PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

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

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:41 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:01 am You haven't really refuted the common sense view, you've just declared it not rational.
Common sense [archaic: vulgar sense] is often contrasted to the more rational conventional sense like rational & critical thinking, scientific thinking, and the likes.
If, 'What do the words 'common sense' ACTUALLY mean or refer to, to you?', were asked, individual, and EACH and EVERY one of your answers was written down at and revealed at the same time, the likely hood that the exact same words are written down would be just about zero.

The VERY REASON WHY 'you', human beings, have been disagreeing, disputing, arguing, and/or fighting over 'things' in so-called 'philosophical discussions' for millennia is because you ALL just use different descriptions and definitions for the words 'you' use.

It could even be argued that even 'common sense' is NOT even 'common' to 'you', adult human beings.

'you', people, bicker and fight over DIFFERENT 'things' on the presumption that they are the SAME 'thing'.

This will be DISCOVERED and REVEALED, thus CLEARLY SEEN once 'you' start CLARIFYING, correctly, with "each other".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:41 amAs such what is there to refute.

With more refined thinking,
upon whatever is experienced or inferred via common sense, etc.,
a hypothesis is formed,
then it is tested with via verification and justification with the related empirical evidence,
whatever is inferred is subjected to peer review.
Surely it is obvious this is very different from common sense [vulgar sense] where anything goes.
Rational and critical thinking STARTS with questioning, and answering, OPENLY and Honest the ACTUAL 'thoughts' within one's OWN body, FIRST.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:10 am
Note you are relying "there is *something*" merely on "common sense" :shock: which is most unreliable and irrational mode of knowledge. As such you have to downgrade your views on this.

The fact is 99.9% of humans [even Einstein and his likes] will naturally conclude spontaneously "there is *something*" out there based on common sense and if philosophically this is metaphysical realism. This is a critical necessity for humans to facilitate survival relative to past and current conditions, thus it is instinctive and psychologically driven.

But humans has also evolved to think and reflect rationally, deeply & widely. It is from such that the common sense "there is *something* in itself" do not make rational sense.

Since common sense naturally has failed to pass rational senses, it would be more effective to confine such ideas of "there is *something* in itself" relative to its conditions and necessity, i.e. not to insist it is the absolute truth.

The point is the deeper thought that that the 'thing-in-itself' is illusory is more effective and the idea of the emergent reality is more realistic.
Emergent reality is not as PH & gang conjectured [turned up with humans] but is conditioned upon a 13 billion years since the Big Bang [given your nic, you may not agree] emerged.

At least you critiqued my ideas with some reservations, in contrast to the other ignorant fools who condemned my views outright without any reservations.
If, as I agree, there's no such thing as absolute truth - because the expression is incoherent - then there's no contrast between absolute truth and (what we call) truth.

And, by exactly the same argument: if, as I agree, there's no such thing as a thing-in-itself - because the expression is incoherent - then there's no contrast between a thing-in-itself and (what we call) a thing.

Yet VA's (supposedly Kantian) argument depends on both rejecting and invoking these fantasy distinctions.

'There are no such things as absolute truth or things-in-themselves. So you're fools to think that what you call truth and things are absolute truth and things-in-themselves.'

But we don't. We have no idea what absolute truth and things-in-themselves could possibly be. Like VA, we deny their existence. But VA is distractedly fond of his straw twins.
PH:'There are no such things as absolute truth or things-in-themselves. So you're fools to think that what you call truth and things are absolute truth and things-in-themselves.'
You are calling yourself a 'fool'.

You are ignorant of what your own thinking and believing in terms of knowledge and reality.

Note definition of absolute;
  • -viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
    -PHILOSOPHY: a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
    google dictionary
Note there are MANY DIFFERENT definitions.

And, 'you' continually TELLING "others" that they are "ignorant" of 'things', proves just who is REALLY fooling who here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:39 am Now, you are claiming facts as feature of reality and its truths exist independently and not relation to the human conditions, i.e. individual[s] beliefs and opinion.
In other words the truths and facts you are claiming are absolute [as defined] truths.
As such to be precise your truth is a truth-in-itself independent of any individual opinions and beliefs.
This is YOUR opinion and belief, based on your OWN usage and definition of words.

Even from your PROVIDED definition above, it could be taken that 'absolute' IS 'in' an individual's thinking, and thus in relation to an individual's thinking, did NOT need spelling out. So, 'not relative to other things' nor 'without relation to other things' was NOT relative to NOR in relation to the individual's thinking'.

This Fact obviously makes that definition False, Wrong, or Incorrect, OR, this Fact makes there being NO purpose of the 'absolute' word, except, of course, in relation to the Universe, Itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:39 am You may not like the term 'absolute' for whatever reasons, but you cannot deny your facts and truths are in the absolute sense independent of the human conditions.
What is thee Universe, Itself, in relation to, exactly?

And, do you want to claim that the Universe, Itself, did NOT exist BEFORE human beings came into Existence?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:39 am How can you claim you do not believe in a thing-in-itself aka noumenom, when it is so glaring that you do.
You claim your facts and truths are independent of individual's opinion and beliefs which is absolute, that they exists even when there are no humans.
A thing-in-itself aka noumenom is independent of individual's opinion and beliefs.
So you believe in a thing-in-itself that is independent of individual's opinion and beliefs.

Note my post in;
The in-it-self thing cannot exist
viewtopic.php?p=590315#p590315

Instead of dealing with a various views of the points below,
1. this kind of thing has mind-independent existence
2. exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding
3. reality exists independent of the mind

Kant categorized them as things-in-themselves, or a thing-in-itself aka noumenom.
Will you define the words you use EXACTLY how you are using them?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:13 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:41 am
Common sense [archaic: vulgar sense] is often contrasted to the more rational conventional sense like rational & critical thinking, scientific thinking, and the likes.
As such what is there to refute.

With more refined thinking,
upon whatever is experienced or inferred via common sense, etc.,
a hypothesis is formed,
then it is tested with via verification and justification with the related empirical evidence,
whatever is inferred is subjected to peer review.
Surely it is obvious this is very different from common sense [vulgar sense] where anything goes.
But your position is that the stuff we learn about the world through testing and empirical evidence and peer review isn't even is bumping up against reality, and it might as well basically have nothing to do with reality, so... I really have no idea why you're contrasting common sense against that.

I mean, to the contrary, the common sense view is that all of that stuff you just said does tell us truths of sorts. If you don't think those things tell us truths, then why are you bringing them up at all?
Note the OP, i.e. things do not exist independently by itself.
I KNOW you will DEFINITELY NOT answer this question posed for CLARIFICATION, but I will write it anyway, so that "others" can see just how BLIND or CLOSED to your OWN beliefs you REALLY ARE.

What does the 'thing' known as 'the Universe' exist WITH, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:13 am When you relied on common sense one can conclude the following;
1. common sense things exist independently by itself
2. common sense things can be confirmed to be more true via Science, and other modes [FSKs].

Now when you referred to things existing via common sense, your answer is ambiguous which can either be 1 or 2.
If it is 1, then you have to prove it can exists independently by itself; when you resort to proof or justification, it is no more via common sense.

What is common sense, i.e. via the five senses and crude reasonings cannot confirm any truth that is credible.
But how, what is experienced via the five senses, to people, which is what the words 'common sense' refers to, exactly, be refuted?

And, obviously 'crude reasoning' could be refuted correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:13 am Whatever is claimed from the basis of common sense is vulnerable to being sense illusions, or influenced by mental illness.
But what did you 'think' the word 'common' means or refers to in the term 'common sense'?

It appears that 'you' go out of your way to PROVE just how disillusioned some people REALLY WERE, back in the days when this was being written.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:13 am Thus to claim any truth upon common sense is too flimsy and anyone can do it without limitations an open to consensus by anyone.
What do you claim 'your truths' are upon, exactly?

Obviously, YOUR so-called "fsk's" have NEVER worked without fault and flaws.

Unless, of course, you can and will provide an ACTUAL 'truth' claim here, which was made upon an 'fsk'' only.

We AWAIT you doing so. But also KNOWING you NEVER will.

'Truth', by the way, made upon 'common sense' IS IRREFUTABLE.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:59 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:43 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 am Right, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,

but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists,
I tend to agree.
How could anyone disagree?

Is there anyone here who claims that there is not some 'thing' existing?
You can see in what you quoted that he said more than the one part you are asking about. It was the whole quote I tend to agree with.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:43 pm I tend to agree.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:59 amHow could anyone disagree?

Is there anyone here who claims that there is not some 'thing' existing?
You can see in what you quoted that he said more than the one part you are asking about. It was the whole quote I tend to agree with.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:41 amRight, so I get that there's a model in our minds, and I get that that model may not match reality as it is, and usually doesn't in fact,

but the common sense interpretation is that there is *something* that exists,
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:38 pm I tend to agree.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:59 am How could anyone disagree?

Is there anyone here who claims that there is not some 'thing' existing?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:38 pmYou can see in what you quoted that he said more than the one part you are asking about. It was the whole quote I tend to agree with.
Okay. But it was only the one part I am curious about, and inquiring about.

This is open for ANY one to answer.

If there is anyone here who claims that there is not some 'thing' existing, then HOW could you, and WHY do you, disagree that there is some 'thing' existing?
Post Reply