Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:47 am
Your Bible Analogy is a bad one in this case.
Rather here, the case is like I am very familiar with Quantum Mechanics [have done the necessary work, i.e. spent 3 years+ researching Kant full time and is refreshing it at present], while you have not read Kant thoroughly at all while only relying on secondary sources. If you are off tangent with QM [Kant’s], thus I have the credibility to say so.
I couldn't help but let out a good guffaw when I read this. I mean, you're so out of touch of reality, which actually is nothing strange, considering your active pursue of nonsense as a general state of mind. In any case, I already dealt with such ridiculous claims before. First, the idea that Quantum Mechanics is somehow the scientific proof of Kant's antirealism is completely false. At best, being extremely tolerant to speculations in physics, QM could inspire thoughts in Kantian philosophers, but that's about it. That still remains as a philosophical (anti-realist) interpretation of physical phenomena, done with the filter of Kantian epistemology. It has to be that way, because the idea that something out there is REALLY happening with REAL particles and demonstrates how REALITY is, is counterproductive to anti-realism. On the other hand, QM physics and physics in general is the natural research environment for realism and materialist ontology to thrive, and such advantages give very narrow chances for the development of idealist philosophies based on physical sciences, and all you get is complete goofballs like Chopra talking garbage. There's simply no anti-realist science, that is an oxymoron.
I was not VERY clear with the above.
I did not and assert,
- the idea that Quantum Mechanics is somehow the scientific proof of Kant's antirealism
This is typical of your lack of depth and broadness in knowledge, thus the conflation.
It is meant to be the second point you mentioned below.
Secondly, that silly argument of yours that runs like this: "I have read books that make me an expert in a subject, while you don't" was thoroughly debunked several pages back in this thread.
I take it that not being able to deal directly with my arguments forces you to resort to this kind of talk, but please...it would not convince a toddler.
Have you read enough books to settle the debate on realism/anti-realism?
So, at least you must have read ALL of materialist philosophy, including Bunge's complete works, and researched all of realist literature and critical realism, not just relying on secondary sources, to have a say on realism and materialism, wouldn't you say so?
Since works like A Realist Theory of Science, After Finitude, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man, to name a few, represent a challenge to Kantian philosophy, they should have been part of your "extensive research", yet no mention of what that "research" has produced. No mention because you haven't done that, you have just read Kant and believe dogmatically that his work contains all the truths. The Bible analogy is a pretty good one to apply in this case.
Debunked?? That is only within your narrow-minded view.
Note, this discussion is specific to Kant’s Philosophy, i.e. his Critique of Pure Reason.
Your ignorance in thinking Kant’s CPR is just like any other Philosophical text exposes your range and depth of philosophical knowledge.
Generally within the philosophical circle, Kant’s CPR is a very and most complex text within Western Philosophy which is complicated by the way he wrote the texts.
Many have stated it takes 3 years full time or 5 years part time to fully understand [not necessary agree with] Kant’s CPR taking into account one has to cover all his other related works to the CPR. I know because I have gone through that problem, then the solution.
Do you deny this and can prove otherwise?
If you have not done the above or even half of it, then it is likely you don’t have a good grasp of Kant’s CPR [and the related issues we are debating] and this is reflected in all your responses.
Despite your handicap, my discussion with you is merely as a sort of motivation and impetus to refresh my own knowledge of Kant’s CPR – a very rare chance in forums.
If you persist it may be a gain of Kant’s CPR [not necessary agree with] to yourself.
You can bet, I have done extensive research on the debate between realist and anti-realist and believe I have covered most the critical texts related to it.
Mario Augusto Bunge?? What is so special about Bunge that is different from others. Give me his most famous references and links to his work. Where is he mentioned as a
reputable philosopher in relation to the other great philosopher?
Since I am heavily into Kant’s work, obviously I MUST and have covered ALL the significant counters to his Philosophy. The books you mentioned are not significant else they would have been brought to the fore in the discussions of Kant’s Philosophy.
Note my knowledge of Kant's is reinforced with critical knowledge from Eastern Philosophy.
Extensive??
The Folder on Kant in my computer contains >2200 files in 103 sub-folders. I would welcome your suggestions on any aspect I could miss as my mission is to ensure I had covered all significant grounds re Kant’s CPR and his philosophical works, so no one can accuse me of being ignorant re Kant's CPR.
Third, no matter how hard you try to claim a monopoly in understanding Kant's CPR, the fact is that I already proved you failed miserably on that strategy, since I presented Kant scholarship that directly contradicted your views and supported mine.
Your response was, of course, to completely dismiss that scholarship with no other tool than your non-authoritative opinion (the reason why you feel you must emphasize that you become an authority by just reading the CPR over and over, which is ridiculous) and when pressed, rely on other scholarly sources, even though you have been claiming no other "secondary sources" are needed.
In any case, your defense mechanism now is to claim that one should first get Kant right before determining whether Kant's doctrine holds water or not. While that is true, it is also true that what Kant meant to say is still a matter of debate, given its problematic "architectonic", it has not been settled and probably never will. 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. So, it is a lame excuse to avoid debating points just because every time an argument conflicts with Kant's doctrine, you assume the dogmatic position of a doctrinal judge and dismiss the whole issue with vague references to doctrinal purity, without providing further "technical" arguments.
Your thought that I had failed is due to you viewing from your limited knowledge of Kant’s CPR.
Since Kant’s views are so contentious, depending on secondary sources will not work in this case, so you need to take into account this limitation if you insist to do so in relying on secondary sources.
Note there are tons of philosophers disagreeing with Kant, mostly analytic philosophers [Bennett, Wash, Guyer, etc.] and there are those [Allison, Grier, Bird and others] who counter they [anti-Kantian] are wrong and often on the basis of not fully understanding Kant’s original intention.
Take your statement that "realism treat external objects as existing outside the mind as things-in-themselves".
What is implied here is that "a realist subject treats things that appear to their senses as REALLY existing outside the mind, which they don't". Yet, the anti-realist has no way to prove that they don't, all he can say is that he can doubt it.
Note I have already linked this a “1000” times,
- Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views..
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
The above is the essence of what is “realism” [Philosophical, etc.] and note ‘realism’ cannot stand on its own without the above definition which cover critical realism, indirect realism and all relevant realism, where proponents will argue tooth and nails for their stance.
If it not the above, then, you are on the anti-realists’ side.
Kant's Empirical Realism is similar in general but with a different twist.
In any case, your defense mechanism now is to claim that one should first get Kant right before determining whether Kant's doctrine holds water or not. While that is true, it is also true that what Kant meant to say is still a matter of debate, given its problematic "architectonic", it has not been settled and probably never will.
Yes, what claimed is being debated, but from my perspective that is because those who contested Kant’s view do not understand Kant’s original point. Rather they have a confirmation bias with the Transcendental Realism view.
Note I stated this is also a psychological issue re existential crisis which need to be taken into account.
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.
You are ignorant on the above.
Kant’s position is very clear based on his Copernican Revolution as a 180 degree turn from that of traditional metaphysics and philosophical realism.
Among other things, because the subject, which is still an object, is treated (inadvertently) by the anti-realist subject as REALLY existing and having properties outside the mind.
It pushes them towards subjective idealism and solipsism, but the effort to leave that trap takes them to take realist positions, which is self-defeat.
Again you are ignorant of Kant’s position re the Self and Apperception.
To counter Kant you have first to present his argument about the self accordance to the CPR and then counter his views appropriately. Your above is merely a strawman based on guess work.
You can open a new thread to counter Kant on his concept of the Self.