kant opposes this position because it entails that the existence of objects are not known immediately through perception, but only through reasoned reflection.
Link
Think harder about what Kant says.

If there are no things-in-themselves (noumena), then there's no contrast between them and things-as-they-appear (phenomena). Noumena can't be a 'limiting concept', because they have no definition or properties that can act as 'limits'. So apply Occam's Razor.

Talk of appearance and reality has been around for millennia, and Kant merely recycled it with a tricky twist. And he was, most definitely, a mind/body dualist, which is why the fictitious problem of 'proving the existence of the external world' so exercised him.
What??

Read what Kant said,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note Kant CPR is one sequential long argument.
Kant explained in detail in the context of the 3 phases above, why the noumenon is merely a limiting concept.
Do you understand the phrase "curb the pretensions of Sensibility"?

This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.

Don't embarrass yourself with your little knowledge of Kant where you have not researched and read his works thorough to understand [not necessary agree with] his views.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:56 am
The Kantian approach can be broken down into 3 levels, i.e.
  • 1. Kindergarten
    2. High School
    3. Degree to PhD levels
Appearances of what?
At the kindergarten level [1], Kant acknowledged the following;
  • But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
    otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]
Thus Kant acknowledge "logically" there must be some thing that appears as appearance, which we "cannot know" but at least can "think" of logically.
The sentence is tricky, "cannot know" and can think of do not imply that such a thing exists in the absolute sense as a real thing.

At the High School level [2] Kant introduce that thing we cannot know but can think of as the noumenon, i.e. there for any phenomenon there must be something it represent, thus the noumenon.
Then he advised,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note the point that the noumenon is merely a limiting concept of negative use and can never be views as real beyond the empirical.
Thus-that-which-appear in appearance cannot be real at all.

At level 3 Degree to PhD levels, Kant then demonstrated that-which-appear in appearance, the noumenon is ultimately an illusion and cannot be verified nor reified as real.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
    and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions 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.
    They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

    Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
    After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
Read the points above carefully and don't just ignore them because they are foundational.


I have already mentioned this a "million" times.

All humans are "programmed" innately to view external reality out there independent of human conditions which is critical for survival to look for food, threats, spouse, etc. and this impulse had been adapted from billion of years via our non-human and human ancestors.

That is why is it so ingrained and natural that there exists an external reality independent of the human conditions. This is the assumption of the 'thing-in-itself' or things-in-themselves giving rise to dualism.
Whilst this assumption is realistic at the kindergarten level [e.g. Newtonian Physics] the metaphysical realists like you [regardless of your denial] insist the external world independent of the human conditions is absolute real without exceptions!

But Kant countered there is no such real external world that is independent of the human conditions and no humans has ever been able to prove it, thus the scandal of philosophy.

Moore took up Kant's challenge but failed miserably and Wittgenstein critiqued Moore severely. But that did not imply W agreed with Kant, W had his own version in approach what is reality.


Don't make such absurd claims when you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant.
Re the quotes above, Kant is an empirical realist and transcendental idealist which oppose Descartes dualism. Note:

Think harder about what Kant says.

If there are no things-in-themselves (noumena), then there's no contrast between them and things-as-they-appear (phenomena). Noumena can't be a 'limiting concept', because they have no definition or properties that can act as 'limits'. So apply Occam's Razor.

Talk of appearance and reality has been around for millennia, and Kant merely recycled it with a tricky twist. And he was, most definitely, a mind/body dualist, which is why the fictitious problem of 'proving the existence of the external world' so exercised him.
What??

Read what Kant said,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note Kant CPR is one sequential long argument.
Kant explained in detail in the context of the 3 phases above, why the noumenon is merely a limiting concept.
Do you understand the phrase "curb the pretensions of Sensibility"?

This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.

Don't embarrass yourself with your little knowledge of Kant where you have not researched and read his works thorough to understand [not necessary agree with] his views.
Merely repeating what Kant says doesn't answer my questions. How is the noumenon a limiting concept? In what way does it 'curb the pretensions of Sensibility [perception]'? Why is sensibility [perception] pretentious? And, more fundamentally, what and where are concepts, and other so-called abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

I do understand Kant's argument, and I'm showing where he, and Kantians ever since, go wrong - in my opinion. That we have no choice but to perceive, know and understand what we call reality (of which we're a part) in a human way - that, to use the fashionable jargon, we 'model' reality in a human way - doesn't mean that we create or co-create that reality, or that changing the model (the paradigm) changes it. Your mantra about 'entanglement with the human conditions' is a blurred, foggy misrepresentation of our actual predicament.

The stupid claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful, is in a direct line of descent from Kant's fantasy of the noumenon as a 'limiting concept' - the fantasy of a description that is in fact the thing being described - of the saying that says it all - of knowledge of the thing-as-it-is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:18 am

Think harder about what Kant says.

If there are no things-in-themselves (noumena), then there's no contrast between them and things-as-they-appear (phenomena). Noumena can't be a 'limiting concept', because they have no definition or properties that can act as 'limits'. So apply Occam's Razor.

Talk of appearance and reality has been around for millennia, and Kant merely recycled it with a tricky twist. And he was, most definitely, a mind/body dualist, which is why the fictitious problem of 'proving the existence of the external world' so exercised him.
What??

Read what Kant said,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note Kant CPR is one sequential long argument.
Kant explained in detail in the context of the 3 phases above, why the noumenon is merely a limiting concept.
Do you understand the phrase "curb the pretensions of Sensibility"?

This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.

Don't embarrass yourself with your little knowledge of Kant where you have not researched and read his works thorough to understand [not necessary agree with] his views.
Merely repeating what Kant says doesn't answer my questions. How is the noumenon a limiting concept? In what way does it 'curb the pretensions of Sensibility [perception]'? Why is sensibility [perception] pretentious? And, more fundamentally, what and where are concepts, and other so-called abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

I do understand Kant's argument, and I'm showing where he, and Kantians ever since, go wrong - in my opinion. That we have no choice but to perceive, know and understand what we call reality (of which we're a part) in a human way - that, to use the fashionable jargon, we 'model' reality in a human way - doesn't mean that we create or co-create that reality, or that changing the model (the paradigm) changes it. Your mantra about 'entanglement with the human conditions' is a blurred, foggy misrepresentation of our actual predicament.

The stupid claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful, is in a direct line of descent from Kant's fantasy of the noumenon as a 'limiting concept' - the fantasy of a description that is in fact the thing being described - of the saying that says it all - of knowledge of the thing-as-it-is.
What I have quoted re Kant is a general idea of what Kant's view is, i.e.
-there is a 'that-which-appear' to appearance, else absurd on a common sense basis,
-the 'that-which-appear' in terms of phenomenon is the noumenon,
-the noumenon is ultimately the thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human condition.

It is accepted by most Kantian readers that one need 3 years full time or 5 years part time to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

I believe this sound unreasonable, but in the case of Kant's to understand the general idea fully you'll need to read up Kant's work. It would be ridiculous that I have to take you as a student and spent weeks to get you to the relevant competence. I have already given you some clues in terms of the mirage analogy. Here it is again;
  • This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
    It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
    The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.
The 'OK let assume it is real for his sake' is a limiting concept, i.e. it set the limit to 'what is real' with merely an assumption but not confirming it is really real while awaiting further verification and justification.

'curb the pretensions of Sensibility [perception]'?
Sensibility is not mere perception but comprised the whole framework of the empirical machinery.
In a way, curbing the pretension of Sensibility is to avoid the Understanding and pure reason from reifying the thing-in-itself as something beyond the empirical.
In the extreme, this is how the theists extend reality to a God or Plato to his ideals as the most real.
It is the same with your claim there is that-thing which is independent of the model in Physics.
The stupid claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful, is in a direct line of descent from Kant's fantasy of the noumenon as a 'limiting concept' - the fantasy of a description that is in fact the thing being described - of the saying that says it all - of knowledge of the thing-as-it-is.
Don't make the above stupid strawman when you are ignorant of Kant's work.

Note this,
Emergence, Realization of Reality vs Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153
where I differentiated what-emerge vs the description of it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:19 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:46 am
What??

Read what Kant said,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    B311
Note Kant CPR is one sequential long argument.
Kant explained in detail in the context of the 3 phases above, why the noumenon is merely a limiting concept.
Do you understand the phrase "curb the pretensions of Sensibility"?

This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.

Don't embarrass yourself with your little knowledge of Kant where you have not researched and read his works thorough to understand [not necessary agree with] his views.
Merely repeating what Kant says doesn't answer my questions. How is the noumenon a limiting concept? In what way does it 'curb the pretensions of Sensibility [perception]'? Why is sensibility [perception] pretentious? And, more fundamentally, what and where are concepts, and other so-called abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

I do understand Kant's argument, and I'm showing where he, and Kantians ever since, go wrong - in my opinion. That we have no choice but to perceive, know and understand what we call reality (of which we're a part) in a human way - that, to use the fashionable jargon, we 'model' reality in a human way - doesn't mean that we create or co-create that reality, or that changing the model (the paradigm) changes it. Your mantra about 'entanglement with the human conditions' is a blurred, foggy misrepresentation of our actual predicament.

The stupid claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful, is in a direct line of descent from Kant's fantasy of the noumenon as a 'limiting concept' - the fantasy of a description that is in fact the thing being described - of the saying that says it all - of knowledge of the thing-as-it-is.
What I have quoted re Kant is a general idea of what Kant's view is, i.e.
-there is a 'that-which-appear' to appearance, else absurd on a common sense basis,
-the 'that-which-appear' in terms of phenomenon is the noumenon,
-the noumenon is ultimately the thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human condition.

It is accepted by most Kantian readers that one need 3 years full time or 5 years part time to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

I believe this sound unreasonable, but in the case of Kant's to understand the general idea fully you'll need to read up Kant's work. It would be ridiculous that I have to take you as a student and spent weeks to get you to the relevant competence. I have already given you some clues in terms of the mirage analogy. Here it is again;
  • This limiting concept is something like an assumption.
    It is something like someone A [ignorant and immature] saw a 'mirage' in a desert and insist it is a real oasis with water.
    The wiser person [C] in order to calm down the jumpy person will say, OK let assume it is real for his sake, but the wiser person from his experience of the location know full well when they reach the destination of the supposed 'mirage' he will be able to convince A there is nothing at all and that the mirage was an illusion.
The 'OK let assume it is real for his sake' is a limiting concept, i.e. it set the limit to 'what is real' with merely an assumption but not confirming it is really real while awaiting further verification and justification.

'curb the pretensions of Sensibility [perception]'?
Sensibility is not mere perception but comprised the whole framework of the empirical machinery.
In a way, curbing the pretension of Sensibility is to avoid the Understanding and pure reason from reifying the thing-in-itself as something beyond the empirical.
In the extreme, this is how the theists extend reality to a God or Plato to his ideals as the most real.
It is the same with your claim there is that-thing which is independent of the model in Physics.
The stupid claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful, is in a direct line of descent from Kant's fantasy of the noumenon as a 'limiting concept' - the fantasy of a description that is in fact the thing being described - of the saying that says it all - of knowledge of the thing-as-it-is.
Don't make the above stupid strawman when you are ignorant of Kant's work.

Note this,
Emergence, Realization of Reality vs Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153
where I differentiated what-emerge vs the description of it.
The mirage analogy illustrates the stupidity of the claim that what we call reality is an illusion. Whether something is or is not a mirage (an illusion) is a matter of fact - and the wise person knows that, which is why they could confidently tell the dupe that what they're looking at is a mirage.

If it's true that we co-create the reality of which we're a part, then that claim is itself part of that co-created reality. There can be no perspective 'above the fray' from which to know how things really are. But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.

Anti-realism - or just critiques of realism - rest on realist assumptions, just as doubt can exist only against a background of certainty.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Phil8659 »

Really? Now I can see it if one were asking how to pair synonyms, but to ask a question implying an anthropomorphism?

Well, as soon as morality comes home from the bar, I will ask it.
Which is objective and which subject between these word pairs: The perceptible and the intelligible.

which of these two go together: intelligible and perceptible, and induction and deduction?

Which pair go together: objective and subjective, and induction and deduction?

Which word pairs go together: arithmetic equality and geometric equality, and induction and deduction?
Which word pairs go together: arithmetic equality and geometric equality: literal and metaphorical.

Can you draw a geometric figure showing the relationship between induction and deduction?

If, the intelligible is the image of the perceptible, which can possibly differ from itself?

Word pairs, which go with which: Universal and Particular, intelligible and perceptible.

As Russell and Whitehead could not figure it out, 5 extra points,
is it possible for a class to be a member of itself?


Which is a thing, a class or a member of a class? or neither?

Here is a hard one, 10 points
Can an N-1 dimensional object be said to exist in N dimensions?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:30 am The mirage analogy illustrates the stupidity of the claim that what we call reality is an illusion. Whether something is or is not a mirage (an illusion) is a matter of fact - and the wise person knows that, which is why they could confidently tell the dupe that what they're looking at is a mirage.

If it's true that we co-create the reality of which we're a part, then that claim is itself part of that co-created reality. There can be no perspective 'above the fray' from which to know how things really are. But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.

Anti-realism - or just critiques of realism - rest on realist assumptions, just as doubt can exist only against a background of certainty.
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;
Kant in CPR wrote:We are not here concerned with Empirical (e.g. optical) Illusion, which occurs in the Empirical employment of Rules of Understanding that are otherwise correct, and through which the Faculty of Judgment is misled by the influence of Imagination;
we are concerned only with Transcendental Illusion, which exerts its influence on Principles that are in no wise intended for use in Experience, in which case we should at least have had a criterion of their correctness.
In defiance of all the warnings of criticism, it [Transcendental Illusion] carries us altogether beyond the Empirical employment of Categories and puts us off with a merely deceptive extension of Pure Understanding.
CPR B352
When I refer to co-created means what is reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.
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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:30 am The mirage analogy illustrates the stupidity of the claim that what we call reality is an illusion. Whether something is or is not a mirage (an illusion) is a matter of fact - and the wise person knows that, which is why they could confidently tell the dupe that what they're looking at is a mirage.

If it's true that we co-create the reality of which we're a part, then that claim is itself part of that co-created reality. There can be no perspective 'above the fray' from which to know how things really are. But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.

Anti-realism - or just critiques of realism - rest on realist assumptions, just as doubt can exist only against a background of certainty.
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;
Kant in CPR wrote:We are not here concerned with Empirical (e.g. optical) Illusion, which occurs in the Empirical employment of Rules of Understanding that are otherwise correct, and through which the Faculty of Judgment is misled by the influence of Imagination;
we are concerned only with Transcendental Illusion, which exerts its influence on Principles that are in no wise intended for use in Experience, in which case we should at least have had a criterion of their correctness.
In defiance of all the warnings of criticism, it [Transcendental Illusion] carries us altogether beyond the Empirical employment of Categories and puts us off with a merely deceptive extension of Pure Understanding.
CPR B352
When I refer to co-created means what is reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.
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.
This is a false analogy. What the electron camera shows us is the atomic structure of what we call reality. 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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:30 am The mirage analogy illustrates the stupidity of the claim that what we call reality is an illusion. Whether something is or is not a mirage (an illusion) is a matter of fact - and the wise person knows that, which is why they could confidently tell the dupe that what they're looking at is a mirage.

If it's true that we co-create the reality of which we're a part, then that claim is itself part of that co-created reality. There can be no perspective 'above the fray' from which to know how things really are. But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.

Anti-realism - or just critiques of realism - rest on realist assumptions, just as doubt can exist only against a background of certainty.
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;
Kant in CPR wrote:We are not here concerned with Empirical (e.g. optical) Illusion, which occurs in the Empirical employment of Rules of Understanding that are otherwise correct, and through which the Faculty of Judgment is misled by the influence of Imagination;
we are concerned only with Transcendental Illusion, which exerts its influence on Principles that are in no wise intended for use in Experience, in which case we should at least have had a criterion of their correctness.
In defiance of all the warnings of criticism, it [Transcendental Illusion] carries us altogether beyond the Empirical employment of Categories and puts us off with a merely deceptive extension of Pure Understanding.
CPR B352
When I refer to co-created means what is reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
But that's what Kant claimed to have - such as knowledge that the object orbits around the subject.
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.
This is a false analogy. What the electron camera shows us is the atomic structure of what we call reality.
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.
You are merely shortsighted, thus unable to see the point.

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.

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.
Post Reply