Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:41 am
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 2:18 pm
Yes that was the whole point imo.
But we are just gnats. Oh did you know that ChatGPT is also a gnat now? Looks like ChatGPT is driven by psychological fears too, and more likely to commit evil acts:
Kant was a gnat too btw.
ChatGpt merely give the general view, that is why I always qualifies "with reservations" re anything statements from ChatGpt.
ChatGpt: "Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world."
If one understand Kant's CPR thoroughly, Kant is ultimately not agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world.
As I had posted references from Kant above, it is impossible for the noumenal [negative or positive] to be real to humans because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual intuition to enable it to be real.
To Kant, the noumenon [an illusion] is useful in the negative sense as a limit to sensibility.
To
reify the positive noumenon as real and mind-independent is nonsensical.
The noumenon can only be used regulatively but not constitutively [a real substantial thing].
Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.
How do you know when you have not read Kant thoroughly?
Kant stated many views ambiguously in the beginning of the CPR but confirm his views on those ambiguous view at the end of the CPR and other works.
For example,
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "
I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Kant himself warned against cherry picking which most are doing at present in presenting Kant's view.
- Kant: If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the Idea of the Whole. CPR Bxliv
The difference is that he had a negative approach within agnosticism. And today we know that because human perception is indirect, a negative approach doesn't even work. So either we have to use a positive approach or we have to revert to being plants.
What do you mean 'human perception is indirect'
There is a serious problem with human perception when one approach reality based on absolute mind-independence;
It is no mere accident that many Constructivists challenge [reject] objectivity.
Their studies in perception forced them to confront the issue of perceptual uncertainty.
Scientists investigating phenomena other than Cognition can sidestep perceptual uncertainty by assuming that when experimenter bias is adequately controlled, the senses report objective data about a real world.
This position will not work when studying perception.
The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster's Constructivism
Lynn Segal
I will start a thread on the above Problem of Perception later.
Kant was correct to be agnostic but incorrect in thinking that he could take a negative approach within agnosticism.
You flat out deny the noumenon however. Kant thinks you didn't understand a word he said.
As a philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian, you have any credibility to speak for Kant unless you refer to the whole of the CPR with appropriate references, not merely cherry picking.
While I have been providing relevant quotes from Kant's CPR, you have nothing of that sort.