Kant: Completeness, Thoroughness & Self-Sufficient

[Veritas Aequitas]

Which isn't the same thing as the denial of God's existence.
It's much the same as arguing that morality is an illusion. OK. It's an illusion.

Is that a bad thing?

Kant argued all ideal moral principles as in morality is objective [FSRC-ed] but ultimately illusory; nevertheless, they are useful illusions as a guide.
It is the same as the absolutely definitely 'real' North Poles which is ultimately an illusion but it is nevertheless a useful illusion as a guide for navigation.

Any claim that Polaris, or the North Star is really real is false, because it is an illusion in one sense and likely be definitely an illusion in real time; for in real time now, that North Star may not be existing as real now in real time, i.e. it could have imploded and what we perceive as the North Star are merely its historical light from billions of years ago.
BUT this illusory star is a useful illusion in that it has helped ancient people to survive via navigation, facilitate progress, find new lands and enable other positive utilities.

As with the above,
all ideal moral principles as in morality are illusory but are objective within a morality-proper FSRC as a useful illusion.
Other than the above, there are other nuanced perspectives but no need to get into them at this point.

Too bad that any use of the word "illusion" carries a negative connotation in philosophy.

That is the problem with FDP's OLP that straight-jacketed him from nuances of words that could enable greater progress.

I have highlighted evolution is full of deceptions to humans to facilitate them to survive and reproduce and I believe you also agree with this?

One example is;
When a highly charged testosterone male perceived a super sexy long haired blonde from the back, he could instantly got a stiff hard-on, but many a times disappointed when he heard a bass sound from that person, then there is a quick limp and self-embarrassment due to being deceived with an illusion [reified].

There are tons of illusions that evolution has generated in deceiving humans in facilitating their basic survival and well-being.

What Kant is doing is introducing his Critical Philosophy to understand their existence and to decipher illusions that are useful and those that are useless relative to conditions to ensure optimality.
There are certain illusions which are optimal to certain conditions but need to be weaned off when we have evolved further with greater rationality and wisdom.

Note with toddlers and children, how they wean-off the illusory Santa as their intelligence and wisdom unfold with age.
One example re adults is the illusory God which must be weaned off in the future [not now] as the average rationality and critical thinking progresses.
Another is the necessary ideology of mind-independence [Peter, FDP, Atla, IWP, et. al.] which is optimal in the past but transitioning to be weaned-off, but they are clinging to this ideology dogmatically like there is no tomorrow.

[Atla]

Another is the necessary ideology of mind-independence [Peter, FDP, Atla, IWP, et. al.] which is optimal in the past but transitioning to be weaned-off, but they are clinging to this ideology dogmatically like there is no tomorrow.

But you will never, ever give us an explanation as to why the illusion of the mind-independent world acts just like as if it was not an illusion, 100% of time, right? Why does this illusion behave 100% of the time, always and ever, as if it was real?

[Skepdick]

That is the problem with FDP's OLP that straight-jacketed him from nuances of words that could enable greater progress.

So side-step the obstacle.

If you can't change the connotation of a word in a billion heads then get a new word.

If you get rid of the skid marks in the collective philosophical underwear - get new underwear..

[Veritas Aequitas]

..

Let me know if you are able to make something out of this that might cause me to need to read it again myself.

As mentioned by AI, I believe you have missed the historical basis of 'On Certainty' and misinterpreted 'On Certainty' very narrowly as a continuation of his PI and language games.

Since you are banking so heavily on W's "On Certainty" for your philosophy plus condemning my view based on it, I suggest you reread it again.
This time consider language games as a FRSC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition] which is the case within "On Certainty".
Since you condemned my FRSC you are the same time condemning W's concept of language games which you accept as great.

[FlashDangerpants]

You abandoned your OLP thread, don't try to drag me into a discussion of Completeness, Thoroughness & Self-Sufficiency of Kant with some shit from another thread about Wittgenstein. I have no interest in the topic of this thread.