The exchange above is a perfect illustration of the pattern that has taken over this thread for a long time. It exemplifies your incompetence at doing philosophy, unable to leave the dogmatism in which you're stuck. You see, while I presented an argument that contains clear elements of falsifiability, your reply (as always) is only concerned with doctrinal compliance ("this is not what the sacred texts suggest"), instead of trying to prove the argument wrong. Compatible with that approach is the common claim: "you're ignorant of the sacred texts". Add to that the (silly) idea that the sacred texts are so sacred that their secrets are revealead only to the lucky few who dare to take the mystical path towards conversion. Note that academic accreditations are summarily dismissed, they are not even relevant, and scholarly references only work as confirmation of the sacred doctrine in purely canonical fashion, ignoring anything else that does not belong to your philosophical Karaoke list. Bunge? Bhaskar? Sellars? Meillassoux? They are not part of the canon, so why bother. If they were, they would be sacred texts, too, but they have not been officialy accepted.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:29 amYou are ignorant on the above.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:36 pm Also, as I explained at the beginning of this thread, there's a difference between the epistemological stance that commits to the view that we cannot now HOW things really are and the one that is committed to the view that we cannot know WHAT things really are, i.e. whether they truly exist outside of minds or not (it is common knowledge that it is still debated whether Kant embraced one or the other or if he remained ambiguous on that matter).
Anyway, I have argued extensively about how the implications of the mentioned first stance ultimately defeats anti-realism in its own grounds.
Kant’s position is very clear based on his Copernican Revolution as a 180 degree turn from that of traditional metaphysics and philosophical realism.
All the Kantian dogma in the world will not make you, however, competent to settle the debate between realists and anti-realists. For the simple reason that you have to hear the other side, too, but you have explicitly stated that you're not interested. Fine, keep up your dogmatism, but it will not yield better results than what is possible from it, which amounts to almost nothing. About your straw man, the claim that I endorse secondary sources as the only reliable sources to get a fair understanding of philosophical doctrines, is easily refuted by the literal statement I made on the contrary: "BOTH by directly reading Kant's CPR AND relying on scholarly sources, one can get a good understanding of the relevant aspects of Kant's main doctrines".
Worth noticing too is how you dodged the argument I made against the implications of this statement of yours: "realism treat external objects as existing outside the mind as things-in-themselves". Your reply? As expected, nothing related to the argument itself, but whether your understanding of realism complied or not with a standard definition of realism, even though that was not the point. You missed it completely.
And finally, you pretend to suffer from amnesia by demanding that "to counter Kant you have first to present his argument about the self accordance to the CPR", even though two pages were already produced in this thread dealing especifically with the problems that ensued from this statement you brought: "One consequence of Kant's notion of transcendental apperception is that the "self" is only ever encountered as appearance, never as it is in itself." As always, you managed to dodge the issue along the way with your usual fallacious strategies. My arguments, however, are still there, unrefuted.