P_Holmes Do Not Believe in a Thing-in-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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

P_Holmes Do Not Believe in a Thing-in-Itself??

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:10 am Re: FJ's post:
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 emerged.
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
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.
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.

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 exist 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 [by Philosophical/Metaphysical Realists] 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.

Thus you do believe in absolute truths and thing-in-itself;
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.

Can you [PH] counter the above?

Views from others?
Post Reply