Kant vs the Fact of the External World

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

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

Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:13 pm Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. So the claim that whatever exists depends on humans is patent nonsense.

And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
It is very intuitive that there is something independent out there and remain after death of people because all [living] humans have evolved evolutionary to focus on things external to them [food, threats, partners] to facilitate survival and this is hardwired in the human brain. This is an existential issue and driven psychologically.

But note Kant's deep insight Copernican Revolution;
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [Bxvii]

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility
CPR Bxvi
Kant went on to challenge this scandal of a claim of an external world;
However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
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
G E Moore took up the challenge and failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
Yours is based on pure ignorance and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's view thoroughly.

Actually you are referring to yourself in a way that [1] minds containing mental things and events - literally in addition to [2] things existing independent of mind which in a way 1 and 2 must be corresponded with.

What Kant advocated is to direct humanity to understand the existential issue and not be a slave to it in focusing on an independent external world which has been a failure since >2000 years ago.

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSKs that are empirically-based and supported with philosophical reasonings.
Prove he is wrong on this. It is not likely because you [Peter Holmes or other anti-Kantian] would never read, even if you read you don't have the competence to grasp the essence of his works.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:13 pm Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. So the claim that whatever exists depends on humans is patent nonsense.

And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
It is very intuitive that there is something independent out there and remain after death of people because all [living] humans have evolved evolutionary to focus on things external to them [food, threats, partners] to facilitate survival and this is hardwired in the human brain. This is an existential issue and driven psychologically.

But note Kant's deep insight Copernican Revolution;
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [Bxvii]

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility
CPR Bxvi
Kant went on to challenge this scandal of a claim of an external world;
However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
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
G E Moore took up the challenge and failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
Yours is based on pure ignorance and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's view thoroughly.

Actually you are referring to yourself in a way that [1] minds containing mental things and events - literally in addition to [2] things existing independent of mind which in a way 1 and 2 must be corresponded with.

What Kant advocated is to direct humanity to understand the existential issue and not be a slave to it in focusing on an independent external world which has been a failure since >2000 years ago.

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSKs that are empirically-based and supported with philosophical reasonings.
Prove he is wrong on this. It is not likely because you [Peter Holmes or other anti-Kantian] would never read, even if you read you don't have the competence to grasp the essence of his works.
After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

Yes, I agree, this bolded statement has a HUGE ERROR attached to it.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:13 pm Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. So the claim that whatever exists depends on humans is patent nonsense.

And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
It is very intuitive that there is something independent out there and remain after death of people because all [living] humans have evolved evolutionary to focus on things external to them [food, threats, partners] to facilitate survival and this is hardwired in the human brain. This is an existential issue and driven psychologically.

But note Kant's deep insight Copernican Revolution;
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [Bxvii]

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility
CPR Bxvi
Kant went on to challenge this scandal of a claim of an external world;
However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
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
G E Moore took up the challenge and failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
Yours is based on pure ignorance and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's view thoroughly.

Actually you are referring to yourself in a way that [1] minds containing mental things and events - literally in addition to [2] things existing independent of mind which in a way 1 and 2 must be corresponded with.

What Kant advocated is to direct humanity to understand the existential issue and not be a slave to it in focusing on an independent external world which has been a failure since >2000 years ago.

What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSKs that are empirically-based and supported with philosophical reasonings.
Prove he is wrong on this. It is not likely because you [Peter Holmes or other anti-Kantian] would never read, even if you read you don't have the competence to grasp the essence of his works.
Notice that Veritas uses Kant to support his view that not only we cannot know things about the external world, there is no reason to believe there is one.
THEN!
he tells Peter Holmes things about himself AND Peter Holmes' mind.
IOW in one post Veritas claims that there is no problem of other minds
and
that he knows the nature of Peter Holmes. He also knows what Peter Holmes will never do. So, Veritas is also implicitly claiming to have precognitive powers.

Peter Holmes is thus NOT external to Veritas. There is no person 'out there' who is separate from Veritas. Because that would be a ding an sich.

One wonders however why he is pissed off at something that has no existence outside of himself.

There's a lot of having the cake and eating it too going on here. And a lot of not really noticing implications.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat May 07, 2022 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:17 am Notice that Veritas uses Kant to support his view that we cannot know things about the external world.
THEN!
he tells Peter Holmes things about himself AND Peter Holmes mind.
IOW in one post Veritas claims that there is no problem of other minds
and
that he knows the nature of Peter Holmes.

Cake and eat it too bs.
Yup, I noticed the bs too.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:17 amOne wonders however why he is pissed off at something that has no existence outside of himself.
:lol:


He tried so hard.

Image
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Atla »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:30 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:17 amOne wonders however why he is pissed off at something that has no existence outside of himself.
:lol:


He tried so hard.

Image
Must be tough having to be so angry with yourself all the time :)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:34 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:30 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:17 amOne wonders however why he is pissed off at something that has no existence outside of himself.
:lol:


He tried so hard.

Image
Must be tough having to be so angry with yourself all the time :)
You're right!

It's so dam tough, that only the tough are tough enough to deal with it. When the going gets tough and all.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Atla »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:39 am You're right!

It's so dam tough, that only the tough are tough enough to deal with it. When the going gets tough and all.
VA is the toughest of them all. Others are just making noises because they are gnats having existential crises.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:50 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:39 am You're right!

It's so dam tough, that only the tough are tough enough to deal with it. When the going gets tough and all.
VA is the toughest of them all. Others are just making noises because they are gnats having existential crises.
:lol:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds
Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality is all there is.
2. Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is - which they are intricately part and parcel of.

Image

"A" in this case is all humans within "B" reality - all there is.
"B" here is indicated with a circular line, reality is an open system without any circular lines.


If you are so smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:31 am
Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".
Okay, then where did the statement come from?

Why is the statement being used?

Who made the statement?

Then when that matter is settled, perhaps we can proceed with the conversation.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant vs the Fact of the External World

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:31 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:58 am After a decade, VA still can't see the mountain-sized error in: "I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

A smart 10-year-old would spot the non-sequitur in 5 seconds
Strawman!
I had never made the statement,
"I can only experience the external world through mental models of it, therefore the external world cannot exist".

My argument;
1. Reality is all there is.
2. Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolute independent of reality - all there is - which they are intricately part and parcel of.

Image

"A" in this case is all humans within "B" reality - all there is.
"B" here is indicated with a circular line, reality is an open system without any circular lines.


If you are so smart,
prove the external world exists absolute independent of humans entanglement, i.e. as standalone by itself.
Since you replied twice see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34778 :)
Post Reply