Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:29 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:41 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:03 pm


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.
Usefull for what? Where is "distinction" itself made? Is it "a priori" or "a posteriori"...pick either one and we are left with a loop.
Nope.
The distinction is made with reason. I realise that you have to have some to understand the distinction, but most people do not have much problem with it.
I feel sorry that you are in some kind of mental loop.
Have you considered psychiatry?
Considering psychiatry is a process of making distinctions...is psychiatry actually a form of obsessive compulsive labeling with a multitude of ever expanding definitions as to what determines "sanity" that it is akin to schizophrenia?

If you say psychiatry is legitimate, you fall under a bandwagon fallacy...and thus are irrational. If you say it is not legitimate you are pushing a false premise you know is wrong...in which case you have a divided mind...thus are "insane".

Regardless...if you understand the distinction...explain it...or you come off as a religious loon, which is quite fitting "sculptor"...creating empty idols to alleviate people's boredom.

So what is distinction? Without using "distinction" (and thus a loop) to define it?

Sculpt for me an answer...

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:17 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:12 pm
Noumena and phenomena definitions are a means to understand epistemological problems, not your personal psychological problems.
Let me get this straight. You are necessarily claiming that epistemology e.g "knowing" is NOT a psychological phenomenon?
DO you have reading difficulties?
SO, no, you do not "have it straight". I said "your personal psychological problems."
You are necessarily claiming that epistemic phenomena and psychological phenomena are disjoint e.g distinct.
DO you have reading difficulties?
Please read what I actually said.

Very well - I will gladly hang you with your own insistence on disjoint sets.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:12 pm
Memories , amongst other things, are recordings of phenomena. There is no contradiction.
But memories do exist ontologically. Right? If they didn't - you wouldn't remember anything. Right? Memories (before being recalled or remembered) have an ontological existence.

Then I ask you the ONTOLOGICAL question: "Are memories noumena?" and I expect you to answer "Yes".
And then I ask you the EPISTEMIC question: "Are the CONTENTS of your memories noumena or phenomena?" and at this point - any answer brings your house of cards crashing down.
"ontological existence" is a tautology. WTF do you think you are talking about?
You seem confused.
Because this is about knowlege of the world, the contents of your mind are not the issue here - unless you are some sort of solipsist.
Phenomena is that which is accessible to the senses.
Normally a "memory" is considered internal, and nothing to do with the sensible world.
You do not seem to have a clear idea where you end and the rest of the world begins.
Thankfully I do, so this is not a problem for me, it is a problem for your personal psychology as I said above.

If you answer "Noumena" then you are claiming that the CONTENTS of your memories are impossible to know.
And if you answer "Phenomena" then you admit to knowing a noumenon, which contradicts Kant's axiom.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:12 pm
BTW. If categories are errors, then no one can "deal with it" since there would be no "dealing" and no "it".
You have just painted yourself into a corner. But you can't see it because a corner is a sub category of the whole floor, and neither exist.

It's only a corner if you believe it is. I don't care if I contradict myself.

You are an idiot for denying contradicting yourself.

I don't exist. Look! Nothing happened. I am still here not-existing. Contradictions are only scary to idiot philosophers.
Irrelevant BS and questions evasion, marked in RED

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:36 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
SO, no, you do not "have it straight". I said "your personal psychological problems."
You don't know what a "problem" is though. Best you can do here is appeal to the is-ought gap.

To accuse me of "psychological problems" is to claim knowledge of how a psychology OUGHT to function, and to further claim that my psychology doesn't conform to that OUGHT.

The fact that I don't think the way you EXPECT me to think is a failure of your epistemology, not mine.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
Because this is about knowlege of the world, the contents of your mind are not the issue here.
Normally a "memory" is considered internal, and nothing to do with the sensible world.
Idiot. You are part of the world. Your memories are part of the world. If the universe is a quantum system "you" are part of the wave function.

The inside/outside categories you have invented may be pragmatically useful for your monkey-brain, but they are mental constructs which you are projecting onto the world.

There are no categories in reality.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
Phenomena is that which is accessible to the senses.
Double-Idiot. Which "sense" do you use to access your memories? If you don't use any sense to access your memories then.... your memories are NOT phenomena?

So if memories are NOT phenomena then they must be? Noumena?

YEAH! That's the fucking point.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
You do not seem to have a clear idea where you end and the rest of the world begins.
Do you have a clear idea? Where does causality begin and end?
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 11 times in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:49 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:36 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
Because this is about knowlege of the world, the contents of your mind are not the issue here - unless you are some sort of solipsist.
Idiot.

You are part of the world. Self-knowledge is partial knowledge of the world.

You are confusing solipsism with dualism.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
Normally a "memory" is considered internal, and nothing to do with the sensible world.
Q.E.D. Dualism.
Here he is accusing you of dodging the question...when the idiot dodged mine all together. Why should he doubt a "vaccuum"...his reasoning, if legitimate, should have no problem giving measurement and definition to the void.


He chants the word "reason" like some mantra, convinced that if that if he does it long and hard enough some revival will occur. This is just the behavior of fanatics, they will convince other's of their religion...when deep down they are just trying to convince themselves.

What "sculptor" fails to realize is that most statues are fundamentally just empty shells...

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:36 pm
Idiot. You are part of the world. Your memories are part of the world. If the universe is a quantum system "you" are part of the wave function.
No you are the idiot.
Whilst I might be a part of your sensible world, you do not have access to my memories. And neither do I have access to yours.
As a person building knoweldge of the world my memories are an internal tool and not part of the phenomenal world.
Get a grip on yourself.

The inside/outside categories you have invented may be pragmatically useful for your monkey-brain, but they are mental constructs which you are projecting onto the world.

There are no categories in reality.
and with that you disappear into your own omphalos.
So I suggest you take your non categorical self and shove it up your non categorical backside, because you have nothing to say, if you cannot distinguish a category then you cannot make a distinction between one word or another.
Normal people do not suffer from this problem.
Keep taking the pills.

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
Whilst I might be a part of your sensible world, you do not have access to my memories.
And neither do I have access to yours.
Of course I have access to your memories. What do you think communication is all about?

Do you think I know about your battle with cancer via telepathy?

Similarly - you have access to my memories. You ask questions - I answer them.

Memory transfer!

That language is a terrible tool for memory transfer is a different argument altogether.

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
As a person building knoweldge of the world my memories are an internal tool and not part of the phenomenal world.
Then how come you can COMMUNICATE YOUR MEMORIES? How come your "internal world" becomes my "internal world"?

Are you too blind to observe the CAUSE and EFFECT taking place right before you?

Me calling you an idiot causes you to experience insecurity which in turn causes you to respond.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
and with that you disappear into your own omphalos.
The above sentence is demonstrably a lie. You continue confusing description and prescription. Your language is not prescriptive of the world, it's only descriptive OF the world.

"I" can't disappear anymore than the universe can disappear.

The fact that you are uncomfortable with uttering the phrase "I don't exist" is just some silly irrational fear. Most idiot-philosophers confuse language for reality. Don't worry - you aren't going to vanish in a magic puff of smoke if you actually say it.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
So I suggest you take your non categorical self and shove it up your non categorical backside, because you have nothing to say, if you cannot distinguish a category then you cannot make a distinction between one word or another.
Who says I can't distinguish categories? That was never my argument!

My argument was "Categories Cause Errors". I keep demonstrating it to you - but you are too stupid to acknowledge that it's true.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
Normal people do not suffer from this problem.
Keep taking the pills.
You don't know what a "normal person" is either, moron. You are PROJECTING your ideas of normality onto others.

The appropriate response to that is "FUCK OFF" ;)

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:09 pm
Whilst I might be a part of your sensible world, you do not have access to my memories.
And neither do I have access to yours.
Of course I have access to your memories. What do you think communication is all about?

Do you think I know about your battle with cancer via telepathy?
You have no idea if my testimony is evidence or fantasy.
So work it out for yourself.
But since you don't believe in categories, I'll tell you.
This is a perfect example of my testimony being a phenomenon from your perspective, but the truth or falsity of my cancer is noumenal.
SO keep guessing
You are a time waster.
Last edited by Sculptor on Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm

_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:11 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
You could see memory that way if you wish, but where does Kant bring that into the argument please?

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:24 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:11 pm
You could see memory that way if you wish, but where does Kant bring that into the argument please?
He doesn't. That's precisely the problem being pointed out. Kant claimed that noumena cannot be known. He drew a hard line.

Accessing the contents of your memories is the example of a noumenon becoming a phenomenon.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 pm
You have no idea if my testimony is evidence or fantasy.
I take you on your word. if it was a lie. So what?

You gain nothing. I lose nothing.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 pm
This is a perfect example of my testimony being a phenomenon from your perspective, but the truth or falsity of my cancer is noumenal.
But it wasn't phenomenal from YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Your experience and memory of the event are noumenal.

And that's why Kant is wrong.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:31 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
If you have the power to recall and forget a memory e.g if you have the power to turn it from a noumenon to a phenomenon and back, the "true nature" of this memory is forever available to you.

Is it a noumemon or a phenomenon? Both? Neither? Does it even matter?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:17 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:49 am

Only if 'thing-in-itself' doesn't refer to the 'real world'.
Not sure of your point.

My point is, the "thing-in-itself" is a transcendental illusion generated in the real minds of the majority [theists and others] living in a real world.

Empirical illusions are not real and we can know them when they are explained to us, e.g. bent-stick in water, curved parallel lines, snake-rope in the shade, etc.
Transcendental illusions [thing-in-itself] are mental-logical-illusions that are triggered subliminally deep in the mind.

After a very long winded argument, Kant reduced the thing-in-itself into only 3 main ones, i.e.
  • 1. God -Absolute
    2. a soul that survives physical death
    3. The WHOLE Universe.
You know what, we probably use 'real' in a completely different sense.

To me, you appear to be saying that the "whole universe" can't possibly exist. So do over 99% of cosmologists, physicists etc. suffer from an illusion triggered deep in the mind?

On second thought, you seem to use almost every crucial word differently.
Note Popper stated, scientific theories by scientists are merely polished conjectures.
No cosmologists, physicists would dare to claim the 'WHOLE' Universes in the absolute sense which is 100% completeness and 'perfection'.

Generally when the term 'whole' is used in the completeness sense, it is merely a sweeping statement.

Kant argued convincingly in the CPR why 'WHOLE' is an illusion and thus impossible to be real.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 am
My point is, the "thing-in-itself" is a transcendental illusion generated in the real minds of the majority [theists and others] living in a real world.

Empirical illusions are not real and we can know them when they are explained to us, e.g. bent-stick in water, curved parallel lines, snake-rope in the shade, etc.
Transcendental illusions [thing-in-itself] are mental-logical-illusions that are triggered subliminally deep in the mind.
No, no, no.
The phenomena are things as perceived.

But this is distinct from the Noumena, which are the things are they truly are; NOT shit in your head, but stuff that the senses can't get to - or not without aid. The things "Ding an sich", are as they are not perceptible to the senses; as they are NOT obtainable by the senses.

If this thread is about Kant, at least get your facts straight.
Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.

Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
    CPR - B311
    viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?
Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.

I suggest you read the above quoted point re the noumenon carefully in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:49 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
You have a clue to what is the Kant's noumenon?
Where are your references from Kant to support your above points?

I supported my understanding of Kant with references from the CPR here;
viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744

Re the quote I provided,
the noumenon is not a state of being, but merely a limiting concept that has no 'substance' at all.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:49 am
seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
You have a clue to what is the Kant's noumenon?
Where are your references from Kant to support your above points?

I supported my understanding of Kant with references from the CPR here;
viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744

Re the quote I provided,
the noumenon is not a state of being, but merely a limiting concept that has no 'substance' at all.
To be completely honest, I never studied Kant to any great extent other than reading interpretations of some of his key ideas...

...(indeed, I have enough trouble keeping track of my own wacky theories without getting bogged-down by the dense and dubious speculations of other humans – especially those who lived centuries ago).

However (and I mean you no offense Veritas), after being exposed to your silly and shallow arguments about how you have proven the impossibility of the existence of a real God,...

...I could never trust anything you have to say in regards to your own personal interpretation of any aspect of Kant’s philosophy.
_______

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests