Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a clue [not the full proof] to Kant's explanation that the idea of God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a transcendental illusion.
Note 'idea' in Kant's case is specifically 'philosophical idea' not just an ordinary ideas.

• For Kant, however, 'The Idea is a Concept of reason whose Object can be met with nowhere in Experience' (L p. 590), or precisely that which does not stand in any relation to an Object.
  -Howard Caygill

The syllogism;

• 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
  2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
  3. God is a transcendental illusion.

One will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.

Here is a clue to P1;

• 1. ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
  
  2. For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
  
  3. But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397
  
  4. The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1
  
  5. 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 Objective Reality.
  
  6. These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] 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.
  
  7. They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Re P2;

• 'The Ideal of Pure Reason' in CPR
  In short, we shall be able to determine it, in its Unconditioned Completeness, through all predicaments.
  The Concept of such a Being is the Concept of God, taken in the Transcendental sense; and the Ideal of Pure Reason, as above defined [pg 489], is thus the Object of a Transcendental Theology.
  A580 B608

What is 'Transcendental';

• Neither Space nor any a priori geometrical Determination of it is a Transcendental Representation;
  what can alone be entitled Transcendental is the Knowledge that these Representations are not of Empirical Origin, and the Possibility that they can 2 yet relate a priori to Objects of Experience.
  The application of Space to Objects-in-General would likewise be Transcendental, but, if restricted solely to Objects of sense, it is Empirical.
  A56 B81

Because the 'transcendental' cannot be of Empirical Origin, it cannot be of objective reality, i.e. really-real.

Even for the above, one will need to understand each term very carefully and precisely in accordance to what Kant intended them to be.

Any ideas [general] to the above?

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is a clue [not the full proof] to Kant's explanation that the idea of God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a transcendental illusion.
Note 'idea' in Kant's case is specifically 'philosophical idea' not just an ordinary ideas.

• For Kant, however, 'The Idea is a Concept of reason whose Object can be met with nowhere in Experience' (L p. 590), or precisely that which does not stand in any relation to an Object.
  -Howard Caygill

The syllogism;

• 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
  2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
  3. God is a transcendental illusion.

One will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.

Here is a clue;

• ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
  For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
  But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397
  
  The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1
  
  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 Objective Reality.
  
  These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] 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.
  
  They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Even for the above, one will need to understand each term very carefully and precisely in accordance to what Kant intended them to be.

Any ideas [general] to the above?

If God is an illusion, and that illusion is actualized (in some form or another) through peoples actions, words, emotions, etc (ie beleifs) then that illusion is being integrated with reality...thus real.

God as an idea is synthesized into the natural order, thus acts an an underlying cause. You cannot say what is or is not a transcendental illusion without rationalizing it under a label, thus externalizing it and giving it life.

Gods are stories and myths, logic being the distillation of these myths, as these stories and myths form the psyche but come from Archetypes within the subconscious that possess it. Stories and myths control and direct people's behaviors and war between ideas is a war between gods...the theory of gravity is one god that helps us put up satellites to improve Facebook connectivity, beauty and the beast a God of romance and restoration...etc.



Kant is overrated....

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God is an illusion, and that illusion is actualized (in some form or another) through peoples actions, words, emotions, etc (ie beleifs) then that illusion is being integrated with reality...thus real.

God as an idea is synthesized into the natural order, thus acts an an underlying cause. You cannot say what is or is not a transcendental illusion without rationalizing it under a label, thus externalizing it and giving it life.

Gods are stories and myths, logic being the distillation of these myths, as these stories and myths form the psyche but come from Archetypes within the subconscious that possess it. Stories and myths control and direct people's behaviors and war between ideas is a war between gods...the theory of gravity is one god that helps us put up satellites to improve Facebook connectivity, beauty and the beast a God of romance and restoration...etc.

Kant is overrated....

What kind of sh1t is that?
You claimed to have read Kant, I don't believe you had and even if you have read, it is at best superficially.

If the illusion in integrated with actions in reality, the actions are real but it does not follow God is real.

Santa is 'real' to a child but that is an illusion.
That the idea of 'Santa' [an illusion] is integrated with real Christmas trees and toys for the child, it does not follow that Santa is really real.

The same argument goes for God which is illusory as proven above.

In any case, your above implied you are convinced God is an illusion?
If not, then provide relevant counter argument to Kant's argument above.

I anticipate you will go off tangent, so I am not expecting any solid argument from you.

[Eodnhoj7]

If God is an illusion, and that illusion is actualized (in some form or another) through peoples actions, words, emotions, etc (ie beleifs) then that illusion is being integrated with reality...thus real.

God as an idea is synthesized into the natural order, thus acts an an underlying cause. You cannot say what is or is not a transcendental illusion without rationalizing it under a label, thus externalizing it and giving it life.

Gods are stories and myths, logic being the distillation of these myths, as these stories and myths form the psyche but come from Archetypes within the subconscious that possess it. Stories and myths control and direct people's behaviors and war between ideas is a war between gods...the theory of gravity is one god that helps us put up satellites to improve Facebook connectivity, beauty and the beast a God of romance and restoration...etc.

Kant is overrated....

What kind of sh1t is that?
You claimed to have read Kant, I don't believe you had and even if you have read, it is at best superficially.

If the illusion in integrated with actions in reality, the actions are real but it does not follow God is real.

You keep throwing the word real around but it is so subjective on your part it might as well equivocate to a cognitive illusion.

Santa is 'real' to a child but that is an illusion.
Santa is real as:

A costume
A story
A myth
An old man kids sit on and ask for gifts
A spirit of generosity
A man collecting donations in a suit
A movie character
A fat old man with a beard
A red suit
.....


Santa is a symbol composed of further symbols, as a symbol Santa is real. All reality can be viewed a symbolic. Symbols are intrinsically empty forms and can be viewed as synonymous to Platonic and Jungian Archetypes at minimum.

That the idea of 'Santa' [an illusion] is integrated with real Christmas trees and toys for the child, it does not follow that Santa is really real.

The same argument goes for God which is illusory as proven above.

God is void of definition by nature...even the definition of God (one of many as void multiplies forms) is 0 according to Hinduism, Inexpressible in Abrahamic religions, Synonymous to Pristine Mind as Radiant Void in Tibetan Buddhism, Socratic Formless One in phaedrus....etc.

You say God is impossible, but formlessness is not impossible...as you keep accusing me and everyone who disagrees with you of it.

You are just an angry kid who took cutting paper snowflakes into adult hood and want to applied labels to everyone...unless you applied a label it doesn't hold for you.

In any case, your above implied you are convinced God is an illusion?
What I am saying is the God as omnipresent is both illusive and not illusive, and as illusive is does not negate Gods existence.

The argument your are talking about addresses the problem of illusion...by saying God does not exist as x,y,z you are following apophatic theology and ironically giving negative proofs. Also by saying he is an illusion, but this illusion is integrated into reality and made real, God is created thus is real.

You are trying to avoid paradoxes...and just multiplying them.


If not, then provide relevant counter argument to Kant's argument above.

I anticipate you will go off tangent, so I am not expecting any solid argument from you.
Red herring over the fact you keep applying red herrings where there are none.
False fallacy fallacy.

My argument against Kant is simple....he has no foundations, they are made up labels only he understands and the followers are just providing their own interpretations this whole argument is a cognitive illusion. Neitzche annihilated Kant unintentionally...or not.

If kant was great...then why is philosophy dying?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God is an illusion, and that illusion is actualized (in some form or another) through peoples actions, words, emotions, etc (ie beleifs) then that illusion is being integrated with reality...thus real.

God as an idea is synthesized into the natural order, thus acts an an underlying cause. You cannot say what is or is not a transcendental illusion without rationalizing it under a label, thus externalizing it and giving it life.

Gods are stories and myths, logic being the distillation of these myths, as these stories and myths form the psyche but come from Archetypes within the subconscious that possess it. Stories and myths control and direct people's behaviors and war between ideas is a war between gods...the theory of gravity is one god that helps us put up satellites to improve Facebook connectivity, beauty and the beast a God of romance and restoration...etc.

Kant is overrated....

What kind of sh1t is that?
You claimed to have read Kant, I don't believe you had and even if you have read, it is at best superficially.

If the illusion in integrated with actions in reality, the actions are real but it does not follow God is real.

You keep throwing the word real around but it is so subjective on your part it might as well equivocate to a cognitive illusion.

Santa is 'real' to a child but that is an illusion.
Santa is real as:

A costume
A story
A myth
An old man kids sit on and ask for gifts
A spirit of generosity
A man collecting donations in a suit
A movie character
A fat old man with a beard
A red suit
.....


Santa is a symbol composed of further symbols, as a symbol Santa is real. All reality can be viewed a symbolic. Symbols are intrinsically empty forms and can be viewed as synonymous to Platonic and Jungian Archetypes at minimum.

That the idea of 'Santa' [an illusion] is integrated with real Christmas trees and toys for the child, it does not follow that Santa is really real.

The same argument goes for God which is illusory as proven above.

God is void of definition by nature...even the definition of God (one of many as void multiplies forms) is 0 according to Hinduism, Inexpressible in Abrahamic religions, Synonymous to Pristine Mind as Radiant Void in Tibetan Buddhism, Socratic Formless One in phaedrus....etc.

You say God is impossible, but formlessness is not impossible...as you keep accusing me and everyone who disagrees with you of it.

You are just an angry kid who took cutting paper snowflakes into adult hood and want to applied labels to everyone...unless you applied a label it doesn't hold for you.

In any case, your above implied you are convinced God is an illusion?
What I am saying is the God as omnipresent is both illusive and not illusive, and as illusive is does not negate Gods existence.

The argument your are talking about addresses the problem of illusion...by saying God does not exist as x,y,z you are following apophatic theology and ironically giving negative proofs. Also by saying he is an illusion, but this illusion is integrated into reality and made real, God is created thus is real.

You are trying to avoid paradoxes...and just multiplying them.


If not, then provide relevant counter argument to Kant's argument above.

I anticipate you will go off tangent, so I am not expecting any solid argument from you.
Red herring over the fact you keep applying red herrings where there are none.
False fallacy fallacy.

My argument against Kant is simple....he has no foundations, they are made up labels only he understands and the followers are just providing their own interpretations this whole argument is a cognitive illusion. Neitzche annihilated Kant unintentionally...or not.

If kant was great...then why is philosophy dying?

As anticipated you are going off tangent;

I will address this point of some relevance;

• God is void of definition by nature...even the definition of God (one of many as void multiplies forms) is 0 according to Hinduism, Inexpressible in Abrahamic religions, Synonymous to Pristine Mind as Radiant Void in Tibetan Buddhism, Socratic Formless One in phaedrus....etc.
  
  You say God is impossible, but formlessness is not impossible...as you keep accusing me and everyone who disagrees with you of it.

You are not aware you are reifying God somehow or the other.

If to you is inexpressable or formless, then you should adopt Wittgenstein's position,
"That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent"
and shut up on such matters.

My point on God is with reference to those who claim God is real, example in the Abrahamic religions where God is so real, God had sent down books via messengers, answer prayers, punish sinners to hell and exhort believers to war against & kill non-believers.
In other cases, the God I refer to are the illusory God reified out of a transcendental illusion.

Instead of your usual cock and bull, I suggest you addressed specifically the Premises above and the supporting clues I had provided from the CPR.

Note, philosophy-proper [of knowledge and wisdom] is not dying.
The philosophy of Kant is manifesting in the natural evolution of morality and ethics within humanity at present. It is matter of imputing Kant's moral philosophy to made what is natural more efficient and expedient.

What is dying is bastardized academic philosophy.

[Eodnhoj7]

What kind of sh1t is that?
You claimed to have read Kant, I don't believe you had and even if you have read, it is at best superficially.

If the illusion in integrated with actions in reality, the actions are real but it does not follow God is real.

You keep throwing the word real around but it is so subjective on your part it might as well equivocate to a cognitive illusion.

Santa is 'real' to a child but that is an illusion.
Santa is real as:

A costume
A story
A myth
An old man kids sit on and ask for gifts
A spirit of generosity
A man collecting donations in a suit
A movie character
A fat old man with a beard
A red suit
.....


Santa is a symbol composed of further symbols, as a symbol Santa is real. All reality can be viewed a symbolic. Symbols are intrinsically empty forms and can be viewed as synonymous to Platonic and Jungian Archetypes at minimum.

That the idea of 'Santa' [an illusion] is integrated with real Christmas trees and toys for the child, it does not follow that Santa is really real.

The same argument goes for God which is illusory as proven above.

God is void of definition by nature...even the definition of God (one of many as void multiplies forms) is 0 according to Hinduism, Inexpressible in Abrahamic religions, Synonymous to Pristine Mind as Radiant Void in Tibetan Buddhism, Socratic Formless One in phaedrus....etc.

You say God is impossible, but formlessness is not impossible...as you keep accusing me and everyone who disagrees with you of it.

You are just an angry kid who took cutting paper snowflakes into adult hood and want to applied labels to everyone...unless you applied a label it doesn't hold for you.

In any case, your above implied you are convinced God is an illusion?
What I am saying is the God as omnipresent is both illusive and not illusive, and as illusive is does not negate Gods existence.

The argument your are talking about addresses the problem of illusion...by saying God does not exist as x,y,z you are following apophatic theology and ironically giving negative proofs. Also by saying he is an illusion, but this illusion is integrated into reality and made real, God is created thus is real.

You are trying to avoid paradoxes...and just multiplying them.


If not, then provide relevant counter argument to Kant's argument above.

I anticipate you will go off tangent, so I am not expecting any solid argument from you.
Red herring over the fact you keep applying red herrings where there are none.
False fallacy fallacy.

My argument against Kant is simple....he has no foundations, they are made up labels only he understands and the followers are just providing their own interpretations this whole argument is a cognitive illusion. Neitzche annihilated Kant unintentionally...or not.

If kant was great...then why is philosophy dying?

As anticipated you are going off tangent;

I will address this point of some relevance;

• God is void of definition by nature...even the definition of God (one of many as void multiplies forms) is 0 according to Hinduism, Inexpressible in Abrahamic religions, Synonymous to Pristine Mind as Radiant Void in Tibetan Buddhism, Socratic Formless One in phaedrus....etc.
  
  You say God is impossible, but formlessness is not impossible...as you keep accusing me and everyone who disagrees with you of it.

You are not aware you are reifying God somehow or the other.

If to you is inexpressable or formless, then you should adopt Wittgenstein's position,
"That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent"
and shut up on such matters.

Formless and Inexpressible formlessness. Saying the word God is "void" is observing the statement fof what it is an empty context....that is what we know.

No hypocrisy there.

My point on God is with reference to those who claim God is real, example in the Abrahamic religions where God is so real, God had sent down books via messengers, answer prayers, punish sinners to hell and exhort believers to war against & kill non-believers.

But God is not described now is he?




In other cases, the God I refer to are the illusory God reified out of a transcendental illusion.

Instead of your usual cock and bull, I suggest you addressed specifically the Premises above and the supporting clues I had provided from the CPR.

Note, philosophy-proper [of knowledge and wisdom] is not dying.

Yes it is and "philosophy proper"? What is that exactly? Last time I checked philosophy questioned assumptions.


The philosophy of Kant is manifesting in the natural evolution of morality and ethics within humanity at present. It is matter of imputing Kant's moral philosophy to made what is natural more efficient and expedient.

Before it was zombie brain parasites, then it what the scientific method, now for you it is Kant

Before it was anti Islam, then when people got on your back about it it was no longer Islam but now the abrahamic God...and I am getting off subject?





What is dying is bastardized academic philosophy.

Yeah and that is composed of Kant...

Off tangent as usual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Formless and Inexpressible formlessness. Saying the word God is "void" is observing the statement fof what it is an empty context....that is what we know.

No hypocrisy there.

However the concept of "an empty context" is still reifying something.
That 'an empty context' whilst is literally meaningless, it is nevertheless represented by neural activities driven by psychological impulses.
I am more concern with the inherent psychological impulses [very complex] than the literal manifestations.

My point on God is with reference to those who claim God is real, example in the Abrahamic religions where God is so real, God had sent down books via messengers, answer prayers, punish sinners to hell and exhort believers to war against & kill non-believers.

But God is not described now is he?

Don't understand your point.

In other cases, the God I refer to are the illusory God reified out of a transcendental illusion.

Instead of your usual cock and bull, I suggest you addressed specifically the Premises above and the supporting clues I had provided from the CPR.

Note, philosophy-proper [of knowledge and wisdom] is not dying.

Yes it is and "philosophy proper"? What is that exactly? Last time I checked philosophy questioned assumptions.

As I had stated, academic philosophy is bastardized philosophy.

To get to understand what is philosophy-proper we need to get to its essence as what philosophy as used all over the world, i.e. Eastern, Middle-Eastern, Western, wherever is essentially intended to represent.
Philosophy-proper in this case is represented by justified knowledge, wisdom and whatever effective tools that are necessary to sustain the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

The philosophy of Kant is manifesting in the natural evolution of morality and ethics within humanity at present. It is matter of imputing Kant's moral philosophy to made what is natural more efficient and expedient.

Before it was zombie brain parasites, then it what the scientific method, now for you it is Kant

Before it was anti Islam, then when people got on your back about it it was no longer Islam but now the abrahamic God...and I am getting off subject?

The above is very childish.

What you are complaining of me actually show the wider range and depth of knowledge I have in the various fields.
I can go into any of the subjects I am familiar with in accordance to the situations. I am still very active researching into the evil and violent ethos of Islam.

Your philosophical competence is narrow and shallow as demonstrate from your posting and the frequent going off tangent.

What is dying is bastardized academic philosophy.

Yeah and that is composed of Kant...
Off tangent as usual.

That is why I insist you are so shallow in philosophy.
How can you jumped into conclusion because Kant [or any other philosopher] is studied in academic philosophy, it must remained within 'academic'?

What the great philosophers had presented incorporate principles of philosophy-proper and they are open to any one who is interested in philosophy.

You are still off tangent and not addressing the points in the OP.

[Eodnhoj7]

Formless and Inexpressible formlessness. Saying the word God is "void" is observing the statement fof what it is an empty context....that is what we know.

No hypocrisy there.

However the concept of "an empty context" is still reifying something.
That 'an empty context' whilst is literally meaningless, it is nevertheless represented by neural activities driven by psychological impulses.
I am more concern with the inherent psychological impulses [very complex] than the literal manifestations.

And you are correct, the empty context is reifying "something"...a loop. Any context is strictly just a constant, that which is a constant is that which repeats (we see this in the scientific method with "repeatability" being the sole factor determining "truth value").

If I use the context of a box, I am enclosing something off within a walls that where beginning point of measurement you pick...it ends up back at the original point.

If I use a context symbols, the phenomenon is expressed through these symbols not just looping through themselves in finite variations, but eventually moving back to the same symbol.

If I use the context of an experiment where phenomenon x behaves as y in a time and space, the phenomenon repeats according to the variables repeating (specifically the context of "z" time and space).

Thus each context as a loop, is not only intrinsically empty as the variables it contains are intrinsically empty (must like circle A containing Circle B leaves Circle A as empty as circle B is empty), necessitates that form is just the negation of void into some loop...with even the curvature defining any object as a loop.

This applies to any field of scientific enquiry, using neurology in this case:

You are stuck going outside neurology as you are left with trying to find the neurons responsible form studying neurons...then what composes the neurons looping to form what composes the neurons responsible for study the neurons....and you end up with "meta this" and "meta that" then metaphysics...but most metaphysics is garbage as it fails to take into account that it is grounded on assumptions without observing these assumptions for what they are as assumption....

You are left with a foundation of 0 or void or subconscious, with each term being the same thing but expressed differently according to different language structures.

My point on God is with reference to those who claim God is real, example in the Abrahamic religions where God is so real, God had sent down books via messengers, answer prayers, punish sinners to hell and exhort believers to war against & kill non-believers.

But God is not described now is he?

Don't understand your point.

You say God is real in the Abrahamic religions...but God is never described...God is not defined...empty of definition. There are some "forms" he is expressed through...but all forms are empty contexts.

In other cases, the God I refer to are the illusory God reified out of a transcendental illusion.

Instead of your usual cock and bull, I suggest you addressed specifically the Premises above and the supporting clues I had provided from the CPR.

Note, philosophy-proper [of knowledge and wisdom] is not dying.

I did address your points...you want you points to encapsulate some grand argument...but they don't.

And yes philosophy is dying...you relying on Kant and reinterpreting kant... yeah philosophy is dying just like Kant is dying from being interpreted over and over again.

Yes it is and "philosophy proper"? What is that exactly? Last time I checked philosophy questioned assumptions.

As I had stated, academic philosophy is bastardized philosophy.

To get to understand what is philosophy-proper we need to get to its essence as what philosophy as used all over the world, i.e. Eastern, Middle-Eastern, Western, wherever is essentially intended to represent.
Philosophy-proper in this case is represented by justified knowledge, wisdom and whatever effective tools that are necessary to sustain the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

And they all acknowledge cycles and the vanity of reality as being intrinsically empty, they all talk about forms or emanations, they all talk about projecting or receiving "will, they all based there philosophies in the reinterpretation of the axioms of prior philosophers thus causing a language game of interpreting and reinterpreting words into different words then different words that all loop as variations of some core assumption.

One begins one assumption, another philosopher with another. They all begin with assumptions...they have no foundations except splitting these void terms into other void terms with the connection of these instrincially empty terms being the form of the argument itself.

The philosophy of Kant is manifesting in the natural evolution of morality and ethics within humanity at present. It is matter of imputing Kant's moral philosophy to made what is natural more efficient and expedient.

Before it was zombie brain parasites, then it what the scientific method, now for you it is Kant

Before it was anti Islam, then when people got on your back about it it was no longer Islam but now the abrahamic God...and I am getting off subject?

The above is very childish.

So what...you fail to realizing in your quest to be the moral bastion of truth and justice...noone cares...

What you are complaining of me actually show the wider range and depth of knowledge I have in the various fields.
I can go into any of the subjects I am familiar with in accordance to the situations. I am still very active researching into the evil and violent ethos of Islam.

Your philosophical competence is narrow and shallow as demonstrate from your posting and the frequent going off tangent.

It is simple...I am arguing basic forms that underlie all of reality...I am just spinning around in circles taking stuff and reducing it to nothing.

You are selective...I am not bias.

What is dying is bastardized academic philosophy.

Yeah and that is composed of Kant...
Off tangent as usual.

Bitching like a rape victim...as usual.

That is why I insist you are so shallow in philosophy.
How can you jumped into conclusion because Kant [or any other philosopher] is studied in academic philosophy, it must remained within 'academic'?

Real simple, because kant does not give practical life advice....his head isn't even in the clouds....it was in the cocoon of bed sheets he slept in every night, that little "loop" of cloth.

What the great philosophers had presented incorporate principles of philosophy-proper and they are open to any one who is interested in philosophy.

No they weren't they killed all ideas that came before them by putting them into words...I am just ahead of the curve and realized the pattern, if you want to kill something...you explain it.

Why do you think children go to adults for explanations? So the explanation will give light to the problem and kill it.

Philosophy lives off death and desolation...you can just smell it when reading Kant's sterile little world.

You are still off tangent and not addressing the points in the OP.

You have no points...that is my "point".

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is why I insist you are so shallow in philosophy.
How can you jumped into conclusion because Kant [or any other philosopher] is studied in academic philosophy, it must remained within 'academic'?

Real simple, because kant does not give practical life advice....his head isn't even in the clouds....it was in the cocoon of bed sheets he slept in every night, that little "loop" of cloth.

You are simply exposing your ignorance and shallow exposure to philosophy-proper which result in insulting your own intelligence.

From his Critique to Pure Reason, Kant wrote the Critique of Practical Reason [i.e. Morality and Ethics] plus other books on morality and ethics where Kant presented his model of Pure and Applied Morality/Ethics.

• This is Virtue, and Virtue, at least as a naturally acquired Faculty, can never be perfect, because assurance in such a case never becomes Apodeictic Certainty and, when it only amounts to persuasion, is very dangerous.
  
  The utmost that finite Practical Reason can effect is to be certain of this indefinite progress of one's Maxims and of their steady disposition to advance.
  The Critique of Practical Reason pg 121

The above is the principle of Kant's model and system of Morality & Ethics, where one plan with absolute secular moral standards and then strive to improve towards the ideal progressively.
The advantages of Kant's model is it starts with fixed goal posts one can improve towards rather than the movable goal posts as in the utilitarianism and consequentialism model.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is why I insist you are so shallow in philosophy.
How can you jumped into conclusion because Kant [or any other philosopher] is studied in academic philosophy, it must remained within 'academic'?

Real simple, because kant does not give practical life advice....his head isn't even in the clouds....it was in the cocoon of bed sheets he slept in every night, that little "loop" of cloth.

You are simply exposing your ignorance and shallow exposure to philosophy-proper which result in insulting your own intelligence.

From his Critique to Pure Reason, Kant wrote the Critique of Practical Reason [i.e. Morality and Ethics] plus other books on morality and ethics where Kant presented his model of Pure and Applied Morality/Ethics.

• This is Virtue, and Virtue, at least as a naturally acquired Faculty, can never be perfect, because assurance in such a case never becomes Apodeictic Certainty and, when it only amounts to persuasion, is very dangerous.
  
  The utmost that finite Practical Reason can effect is to be certain of this indefinite progress of one's Maxims and of their steady disposition to advance.
  The Critique of Practical Reason pg 121

The above is the principle of Kant's model and system of Morality & Ethics, where one plan with absolute secular moral standards and then strive to improve towards the ideal progressively.
The advantages of Kant's model is it starts with fixed goal posts one can improve towards rather than the movable goal posts as in the utilitarianism and consequentialism model.

Uh...so what...last time I checked industries and whole fields of science are built upon solving stupidity and problems...you can thank me for giving you purpose later.

Hell, even what we deem as "usefull" is grounded in phenomenon that are fundamentally "useless".

What kant created was "his model", not "model".

If virtue can never be perfect, and his statement requires a reliance upon virtue (truth telling in this case), then the statement is imperfect as well.

"Strive towards the ideal"... you mean transcendental illusion?

[Eodnhoj7]

I cannot put into words how disgusting and repulsive I find Kant's work......why? Cookie cutter labels upon cookie cutter labels with no rhythm or rhyme trying to talk about rhythm and rhyme...like a white wannabe black guy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I cannot put into words how disgusting and repulsive I find Kant's work......why? Cookie cutter labels upon cookie cutter labels with no rhythm or rhyme trying to talk about rhythm and rhyme...like a white wannabe black guy.

I bet you did not understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

"Strive towards the ideal"... you mean transcendental illusion?

Yes!

We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.
If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

[Dontaskme]

The ''God is a Transcendental Illusion'' is REAL

[Atla]

Here is a clue [not the full proof] to Kant's explanation that the idea of God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a transcendental illusion.
Note 'idea' in Kant's case is specifically 'philosophical idea' not just an ordinary ideas.

• For Kant, however, 'The Idea is a Concept of reason whose Object can be met with nowhere in Experience' (L p. 590), or precisely that which does not stand in any relation to an Object.
  -Howard Caygill

The syllogism;

• 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
  2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
  3. God is a transcendental illusion.

One will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.

Here is a clue to P1;

• 1. ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
  
  2. For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
  
  3. But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397
  
  4. The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1
  
  5. 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 Objective Reality.
  
  6. These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] 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.
  
  7. They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Re P2;

• 'The Ideal of Pure Reason' in CPR
  In short, we shall be able to determine it, in its Unconditioned Completeness, through all predicaments.
  The Concept of such a Being is the Concept of God, taken in the Transcendental sense; and the Ideal of Pure Reason, as above defined [pg 489], is thus the Object of a Transcendental Theology.
  A580 B608

What is 'Transcendental';

• Neither Space nor any a priori geometrical Determination of it is a Transcendental Representation;
  what can alone be entitled Transcendental is the Knowledge that these Representations are not of Empirical Origin, and the Possibility that they can 2 yet relate a priori to Objects of Experience.
  The application of Space to Objects-in-General would likewise be Transcendental, but, if restricted solely to Objects of sense, it is Empirical.
  A56 B81

Because the 'transcendental' cannot be of Empirical Origin, it cannot be of objective reality, i.e. really-real.

Even for the above, one will need to understand each term very carefully and precisely in accordance to what Kant intended them to be.

Any ideas [general] to the above?

You idiot. Our ideas about God are made-up illusions, and there is no reason to believe that such Gods exist at all. However that does NOT mean that such or similar Gods, in fact, certainly do not exist.

Stop trying to twist what Kant said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You idiot. Our ideas about God are made-up illusions, and there is no reason to believe that such Gods exist at all. However that does NOT mean that such or similar Gods, in fact, certainly do not exist.

Stop trying to twist what Kant said.

Don't try to insist when you have not read Kant thoroughly.

In the above I have shown God is a transcendental illusion.
Illusions cannot be real either empirically, logically nor transcendentally.
Prove to me illusions by definition are real empirically.

What is real is merely the brain engaging in perceiving or cognizing an illusion, like seeing a mirage of an oasis in the desert.