Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:35 am
Please pay close attention to what you claim here. You're saying that it's not just 'truths, knowledge and objectivity' that are, in a broad sense, 'human'.
You're saying that 'reality'
is human, in the sense that it is 'conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge'.
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality
is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.
That's an absurd metaphysical claim, and it's certainly not what Kant argued. I suggest he'd have no difficulty with rejecting the following claims - which you simply can't address honestly.
1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
As I had stated your above syllogism is a strawman.
Protocol wise, why should I accept your invention.
I wrote earlier,
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
When I forget to mention this, you jumped in with your;
You're leaping from the correct observation that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - the whole universe, ffs! - in human ways - to the utterly unfounded claim that reality is and can only be the ways we perceive, know and describe it.
I am not leaping, as I had stated in the above, there is a prior process of emergence and realization before reality is perceived, known and described.
If you agree with the Embodied Mind thesis, then our mind in
realization reality is conditioned upon the human body which is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang.
There is big gap of knowledge you are ignorant of, but you are forced by your evolutionary default of mind-independence to ignore the above missing knowledge and insist merely an mind-independent reality [noumenal] to soothe your cognitive dissonances.
What I presented can be gleaned [quite sufficient] from the writings of Kant in the Chapter I posted in the Noumenal vs Phenomena.
Show me therein where my views do not fit in with Kant's in that Chapter.
viewtopic.php?t=39987
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Since you claim to have read and understood Kant, can you interpret the following paras;
- Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
CPR Bxvi
As regards Objects which are Thought solely through Reason, and indeed as necessary,
but which can Never at least not in the manner in which Reason thinks them be Given in Experience,
the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent test of what we are adopting as our new method of thought,
namely, that we can know a priori of Things only what we ourselves put into them.
CPR Bxviii
- 1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid.
A126
1 Your blather about a prior process of emergence and realisation fools nobody. It's mystical claptrap.
If you are not ignorant, then, seriously, I want to understand [not agree] why you think the concepts of emergence and realization are not realistic?
This experiment show a very crude example of the concept of emergence and realization that is not-mind-independent;
Hollow Mask to Convex Mask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
The wetness of water is an “emergent” property, then it is realized. This has been going on for 3.5 billion years and still is going on in the human brain.
- The wetness of water is an example of an “emergent” property: a phenomenon that can't be explained by the fundamental properties of something's constituent parts, but rather manifests only when those parts are extremely numerous. Link
There are many examples of emergence and realization.
2 Like Descartes, Kant inherited and repackaged an ancient, superstitious substance-dualism, which is why he refers to the mind, intellectual apprehension, and other such mentalist blather.
From the above, it is obvious you do not have a good grasp of Kantian philosophy at all.
From Caygill;
Gemüt is a key term in Kant's philosophy and is variously translated as 'Mind'..
It does not mean 'mind' or 'soul' in the Cartesian sense of a thinking Substance, but denotes instead a Corporeal Awareness of Sensation and Self-Affection.
With this view of the Gemüt Kant sought to bypass many of the problems of mind-body relations bequeathed by Cartesian dualism.
Instead of your usual diatribe, it will reflect better on you if you were to give some rational indications with references to justify your point.
3 We've long been constructing philosophical theories of being, knowledge - and mind itself - on nothing more substantial than a metaphor. It's sweet that your quote one of them so solemnly, and take it so seriously.
Strawman. The above is irrelevant.
You are still harping on this despite your acceptance of 'Embodied Mind'.