Kant

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually that is not my personal views but that definition and attribute of God is what is believed by theists.

Are you serious with Philosophy [note you are in a philosophy forum].

Here is how theologians defined their ultimate God;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
  
  The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as
  "a being than which no greater can be conceived"
  
  French philosopher René Descartes employed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being.
  
  In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept.

Read more of the above before you ignorantly and foolishly condemned my P2 as total nonsense. Woh .. what arrogance in throwing sh1t at me with you standing in front of a fast turning fan.

The theists's earlier empirical based definitions of god were countered and trashed by the oppositions [atheists and other theists]. Thus their gradually incremental definitions toward more solid definitions ending with the ontological definition as the ultimate bastion. But they don't realize they have checkmated themselves.

The only probable explanation for all the fuss above is the invidual's psychological state which I have been expounding.

Red herring, the context provided diverts other manners of how people define God and also ogonroe contexts that state God is an undefined term.

Anything that is undefinable or explainable is as good as nonsense.
In that case, anyone can claim whatever exists and if questioned state it cannot be defined and cannot be justified.

Do you have any counter argument to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not necessarily considering if the circle is made by human reasoning, but human reasoning is stuck in progressive loops trying to explain it than certain truths exist beyond individual awareness.

You're the one person on this forum who could actually benefit from spending a year reading Kant. Maybe he could make you understand that you are indeed basing your entire 'philosophy' on cognitive illusions, that's why you will never make an impact.

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

I read Kant. Tested on him in university, then years later read him on my own.

He contradicts himself, as his philosophy is rooted in conflicting "perspectives" (perspectivism).

Knowledge that is apriori is the category of a posterior, but this a posteriori knowledge proves apriori.

The only common median between both apriori and a posterior is space. It is the intrinsic variable that can be seen within both the senses and without them and as such is not only an underlying median but self referencing. Space is it's own context as all contexts required a concentric referential state...space exists through space. Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

Besides talking about how great Kant is (like the majority of philosophers), when philosophy is in its death cries, is like saying Pepperonia pizza is the best when everyone is going out for chinese.

Kant layered labels with labels and gave the illusion of knowledge but these "labels"...they are both a priori and a posteriori as they are contexts....philosophy falls apart in light of contextuality and hyper relativity.

God(s) is(are) context(s).

As usual yours is a red herring from conflation.

Note Kant defined and differentiated a priori from a posteriori,

• In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge, not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience, but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B32
  Opposed to it is Empirical Knowledge, which is Knowledge Possible only a posteriori, that is, through Experience.
  B3

The above is the basis Kant relied upon to justify his points in the CPR.

At the very extreme one can argue black is white, thus a priori is also a posteriori, but this is off tangent from the issue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Looks to me that this is how it probably went:

1. First, noumenon meant objects from Plato's world of forms and ideas, they were treated as real.
2. Then Kant showed that the Platonic world of forms and ideas is probably just a cognitive illusion, so this noumenon isn't real. But at the end he was forced to admit that another kind of noumenon could be real (just directly unknowable), that's behind sensual appearances.
3. Nowadays, noumenon just means what's behind sensual appearances. Plus all the things that don't even appear but may be still 'out there'. No one in their right mind is associating it with Plato's world of forms and ideas anymore so why continue to strawman the discussion with that?

Your 1 is wrong.
Plato came up with the world of forms, ideas and universals which encompass empirical and non-empirical things.

Kant had high respect for Plato's work but to Kant, Plato was not sufficiently precise.

• Misled 1 by such a proof of the Power of Reason, the demand for the extension of Knowledge recognises no Limits.
  The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.
  
  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.
  He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
  It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
  [A5] B9

Suggest you read the above carefully. I doubt it will sink in?

In B-xxvii Kant explained why it is necessary to differentiate what Plato came up as 'world of forms, ideas and universals' from what is related to the empirical and the non-empirical.
Thus Kant assigned the term 'noumenom' to empirical related Plato's forms, ideas and universals as a limit to the empirical world. Note a limit is not an empirical thing.
Kant then assigned the term 'thing-in-itself' to non-empirical forms, ideas and universals.

Kant stated in B-xxvii, if we do not differentiate the empirical from the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals, then the conflation will lead to what is called Synthetic a priori Judgments which is an impossibility to be real in the empirical/philosophical sense.

The Synthetic a priori Judgment is reflected in the following as a transcendental illusion;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept [non-empirical], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

From the above;
What is objective reality is confined to the empirical only.
But what happened above is, the empirical is wrongly conflated with the non-empirical [forms, ideas, universals' to insist upon an objective reality.
This objective reality is actually an illusion.

How such an illusion is deceived to be objective reality is driven by certain syllogism which is pseudo.

• These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
  B397

What is driving this pseudo-rationality in conflating and jumping to the wrong conclusion there is objective reality is due to existential psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

Example;

• P1. Created creations exists - empirical
  P2. What is created [actioned] must have a creator [actor] - empirical/reason.
  P3. All of creations [empirical] must have a master-creator [idea].
  C4. That master-creator can only a universal God. [idea]

The above is a demonstration of what Kant meant in B397, i.e. equivocating the empirical with the non-empirical in P3.
What drive P3 is psychological where the desperation is very subliminal.

From P3 then there is C4, i.e. a real God exists to the extent of commanding theists to war against and kill non-theists.

As a non-theists and more so a human being, I should be concern and contribute to deal with the ultimate consequences.
One of the starting point is to differentiate the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals as as the noumenon acting as a limit from the non-empirical ideas.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually that is not my personal views but that definition and attribute of God is what is believed by theists.

Are you serious with Philosophy [note you are in a philosophy forum].

Here is how theologians defined their ultimate God;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
  
  The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as
  "a being than which no greater can be conceived"
  
  French philosopher René Descartes employed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being.
  
  In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept.

Read more of the above before you ignorantly and foolishly condemned my P2 as total nonsense. Woh .. what arrogance in throwing sh1t at me with you standing in front of a fast turning fan.

The theists's earlier empirical based definitions of god were countered and trashed by the oppositions [atheists and other theists]. Thus their gradually incremental definitions toward more solid definitions ending with the ontological definition as the ultimate bastion. But they don't realize they have checkmated themselves.

The only probable explanation for all the fuss above is the invidual's psychological state which I have been expounding.

Red herring, the context provided diverts other manners of how people define God and also ogonroe contexts that state God is an undefined term.

Anything that is undefinable or explainable is as good as nonsense.
In that case, anyone can claim whatever exists and if questioned state it cannot be defined and cannot be justified.

Do you have any counter argument to the above?

Yes a very simple one, your rationality requires finiteness...it requires counting phenomenon through probabilities, as well as measurement so explain to me the number 1without making any assumptions that are inherently void or 0.

[Atla]

If the loop is the universal structure, thus is omnipresent as context, you cannot define accurately any of the above contexts without localizing one context out of many and leading to a simultaneous obscurity.

This is considering all contexts are intrinsically empty and have form. The basic law of identity "P=P" observes P as form through repetition and circularity and "=" being empty of any value but assumption.

1. If all assumed reality is a circular context composed of and composing circular contexts, then all phenomena are intrinsically connected by its assumed and contextual nature. All loops begin with the assumption of assumptions as the "voiding of void".

2. A dog is context. The same occurs for the 5 being a context...as well as the sound of leaves falling. Each of these contexts are fundamentally connected as contexts and as contexts exist in reality.

3. Any set of contexts, no matter how percievably random, are connected as contexts thus we understand context as omnipresent and superseding, existing through, and proceeding Kants basic aprior and posteriori thus making Kant always right in some contexts, always wrong in others but fundamentally both right and wrong.

Contexts are abstract, not "real" in that sense. You are basing your 'philosophy' on such cognitive illusions.

And while the universe is probably inherently circular in nature, and therefore human thinking is also part of this circularity, we are only experiencing a little part of these universal loop, and that little part seems linear. Human thinking is also, for all practical pruposes, linear.

So trying to put circularities everywhere into human thinking, is a fallacy.

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Red herring, the context provided diverts other manners of how people define God and also ogonroe contexts that state God is an undefined term.

Anything that is undefinable or explainable is as good as nonsense.
In that case, anyone can claim whatever exists and if questioned state it cannot be defined and cannot be justified.

Do you have any counter argument to the above?

Yes a very simple one, your rationality requires finiteness...it requires counting phenomenon through probabilities, as well as measurement so explain to me the number 1without making any assumptions that are inherently void or 0.

I don't understand your point.

As for the number 1, that is derived from experiences.
Humans observed 'standalone' objects that are independent from other similar objects.
Thus a standalone 'independent' object within a group of similar objects is assigned the number 1 to differentiate it from another which is assigned as 2 and so on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Contexts are abstract, not "real" in that sense. You are basing your 'philosophy' on such cognitive illusions.

And while the universe is probably inherently circular in nature, and therefore human thinking is also part of this circularity, we are only experiencing a little part of these universal loop, and that little part seems linear. Human thinking is also, for all practical pruposes, linear.

So trying to put circularities everywhere into human thinking, is a fallacy.

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

"Reifying"': that is the critical term in all these discussions and implied throughout the whole of Kant's CPR.

• Reify: to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify

This is reflected in Kant's B397;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, 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 [reified as] Objective Reality.
  B397

[Eodnhoj7]

You're the one person on this forum who could actually benefit from spending a year reading Kant. Maybe he could make you understand that you are indeed basing your entire 'philosophy' on cognitive illusions, that's why you will never make an impact.

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

I read Kant. Tested on him in university, then years later read him on my own.

He contradicts himself, as his philosophy is rooted in conflicting "perspectives" (perspectivism).

Knowledge that is apriori is the category of a posterior, but this a posteriori knowledge proves apriori.

The only common median between both apriori and a posterior is space. It is the intrinsic variable that can be seen within both the senses and without them and as such is not only an underlying median but self referencing. Space is it's own context as all contexts required a concentric referential state...space exists through space. Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

Besides talking about how great Kant is (like the majority of philosophers), when philosophy is in its death cries, is like saying Pepperonia pizza is the best when everyone is going out for chinese.

Kant layered labels with labels and gave the illusion of knowledge but these "labels"...they are both a priori and a posteriori as they are contexts....philosophy falls apart in light of contextuality and hyper relativity.

God(s) is(are) context(s).

As usual yours is a red herring from conflation.

Note Kant defined and differentiated a priori from a posteriori,

• In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge, not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience, but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B32
  Opposed to it is Empirical Knowledge, which is Knowledge Possible only a posteriori, that is, through Experience.
  B3

The above is the basis Kant relied upon to justify his points in the CPR.

At the very extreme one can argue black is white, thus a priori is also a posteriori, but this is off tangent from the issue.

Actually you are using fallacies as a redherring, as there is no proof it is off topic. Second your accusations are contextual and subject to the fallacy of

1. Ad Hoc Rescue (as your are trying to save your beleifs in light of the evidence they are assumptions and rely on empty contexts)

2. Fallacy of Ambiguity in light of point 1.

3. Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence, as you strictly do not have enough evidence to back up your claims empirically.

4. Fallacy of Anthropomorphism as you claim subjectivity and group agreement (other fallacies) determine not just scientific truths but also rational understanding.

5. Appeal to Consequence relative to the circularity of all phenomena.

6. Appeal to emotions as you are trying build a scientifically oriented system around world peace which is not only undefined but inherently emotional.

7. Appeal to Past Practice, as you claimed the scientific practice worked in the past (which has fallacies issues as well) but this does not prove they will work in the future.

8. Argument from Outrage; your stances are built upon a negation of specific belief systems.

9. Black or white fallacy; either your system or noone elses.

10. Fallacy of Cherry Picked Evidence; you fail to take into account the deaths science has brought forth as well as opposing points of view to Kant (and his inherent contradictions).

11. Etc. I am bored....

A posteriori is an a priori concept, a prior concepts are defined through a posteriori phenomenon...it is fallacious.

The proof is quite literally Kant's writings...a priori is described a posteriori and we are left with a posterior existing as described, thus sensory, but as assumed becoming a priori again.

Kant strictly defined the senses into a dualism of what is definable (a posteriori) and what is indefinable (apriori) in certain respects.

Knowledge independent of experience is fundamentally empty and assume, thus this set the foundation for a priori being not only "void" but the act of assumption itself and self negating.

[Eodnhoj7]

Anything that is undefinable or explainable is as good as nonsense.
In that case, anyone can claim whatever exists and if questioned state it cannot be defined and cannot be justified.

Do you have any counter argument to the above?

Yes a very simple one, your rationality requires finiteness...it requires counting phenomenon through probabilities, as well as measurement so explain to me the number 1without making any assumptions that are inherently void or 0.

I don't understand your point.

As for the number 1, that is derived from experiences.
Humans observed 'standalone' objects that are independent from other similar objects.
Thus a standalone 'independent' object within a group of similar objects is assigned the number 1 to differentiate it from another which is assigned as 2 and so on.

So 1 is a symbol that is assumed to differentiate phenomenon from other phenomenon...thus as subject to experience it necessitates subject belief and religious experience.

1 can mean an infinite number of things...it is subject to equivocation. So definition is grounded in something that quite literally is a manner of assuming reality?

One is how we assume phenomenon, thus an assumption?

So all of your logic is really just assuming things?

[Eodnhoj7]

Contexts are abstract, not "real" in that sense. You are basing your 'philosophy' on such cognitive illusions.

And while the universe is probably inherently circular in nature, and therefore human thinking is also part of this circularity, we are only experiencing a little part of these universal loop, and that little part seems linear. Human thinking is also, for all practical pruposes, linear.

So trying to put circularities everywhere into human thinking, is a fallacy.

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

Actually it is a context as it is a statement of relation...and it is an abstraction...you cannot empirically see a cognitive illusion, thus even what we deem a cognitive illusion falls within it's own definition.

[Atla]

Looks to me that this is how it probably went:

1. First, noumenon meant objects from Plato's world of forms and ideas, they were treated as real.
2. Then Kant showed that the Platonic world of forms and ideas is probably just a cognitive illusion, so this noumenon isn't real. But at the end he was forced to admit that another kind of noumenon could be real (just directly unknowable), that's behind sensual appearances.
3. Nowadays, noumenon just means what's behind sensual appearances. Plus all the things that don't even appear but may be still 'out there'. No one in their right mind is associating it with Plato's world of forms and ideas anymore so why continue to strawman the discussion with that?

Your 1 is wrong.
Plato came up with the world of forms, ideas and universals which encompass empirical and non-empirical things.

Kant had high respect for Plato's work but to Kant, Plato was not sufficiently precise.

• Misled 1 by such a proof of the Power of Reason, the demand for the extension of Knowledge recognises no Limits.
  The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.
  
  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.
  He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
  It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
  [A5] B9

Suggest you read the above carefully. I doubt it will sink in?

In B-xxvii Kant explained why it is necessary to differentiate what Plato came up as 'world of forms, ideas and universals' from what is related to the empirical and the non-empirical.
Thus Kant assigned the term 'noumenom' to empirical related Plato's forms, ideas and universals as a limit to the empirical world. Note a limit is not an empirical thing.
Kant then assigned the term 'thing-in-itself' to non-empirical forms, ideas and universals.

Kant stated in B-xxvii, if we do not differentiate the empirical from the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals, then the conflation will lead to what is called Synthetic a priori Judgments which is an impossibility to be real in the empirical/philosophical sense.

The Synthetic a priori Judgment is reflected in the following as a transcendental illusion;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept [non-empirical], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

From the above;
What is objective reality is confined to the empirical only.
But what happened above is, the empirical is wrongly conflated with the non-empirical [forms, ideas, universals' to insist upon an objective reality.
This objective reality is actually an illusion.

How such an illusion is deceived to be objective reality is driven by certain syllogism which is pseudo.

• These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
  B397

What is driving this pseudo-rationality in conflating and jumping to the wrong conclusion there is objective reality is due to existential psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

Example;

• P1. Created creations exists - empirical
  P2. What is created [actioned] must have a creator [actor] - empirical/reason.
  P3. All of creations [empirical] must have a master-creator [idea].
  C4. That master-creator can only a universal God. [idea]

The above is a demonstration of what Kant meant in B397, i.e. equivocating the empirical with the non-empirical in P3.
What drive P3 is psychological where the desperation is very subliminal.

From P3 then there is C4, i.e. a real God exists to the extent of commanding theists to war against and kill non-theists.

As a non-theists and more so a human being, I should be concern and contribute to deal with the ultimate consequences.
One of the starting point is to differentiate the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals as as the noumenon acting as a limit from the non-empirical ideas.

Well, you and Kant seem to be talking about more categories of human thinking, than there actually are.

I understand that back then this was necessary, but today this is just seen as word salad, that's why I wrote that

1. First, noumenon meant objects from Plato's world of forms and ideas, they were treated as real.
2. Then Kant showed that the Platonic world of forms and ideas is probably just a cognitive illusion, so this noumenon isn't real. But at the end he was forced to admit that another kind of noumenon could be real (just directly unknowable), that's behind sensual appearances.
3. Nowadays, noumenon just means what's behind sensual appearances. Plus all the things that don't even appear but may be still 'out there'.

And you seem to have confirmed it.

[Atla]

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

"Reifying"': that is the critical term in all these discussions and implied throughout the whole of Kant's CPR.

• Reify: to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify

This is reflected in Kant's B397;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, 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 [reified as] Objective Reality.
  B397

My OP wasn't about reification fallacies, obviously. We already consider, assume those issues to be solved. You keep bringing that in (and Eodnhoj is basing his entire 'philosophy' on it.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Holographic universe theory is "a" trend...so physics really isn't deny it. A 2d universe as well, physics isn't entirely deny that either.

I read Kant. Tested on him in university, then years later read him on my own.

He contradicts himself, as his philosophy is rooted in conflicting "perspectives" (perspectivism).

Knowledge that is apriori is the category of a posterior, but this a posteriori knowledge proves apriori.

The only common median between both apriori and a posterior is space. It is the intrinsic variable that can be seen within both the senses and without them and as such is not only an underlying median but self referencing. Space is it's own context as all contexts required a concentric referential state...space exists through space. Even our language is described in spatial terms:

Getting to the point
Going on circles
Line of reason
Etc.

As well as our emotions:
He is feeling up
He is going forward in life
She feels down
There stance goes back and forth
Etc. (I have a whole thread on this one)

Besides talking about how great Kant is (like the majority of philosophers), when philosophy is in its death cries, is like saying Pepperonia pizza is the best when everyone is going out for chinese.

Kant layered labels with labels and gave the illusion of knowledge but these "labels"...they are both a priori and a posteriori as they are contexts....philosophy falls apart in light of contextuality and hyper relativity.

God(s) is(are) context(s).

As usual yours is a red herring from conflation.

Note Kant defined and differentiated a priori from a posteriori,

• In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge, not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience, but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B32
  Opposed to it is Empirical Knowledge, which is Knowledge Possible only a posteriori, that is, through Experience.
  B3

The above is the basis Kant relied upon to justify his points in the CPR.

At the very extreme one can argue black is white, thus a priori is also a posteriori, but this is off tangent from the issue.

Actually you are using fallacies as a redherring, as there is no proof it is off topic. Second your accusations are contextual and subject to the fallacy of

1. Ad Hoc Rescue (as your are trying to save your beleifs in light of the evidence they are assumptions and rely on empty contexts)

2. Fallacy of Ambiguity in light of point 1.

3. Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence, as you strictly do not have enough evidence to back up your claims empirically.

4. Fallacy of Anthropomorphism as you claim subjectivity and group agreement (other fallacies) determine not just scientific truths but also rational understanding.

5. Appeal to Consequence relative to the circularity of all phenomena.

6. Appeal to emotions as you are trying build a scientifically oriented system around world peace which is not only undefined but inherently emotional.

7. Appeal to Past Practice, as you claimed the scientific practice worked in the past (which has fallacies issues as well) but this does not prove they will work in the future.

8. Argument from Outrage; your stances are built upon a negation of specific belief systems.

9. Black or white fallacy; either your system or noone elses.

10. Fallacy of Cherry Picked Evidence; you fail to take into account the deaths science has brought forth as well as opposing points of view to Kant (and his inherent contradictions).

11. Etc. I am bored....

A posteriori is an a priori concept, a prior concepts are defined through a posteriori phenomenon...it is fallacious.

The proof is quite literally Kant's writings...a priori is described a posteriori and we are left with a posterior existing as described, thus sensory, but as assumed becoming a priori again.

Kant strictly defined the senses into a dualism of what is definable (a posteriori) and what is indefinable (apriori) in certain respects.

Knowledge independent of experience is fundamentally empty and assume, thus this set the foundation for a priori being not only "void" but the act of assumption itself and self negating.

You are equivocating the above.

"a priori is described a posteriori"
In this case you are implying black is white, p is not-p, thus a contradiction.

Note I argued in the other thread ANEKANTAVADA
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27514
it is possible for p to be held in the same stance as not-p but only if they are presented in a different perspective, i.e.

In your above you are conflating and equivocating.

I suggest you refer directly to Kant's CPR instead of merely expressing your opinions without reference to the CPR. In this case we have a common basis we can argue upon.

[Atla]

Cognitive illusion is a context, and any emphasis on cognitive illusion is an illusion by it's own nature as cognitive illusion is an abstraction. It is a regressive contradiction.


All contexts are dynamic forms, where the form is both composed of changes (many forms) and composes further forms.

A context is strictly a self referential loop that manifests itself into an entirely new phenomenon as a loop which maintains itself.

A simple example would be 1 looping itself as both 1 and 2. Or parents looping through eachother to create a child with the child carrying on the genes of the parents. Or one particle looping with another particle to maintain both itself and the other while creating a new particle.

Etc.

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

Actually it is a context as it is a statement of relation...and it is an abstraction...you cannot empirically see a cognitive illusion, thus even what we deem a cognitive illusion falls within it's own definition.

You also reify 'relation', that too is an abstraction in this sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes a very simple one, your rationality requires finiteness...it requires counting phenomenon through probabilities, as well as measurement so explain to me the number 1without making any assumptions that are inherently void or 0.

I don't understand your point.

As for the number 1, that is derived from experiences.
Humans observed 'standalone' objects that are independent from other similar objects.
Thus a standalone 'independent' object within a group of similar objects is assigned the number 1 to differentiate it from another which is assigned as 2 and so on.

So 1 is a symbol that is assumed to differentiate phenomenon from other phenomenon...thus as subject to experience it necessitates subject belief and religious experience.

1 can mean an infinite number of things...it is subject to equivocation. So definition is grounded in something that quite literally is a manner of assuming reality?

One is how we assume phenomenon, thus an assumption?

So all of your logic is really just assuming things?

Where did I mention 'assumed'.

The significance of the symbol 1 is representing a mathematical concept of 1.
It is the mathematical concept of 1 that enable its reality as the emerged single empirical object.
One apple is really one apple which can be eaten. Such a 'one' is not assumed.