Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:52 am

HexHammer wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:10 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:26 pm
HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm
I see, what do you use this immensely high IQ for?
Trying to solve the mistery of existence.
..and the relevance of Kant? Why don't you answer that?
Answer what? Where did I claim that I see Kant as relevant?
Sounds like an extremely low RQ and as I said, IQ is nothing without RQ.

You implied it by saying that it was because I didn't understand him, and you understood him. So much for high IQ.
I said no such thing.
You seem to have some reading comprehension issues, and a low RQ can make people wait for the second coming of Jesus based on some prophecies. :)

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:25 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am
...

The empirical is supported by reason, but there are reasons without empirical basis, Kant assumed and assigned the thing-in-itself to such reasoned ideas based on pure reason. One of such ultimate thing-in-itself is God, a transcendental illusion.

Now that God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real, such a proof is very practical to wean off theism and cut off the grounds of all theistic driven evil and violent acts committed in the name of a supposedly real God.

The illusory thing-in-itself is also manifested the Categorical Imperatives which are ideals and illusion, but they are very useful as guides to the practical ethics to improve the moral and ethics competence of humans. Kant provided very sophisticated and refined arguments to justify this in reconciling 'ought from is' morally and apply ought back to 'is' ethically.

To top it all, all the elements of the Philosophy of Kant are to support his vision and mission of Perpetual Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... cal_Sketch

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.
It is just that such a subject is not ABC and unfortunately Kant is not a good writer thus difficult for most to grasp his ideas.
It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (like God or the thing-in-itself).
And while we have no reason to assume a God, we have all the reasons to assume the thing-in-itself.
I did not prove the negative, i.e. God does not exist.
I proved the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, thus an impossibility to be real.

It is just like insisting 'a square-circle exists' as real, which is obviously a non-starter.

According to Kant, the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion and the only effective utility to assume it is for the purpose of morality within one self.
  • “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
    I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”
    ― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
Note Kant stated "the moral law within me" which imply he is not referring to any external 'ought' to be enforced or imposed on society.

Theists has a critical reason to insist God exists as real but it is merely an assumption based on crude ['pure'] reason - thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is fundamentally psychological.
God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real
Surely you must realize that this is nonsense?
Yes our beliefs about God are proven illusory, there is no sign of God. Which doesn't mean that God can't be real.
As stated above,
If the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, it is an impossibility to be real.
There is no means for the absolute God to be real at all.
Hmm okay so apparently what Kant was talking about really isn't applicable to the real world.
Then the problem doesn't lie with him, but with all those who base their metaphysics on Kant.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:23 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:56 am
Hmm okay so apparently what Kant was talking about really isn't applicable to the real world.
Then the problem doesn't lie with him, but with all those who base their metaphysics on Kant.
Kant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.

For Kant, the point is while the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion, it cannot be real, but yet the thing-in-itself can be useful as a guide for the purpose of morality and practical ethics.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Kant

Post by uwot » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:07 am
Yes there is an image of the puppy in our head, so we presume that there's an puppy out there too, and a sort of mechanism or process between the two.

That doesn't mean that phenomena are 'caused', how is that a default position?
Well you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistemology. Are you talking about what one believes to be the case, or why they believe it? You acknowledge that the epistemological default in the presumption that the puppy exists. Technically that position is called 'naive realism'; a typical argument for which goes along the lines of:
How do I know the puppy exists?
Because I can see it.
As you point out, it doesn't follow that any experience of a puppy has an external cause, or even any cause. A universe in which experiences of puppies are randomly generated, would ontologically be very different from the 'naive realist' perspective, but it could be epistemologically indistinguishable and for all anyone can tell, we could be living in a random puppy universe. But it is not "insane" to believe that puppies, in some form, 'exist' out side our heads. And again: if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.

Skepdick
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:46 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am
if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.
Priority monists contend the same thing, without tripping over the problem of mental causality and getting trapped in the Cartesian Mind-Prison.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Kant

Post by uwot » Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:26 am

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:46 am
uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am
if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.
Priority monists contend the same thing, without tripping over the problem of mental causality and getting trapped in the Cartesian Mind-Prison.
That's a pretty neat trick. How do they pull it off?

Skepdick
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:26 am
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:46 am
uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am
if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.
Priority monists contend the same thing, without tripping over the problem of mental causality and getting trapped in the Cartesian Mind-Prison.
That's a pretty neat trick. How do they pull it off?
The same way everybody does it. You choose which problems to recognise and which to ignore, and then you deny all the facts unfavourable to your position.

All models are wrong, some are useful.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Kant

Post by uwot » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:24 pm
All models are wrong, some are useful.
Well, all models are underdetermined. It doesn't follow that all models are wrong.
Anyway, what facts do you think priority monists ignore?

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:51 pm

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am
Well you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistemology. Are you talking about what one believes to be the case, or why they believe it? You acknowledge that the epistemological default in the presumption that the puppy exists. Technically that position is called 'naive realism'; a typical argument for which goes along the lines of:
How do I know the puppy exists?
Because I can see it.
As you point out, it doesn't follow that any experience of a puppy has an external cause, or even any cause. A universe in which experiences of puppies are randomly generated, would ontologically be very different from the 'naive realist' perspective, but it could be epistemologically indistinguishable and for all anyone can tell, we could be living in a random puppy universe. But it is not "insane" to believe that puppies, in some form, 'exist' out side our heads.
Ontology (I guess, but I have a unified model of everything so it's difficult to split it up). I was talking about something else, two different meanings for 'causation'. Saying that noumena and phenomena are somehow fundamentally different and one causes the other is wrong.
And again: if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist.
No, but it could mean that you categorize words as either mental or material, so you are a dualist.
Last edited by Atla on Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Atla
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:23 am
Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:56 am
Hmm okay so apparently what Kant was talking about really isn't applicable to the real world.
Then the problem doesn't lie with him, but with all those who base their metaphysics on Kant.
Kant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.

For Kant, the point is while the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion, it cannot be real, but yet the thing-in-itself can be useful as a guide for the purpose of morality and practical ethics.
Well anyway, in the 'real world', there are things beyond human perception that are probably real.

Skepdick
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:14 pm

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm
Well, all models are underdetermined.
Relative to what ideal for determination?
uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm
It doesn't follow that all models are wrong.
It follows directly. All models have edge and corner cases which dictate operating limits.

GR is useless at small scale. QFT is useless at large scale. A Theory of Everything would be useless at all scales. Because it would be unfalsifiable.
uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm
Anyway, what facts do you think priority monists ignore?
That a theory which explains everything - explains nothing. If a scientific model could account for everything "you" disappear.

"You" exist in the same gap as God.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4940
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:06 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
He failed to address whether "a posteriori" is actually "a priori" in itself as "a posteriori" is a classification of the senses...it broke down phenomenonon into a dualistic nature without producing a necessary grounds as to what this assumptive nature is...

His foundations are empty...

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:01 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:09 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:18 pm
Why would anyone waste time on a person who does not know the difference between Kant and Nietzsche?
Whether or not Atla knows the relevance or not, he'd be wasting his time telling you.
You are not very bright, I don't remember the difference because I don't waste time on them, no matter who said what doesn't make Kant less outdated and irrelevant.

Only if Kant had relevance I would spend more time on him and thereby remember who said what ..OMG!!!
You are a clueless moron.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:03 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:06 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
He failed to address whether "a posteriori" is actually "a priori" in itself as "a posteriori" is a classification of the senses...it broke down phenomenonon into a dualistic nature without producing a necessary grounds as to what this assumptive nature is...

His foundations are empty...
Distinctions as to a priori and a posteriori predate Kant by millennia and remain natural, obvious and foundational to all epistemology; as useful today as it was to Plato.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:13 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:23 am
Atla wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:56 am
Hmm okay so apparently what Kant was talking about really isn't applicable to the real world.
Then the problem doesn't lie with him, but with all those who base their metaphysics on Kant.
Kant focused on both the real world and the basis for the transcendental illusion, i.e. the thing-in-itself.

For Kant, the point is while the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion, it cannot be real, but yet the thing-in-itself can be useful as a guide for the purpose of morality and practical ethics.
Well anyway, in the 'real world', there are things beyond human perception that are probably real.
Agree, there are things beyond human perception that are possible to be real but that is subject to evidence [with real basis] that can justify they are real.
  • For example, I can speculate there is a tea-pot circulating the planet pluto and I cannot said with absolute certainty it is impossible. This is because tea-pot and planet pluto are things that can possibly real thus has at least a 0.000000..001% chance of being real. If we can bring the evidence for testing, it could be 99.99% real.
    I can also speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet one light year away from Earth, because all the variable stated in this claim can be tested for being real.
But the thing-in-itself reified as God cannot be real because Kant had proven it is impossible to be real, i.e. a transcendental illusion, thus there is no way to test and justify God is real. It is a non-starter.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests