Kant: a Transcendental Idealist & Empirical Realist

[Atla]

Now that I'm somewhat able to translate Kant into plain effing English:

What has happened is that Kant set up a dichotomy: transcendental idealism vs transcendental realism. And then he argued for transcendental idealism, and against transcendental realism.

But this is basically independent of the philosophical idealism/anti-realism vs philosophical realism dichotomy. Why on Earth did he have to name them tra. idealism vs. tra. realism then, which would create a world of confusion? Because he was unusually bad at naming things.

And VA of course can't see nuance, so he conflated the two dichotomies.

[Dubious]

..nonsensical, typical poor English from a spawn of England.

Serious question! Is it fair to say that most isms in philosophy amount to nothing more than snotisms? Can snot eventually transform all these superfluous isms into a type of philosophical emergence, leading to a final understanding in the long philosophical debate of what is truth in the guise of knowing once and for all, what is truly objective, its laser focused perspectives at once revealed ? Brains and snots have this in common! We all want to know though, sadly the snot group will have had its day with only ONE ISM surviving the inquisition, that being REALISM. It should be of major concern to the most snotistic philosphers on the site.

If the question is too snotty, kindly ignore!

[attofishpi]

Gobbledygook. (either that or my brain has got too much mucous from my nose). ..could be the latter, my cognition is shit since I fell off of a wagon.

[Dubious]

Gobbledygook. (either that or my brain has got too much mucous from my nose). ..could be the latter, my cognition is shit since I fell off of a wagon.

Well now, that is a very realistic response. It means you know yourself more than most people know themselves. Until that desired moment of revelation when the human race will seem less alien, the gobbledygook highway will remain open for business.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Being an Empirical Realist means the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense.
2. For example the apple on the tree out there exists independent of humans in one sense.
3. The oncoming train on the rail one is stepping on is not existing in the mind but external to the person's body, brain and mind.

So, tell us about the two senses (or more if there are more). In what sense are these things independent. In what sense are they dependent.
Presumably even in a coma the person still can get run over by the train. We could use the coma situation as one limit of one kind of independence.
The unaware person still affected. But however you want to illustrate the dependence and independence.
I suggest you try to avoid the word absolute since it has no descriptive value.

1. Being an Empirical Realist means the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense.

2. Being a Transcendental Idealist means
sense A ="the empirical external world is independent of the human mind in one sense" the subset, is subsumed in another sense B where there is no mind-independence.

For a person in coma [brain dead], there is no activities of emergence, realization of reality nor cognition. So the above senses are not applicable.

For a person in coma [not brain dead] but still have brain activities, 1 and 2 is still applicable because the person in coma in this case is still [if so] aware of the external world.
e.g. a person supposedly in coma were aware of what the doctors and relatives were talking.

Man wakes up after 12 years of coma: “I was aware of everything”
Martin Pistorius spent years trapped inside his body while being aware of everything around him.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... -14012015/

The term 'absolute' is absolutely relevant for my purpose.