Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:33 pm
Being is absolute as only being exists; it is a thing in itself as it is without comparison considering "being relative to being" leaves us only with "being".
As I had stated in the other thread you have gone off topic from the philosophical contexts,
- [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I am not talking about a certain kind of thing but rather the totality of being.
The totality of being exists beyond the mind as it formless because it has no comparison.
Now if we where to say this formlessness is the grounds for mind then we can say the totality is mind.
If this is the case "mind" is a thing in itself as it is dependent only on itself, however as dependent only on itself it is dependent on nothing as only it exists.
How can you verify and justify this 'totality of being' is real?
Note,
Whatever is real as facts, truths and knowledge must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
IF you can justify 'totality of being' is real, then it has to be conditioned, i.e. cannot be dependent on itself.
The point is the "totality of being" a thing-in-itself is an illusion thus illusory.
Btw, Kant has already justified why a thing-in-itself cannot be real but rather it is an illusion.
Why people like you think it is real and by itself is because you have been deceived by your crude reasons.
Note Kant on your "totality of being" i.e. the thing-in-itself {mine} read it carefully;
Kant in CPR wrote:
1. 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.
2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself} 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.
3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
5. 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