Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am
Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.
Your fallacy is ... Appeal to logic.

Logic has no ability, power or authority to decide on such matters..

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:49 pm
if legitimate, should have no problem giving measurement and definition to the void.
Here is an example of how to use double-negation with void constructively: https://rufflewind.com/2016-12-11/doubl ... limination

And here is an answer an answer by Bartosz Milewski on explaining why that's the case

In the world that has no bottom, the negation of t is t->Void.

He's basically arguing anti-foundationalism. From an empty foundation - anything follows. The truth that every philosopher knows, but refuses to acknowledge.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:56 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:09 am
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:).
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you are claiming that the English dictionary is "demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect" ? A truly poor attempt to hide your ignorance behind faux-eloquence.

In any dictionary the definition of 'perception' points to 'senses', and the conventional definition of 'senses' accounts for five of them: smell, hearing, taste, touch and sight. If you refer to Wikipedia you might expand this list to 15 or so senses.

And now for the kicker... Which of those 5 or 15 senses are you using to "access your memories". None of them? Well fuck! If you aren't using any of your senses then how are you accessing your memories?!?!?!

It should be trivial to recognise then (even for somebody as ignorant as you) that you are using the word sense UNCONVENTIONALLY, which is rather ironic since you are the one who's throwing the dictionary at us.

If you were to actually use the word "sense" conventionally and constrain its meaning in the way the dictionary insists it ought to be constrained then you have no choice but to admit that however you access your memories, it is NOT via your senses.

So I shall continue to double down on my well-informed (as in physical information) position :wink::wink:

I have no idea how I access my memories. Whether it's via my "senses" or via quantum teleportation. It's not even relevant - the fact is that I do have access to them. As do you.

You are so bogged down in philosophical contrarianism that you are even confused about the fact that you are actually agreeing with me.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am
What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.
You can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.
Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.

One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.

If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
You are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.

Even if by God you just mean the "Abrahamic Gods" (which totally wasn't obvious so far), we can't be sure that for example Allah isn't the one real god.
Last edited by Atla on Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:24 am

Your above is natural to higher common sense which is useful.
With the philosophy-proper the above higher common sense is not tenable at the finest level.

To be more complete;
  • 1. Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
    2. There is no 1.
This is reflected in the Buddhist tetralemma;
  • 1. p
    2. non-p
    3 both p and non-p
    4. Neither p nor non-p
to add;
  • 5. none of the above
The normal mind just cannot accept the above, so the question is how to deal with the above "lemma" cognitive dissonance and still 'be'.
The optimal way is going back to making positive statements like the world exists. While "there are no 'things' with essences of their own" still holds.

Besides I reject such contradiction
Where is your argument for that rejection?
You are applying common sense.

Note the Law of Non-Contradictio is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.

In the above case of the tetralemma, it involves the shift in perspective, i.e. sense appropriately.
  • E.g. A diamond gem and a piece of charcoal are different, not the same.
    But in a different perspective, i.e. in term of atoms, they are the same, i.e. C - Carbon.
Doesn't make sense to me either.
To do some sensible philosophy, we need the objective/absolute perspective and relative perspectives.
But you seem to have no objective/absolute perspective, you just seem to be randomly jumping between relative perspectives and they are even rather disconnected. So essentially you just make up what you want.

Science has been so extremely successful because the known universe DOES work like clockwork, so it's compatible with the ideal of the objective perspective.
Last edited by Atla on Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am
Note the Law of Non-Contradictio is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.
The "law" of non-contradiction is not a real law. It's an axiom of language. it's a s not a limit imposed on you by the universe. It's self-inflicted.

Worse yet, even as an axiom it's meaningless because the very notion of "same time" is ambiguous. Is time continuous or discrete?

If time is discrete, then what interval of time do you deem as "same time"?
If time is continuous then "same time" is a meaningless notion.

Therefore it's trivial to conclude that if you subscribe to the LNC you are pre-supposing that time is discrete.

Classical logic fails in a Quantum universe.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:00 pm

Hehe maybe God is tricky.. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell. :) :) :)

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:01 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:00 pm
Hehe maybe God is tricky.. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell. :) :) :)
Indeed! If the things they say about God are true, I wouldn't put it past God to be a dick about it.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:49 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:25 am
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 am
2) Since you reject the idea that there are categories, you cannot possibly allow the category of "problem", or "memory." This makes undermines everything you say and it would be a waste of time responding, because you seem to make free the right to criticise me for using categories, but seem unable to accept that you are using your own.
That is not true. In fact, I have to point out your intellectual dishonesty on the matter.
How dare you quote Feynman, you scurrilous scobberlotcher.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:46 am

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am
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?

You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . Since humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.
In your above view you are merely analyzing the meaning of each word in relation to humans understanding but not interpreting the noumenon in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.

If you read the quote carefully, it stated the noumenon has a function as a limiting concept.
The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.

To put the noumenon in perspective, the whole of the CPR is represented by the following complete CPR in terms of main sections.
  • A. Doctrine of Element
    ..1. Transcendental Aesthetic
    ..2. Transcendental logic
    .......2i. Transcendental Analytic
    ..............Book II Chapter III
    ..............Phenomena versus Noumenon
    .......2ii. Transcendental Dialectic

    B. Doctrine of Method
It is only after Kant has completed explaining and proving what is essentially "empirically real [phenomena] via the combination of Sensibility and Understanding that he introduced the concept of the noumenon to differentiate from the phenomena in Book II Chapter III of the Transcendental Analytic of the CPR.

The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility from extending into the Transcendental Dialectic; and it is therefore only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.

Note Kant stated,
  • We have already entitled Dialectic-in-General a Logic of Illusion. B349
The reason for the noumenon is thus to prevent the equivocation of sensibility with the illusion of dialectic. But there is still the question 'is there an ultimate reality within a phenomenon'.

The reason for the limiting concept is actually to limit the Philosophical Realists' view that there is an ultimate reality, i.e. the thing-in-itself within phenomena.
  • In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
    -Wiki
Kant's position at this point is,
Hold on, yes there is an empirical basis but let's not jump too fast in concluding there is an ultimate substance/reality of the said object. Since there is an empirical basis, let's label this supposedly reality the noumenon [this is an assumption or hypothetical] and then investigate further whether there is an ultimate thing, the thing-in-itself.

Kant then proceeded to 2ii. Transcendental Dialectic [logic of illusion - B349] to prove how the so called ultimate reality, i.e. the noumenon of sensibility as thing-in-itself is ultimately a transcendental illusion.
Kant proved the Philosophical Realists' view is not tenable in reality.

For Kant, the fundamental basis of reality is;
  • Sensibility + Categories + Understanding + philosophy-proper = reality


In the case of the Philosophical Realists what they are not aware is their conclusion is based on;
  • [missing ground] + Categories + Understanding [crude] + philosophy-ordinary = reality


The philosophical realists' views [yours presumably] of the noumenon and thing-in-itself as something real is ungrounded.

This was what Kant critiqued Plato;
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. B9
In support of the above Kant stated;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premises, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality. B397
This is what happened when the Philosophical Realists jumped from the assumed noumenon to the thing-in-itself - the ultimate reality of an object. They rely on their Understanding [crude pure reason] alone without Sensibility to jump to the conclusion of an Objective Reality.

If you had understood Kant, can you give an alternative interpretation to B397?
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.

What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!
.
You stated the noumenon is 'stuff' which mean something positive, i.e. a real object.
Kant stated the noumenon is merely a limiting concept which has the quality in limiting, the noumenon is a confirmed thing-in-itself.

You are suggesting I reat the context in the passage only??
Note I suggested you read the noumenon in the context of the passage, the chapter, the main sections and the whole book.
I have put the noumenon in the whole perspective of the CPR above.

Btw, I suggest you provide quotes from the book in its full context to justify your points rather than giving your own personal interpretations without support from the CPR.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:00 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am

Where is your argument for that rejection?
You are applying common sense.

Note the Law of Non-Contradiction is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.

In the above case of the tetralemma, it involves the shift in perspective, i.e. sense appropriately.
  • E.g. A diamond gem and a piece of charcoal are different, not the same.
    But in a different perspective, i.e. in term of atoms, they are the same, i.e. C - Carbon.
Doesn't make sense to me either.
To do some sensible philosophy, we need the objective/absolute perspective and relative perspectives.
But you seem to have no objective/absolute perspective, you just seem to be randomly jumping between relative perspectives and they are even rather disconnected. So essentially you just make up what you want.

Science has been so extremely successful because the known universe DOES work like clockwork, so it's compatible with the ideal of the objective perspective.
According to Popper (I agree) scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [or hypothesis]. You can't dispute this!
What is objective or absolute to Science is merely based on intersubjective consensus of subjects agreeing with one another.
There is nothing that is absolutely absolute in Science. What is critical with Science is that it is consistent in tests and they work and has utility [good or evil].

The issue with the noumenon is the claim, the noumenon is the absolutely absolute essence of a given object.
Example, if we see a table, there is a table-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the subject, i.e. the Philosophical Realists' view.

Philosophers have been struggling with the idea of the thing-in-itself of a given thing, example a table-in-itself.
Note Russell [early] dilemma, perhaps there is no table at all.
  • Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
    Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
    The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
    Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
    Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
    Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
    -Problems of Philosophy
Russell questioned, perhaps there is no table at all, i.e. no table-in-itself.

Russell in his History of Philosophy merely brushed through Kant but did not understand Kant at all.
Kant however did show there an empirical table but there is NO table-in-itself as reality, other than it is an illusion driven by the subjects' psychology.

You are struggling with your own psychology [cognitive dissonance] on this issue which insist there is an absolutely absolute reality when there is none at all.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:09 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:29 am

You can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.
Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.

One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.

If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
You are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.

Even if by God you just mean the "Abrahamic Gods" (which totally wasn't obvious so far), we can't be sure that for example Allah isn't the one real god.
Why no sense?

How can you prove,
"But that doesn't mean that God can't exist."

Will you insist a square-circle exists as real?
Surely you will answer, No!

This is the same logic I am arguing 'God' is an impossibility to be real. In addition I have brought in psychology to support my point.

What you have totally neglected is your own mind [the critical black box] and how it behaves within?

Re God I meant all types of God up to the ultimate ontological God.
I argue the full range of God [as defined] is impossible to be real except [with provision of 0.000--0001%] if one claims one's God has an empirical possibility.

For example, if a theist claims his/her god is a bearded man, tea pot, dog, monkey in the sky [or all other empirical elements], I cannot reject it as impossible because the variables in this case are all empirically possible. There cannot be 100% certainty with the empirical, but for whatever the empirical claim, one will have to bring the empirical evidence to prove one's claims before one can claim it is true.
Even with this empirical possibility, the possibility of a bearded man in the sky is likely to be be proven as real is 0.00000---0001%. This is as good as impossible.

What is critical to me is the Abrahamic God which ultimately in the ontological God.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:00 am
Kant however did show there an empirical table but there is NO table-in-itself as reality, other than it is an illusion driven by the subjects' psychology.

You are struggling with your own psychology [cognitive dissonance] on this issue which insist there is an absolutely absolute reality when there is none at all.
What cognitive dissonance? There are no observable things completely independent of human observation, obviously. But the appearance of a table IS usually and probably based on a table 'out there'.

Do you understand that we are always talking about 3 'categories' here?

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:09 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am

Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.

One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.

If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.
You are making no sense to me at all. The 'logic' is simple: we can't prove God, we can't find God, there is no reason to believe that God exists. But that doesn't mean that God can't exist.

Even if by God you just mean the "Abrahamic Gods" (which totally wasn't obvious so far), we can't be sure that for example Allah isn't the one real god.
Why no sense?

How can you prove,
"But that doesn't mean that God can't exist."

Will you insist a square-circle exists as real?
Surely you will answer, No!

This is the same logic I am arguing 'God' is an impossibility to be real. In addition I have brought in psychology to support my point.

What you have totally neglected is your own mind [the critical black box] and how it behaves within?

Re God I meant all types of God up to the ultimate ontological God.
I argue the full range of God [as defined] is impossible to be real except [with provision of 0.000--0001%] if one claims one's God has an empirical possibility.

For example, if a theist claims his/her god is a bearded man, tea pot, dog, monkey in the sky [or all other empirical elements], I cannot reject it as impossible because the variables in this case are all empirically possible. There cannot be 100% certainty with the empirical, but for whatever the empirical claim, one will have to bring the empirical evidence to prove one's claims before one can claim it is true.
Even with this empirical possibility, the possibility of a bearded man in the sky is likely to be be proven as real is 0.00000---0001%. This is as good as impossible.

What is critical to me is the Abrahamic God which ultimately in the ontological God.
Why are you projecting psychology and empirical possibilities onto the unknown? Maybe things work by magic (whatever that means), God just made our universe very structured and orderly.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:05 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:00 pm
Hehe maybe God is tricky.. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell. :) :) :)
Despite P4 is sarcasm? Your above argument is groundless and fallacious.
  • P1- God exists
    P2. Hehe maybe God is tricky..
    P3. he gave us no clues about his existence, and expects us to have the strength to not believe in him.
    P4. So when we die, atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell.
You merely throw in P1 without proofs nor justifications.
This is why the belief in God is based on faith.

The proper argument should be;
  • P1. Humans exists [self -evident]
    P2. DNA wise all humans are infected with an existential crisis and pains [proof available]
    P3. The existential pains are most effectively with the idea God exists as real [proof available]
    P4. Therefore God exists
    P3. God is tricky and whatever.
As from the above, it is more likely the idea of 'God exists as real' is psychological and driven by the human DNA.
"Proof available" if required.

It is so easy for theists to test P3.
For any theists to be forced or even in thinking 'God is false and an illusion' the theist will be automatically be triggered with mental pains of fears, anxieties, Angst, discomforts and the likes.
Some theists will even kill anyone who threatens their theism as a security blanket, this is so evident.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests