Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those who are relying on merely handwaving without arguments and justifications are exposing their low intelligence and insulting their intelligence. Any small kid can do that.

The people who respond to you - most people at PN are not interested - all have serious questions about your logic and reasoning and all of them have taken pains to post arguments, often taking a number of angles, and this includes Atla. Often many different arguments, many different angles, all trying to frame these responses in some way that might get you to reflect at least.

It seems beyond your ablity to reflect and imagine that your arguments might have any problems at all. That your semantics might have any problems at all.

Yes, people at times stop wasting time with longer analytical responses to you. I mean, if you are going to ignore critique from a wide range of posters who have a wide range of philosophical opinions...regardless, why not on occasion just be pithy.

Also, I am not sure you realize how many of your posts are clumps of assertions. Yes, you can manage to do deductive work, but again, let's remember how many different people have pointed out your problems with deduction.

Have you ever mulled over the fact that the only person who has decided to back up your positions here is Skepdick. And note: positions. He argues for them quite differently than you do. And he's called you the stupidest person here.

I am sure you will assert that if someone gave a convincing rational argument you would change your mind, but it doesn't seem to give you the slightest pause that no one is backing up your arguments, even the people who have reached similar conclusions about some things.

Ultimately this is your loss.

For a pithier version of the above...
viewtopic.php?p=657471#p657471

From the above your philosophical knowledge is not wide enough.

I am aware of these "Never the Twain Shall Meet" states;
All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
I emphasized "ALL" [with rare exceptions].

There is also the Continental vs the Analytic [Anglo-American] divide.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Ana ... Philosophy

Are you aware with the above at all?
I don't think so, else you would not have raise the above post.

My philosophical views are that of the Kantian view with 'Continental' inclinations and there are no strong pro-Kantians within the present bunch of posters in PN forum.
As such I do not expect any non-Kantian or non-analytic inclined poster to agree with me.
If all or the majority agree with my views, I will gain nothing much from lack of leverage to expand my research.

Overall, I have not gained new knowledge [if any rare] for posters from my discussions in PN.

In fact I have stated I do not want PH [a gentleman] to agree with me at all, else I would lose my leverage on him [as the sparring partner and punching bag] to expand and refresh my philosophical knowledge.
I have raised > 250 threads in the Ethics Forum where I have gained so much knowledge on Ethics for myself.
I now have >1600 files in 101 Folders in my "Morality & Ethics" Folder, all from the starting of countering PH's What could make morality objective?
You cannot sense the real gains that I [average person] had made from that??

As I had stated the philosophical realists and the anglo-american analytics are strongly driven by the evolutionary default thus they have a very strong psychological drive underlying their philosophies to the extent SOME will even kill those who do not agree with their ideology.

Being aware of the situations, I DO NOT expect those who philosophical realists and the anglo-american analytics [the majority in PN at present] to understand or agree with me. They will criticize and condemn my arguments but that is based on ignorance and in other in some cases, I may not presented my argument very clearly.

Note this case,
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?p=657778#p657778
The philosophical realists condemned my earlier argument as fallacious but that is only because they are doing it from their dogmatic p-realist ideology.
Anyone from the Kantian and with Continental incline will likely agree with my original argument.
Now I have revised my argument on the same issue which is valid [with help from ChatGPT] but of course the premises will be disputed by the other side.

So, to all PN posters, do not agree with my views other than to critique [not condemn] them amicably.
If anyone find my views acceptable, that is their discretion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy

How so?
How is it a scandal or insult to philosophy?
In philosophy, philosophers manage to discuss the issue repectfully and so far not conclusively. You can seem a partial summary of this in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on realism.
I understand that you disagree with realism, but why is the disagreement around this issue a scandal.
Can't people have differing opinions?
What is so emotional about this issue for you?

Emotional?? It is for the sake of philosophy that I raised this OP.
Did you read the OP where the 'WHY' is explained?
The 'scandal' by Kant triggered 'G E Moore and Wittgenstein [any many others] to address it.

The 'scandal' term is raised by Kant who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.
If you do not understand the issue, then your philosophical knowledge is very lacking, thus need to do more research.

Read the OP a few times if necessary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've been wondering about the distinction between what is perceived and what is remembered as perceived and how this fits in with the noumena/phenomena distinction in Kant (or in general).
Kant it seems to me is more of an epistemological antirealist whereas VA is an ontological/metaphysical antirealist.
So, Kant is saying we can really only know .......

Don't try to think what "Kant is saying ...." until you have read and understood [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly.

It is generally accepted that to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly, one need to study the CPR fully time for 3 years or 5 years part time.
I had spent 3 years full time in studying and researching on Kant's philosophy, thus I will claim I have a reasonable understanding of Kant's philosophy strengthened with my background in Eastern Philosophy.

Re Kant, even scholars with more than 40 years in studying and researching Kant disagreed on the fundamental issue, e.g. Guyer vs Allison. My background in Eastern Philosophy reinforced the foundation to Kantian philosophy.

Point is not to forget from what fundamental philosophical grounds [yours is ultimately philosophical realism] you are interpreting any philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

The above is laughable.

"noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method"
The scientific method within the scientific FSK can only infer via induction based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Your 'noumena' [positive] above is inferred [fictitiously] from the conclusions inferred by the scientific FSK based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Show me references where the noumena [positive] is associated with science in general.
At most, the noumena [positive] is used as an assumption within science.

What you are ignorant of is the 13.7 billion years of history [physical and organic] that is linked to human nature at present in 2023.

[Atla]

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

The above is laughable.

"noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method"
The scientific method within the scientific FSK can only infer via induction based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Your 'noumena' [positive] above is inferred [fictitiously] from the conclusions inferred by the scientific FSK based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Show me references where the noumena [positive] is associated with science in general.
At most, the noumena [positive] is used as an assumption within science.

Stop lying VA, you are equivocating philosophy's phenomena and science's phenomena again, and the end result is word salad which for some reason you can't see.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

The above is laughable.

"noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method"
The scientific method within the scientific FSK can only infer via induction based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Your 'noumena' [positive] above is inferred [fictitiously] from the conclusions inferred by the scientific FSK based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Show me references where the noumena [positive] is associated with science in general.
At most, the noumena [positive] is used as an assumption within science.

Stop lying VA, you are equivocating philosophy's phenomena and science's phenomena again, and the end result is word salad which for some reason you can't see.

Handwaving again to soothe your emotions, you are incapable to giving rational justifications and argument to back your claim.

Btw, science is a direct subset of philosophy until it became a specific field of knowledge.
"The word Science is derived from the Latin Scientia: knowledge. This word came into English only in the 19th century. Before that the word for what we now call science was Natural Philosophy."

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah and I think even the idea of "this second", "this moment" is based on the sensation of the passage of time. And to even have this sensation in the first place, we need memories, which are partially using noumena, the succession of the memories creates the sensation of the passage of time. A strict no-noumena approach just can't even make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to have three categories: phenomena, noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method, and other noumena. Things in this last category could then be seen as illusory / non-existent unless shown otherwise.

(And once all the confusion is cleared up, Western philosophy could finally grow up and proceed to nondualism where all categories are probably parts of one and the same reality, and of one and the same nature.)

The above is laughable.

"noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method"
The scientific method within the scientific FSK can only infer via induction based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Your 'noumena' [positive] above is inferred [fictitiously] from the conclusions inferred by the scientific FSK based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Show me references where the noumena [positive] is associated with science in general.
At most, the noumena [positive] is used as an assumption within science.

Stop lying VA, you are equivocating philosophy's phenomena and science's phenomena again, and the end result is word salad which for some reason you can't see.

He uses scientific FSKs - I'm starting to regret ever using his terminology, however charitable it was inititially - to support realist conclusions when it suits him.

[Atla]

The above is laughable.

"noumena inferred from phenomena via the scientific method"
The scientific method within the scientific FSK can only infer via induction based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Your 'noumena' [positive] above is inferred [fictitiously] from the conclusions inferred by the scientific FSK based on empirical observations of the phenomena.

Show me references where the noumena [positive] is associated with science in general.
At most, the noumena [positive] is used as an assumption within science.

Stop lying VA, you are equivocating philosophy's phenomena and science's phenomena again, and the end result is word salad which for some reason you can't see.

Handwaving again to soothe your emotions, you are incapable to giving rational justifications and argument to back your claim.

Btw, science is a direct subset of philosophy until it became a specific field of knowledge.
"The word Science is derived from the Latin Scientia: knowledge. This word came into English only in the 19th century. Before that the word for what we now call science was Natural Philosophy."

You've been caught lying again and instead of owning it you accuse someone else, and mention some irrelevant thing from centuries ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I also agree with your prior post that there are elements of faith regardless. Believing that you don't assume anything and don't use intuition and it's all just some pure deductive analytical process based on pure empiricism....well, that's just not really looking at everything your're doing.

There is no denying that are elements of faith regardless, but the degree of faith has to be kept to the most minimum.

The problem with Atla's position is he just rely on 100% faith that the positive noumena exists upon inferencing from science.
What science does is merely to accept what is beyond the empirical as an assumption, i.e. there is a real 'apple' out there independent of humans.

Kantian philosophy is not pure deductive analytical process based on pure empiricism, but what is empirical must be supplemented with Critical Philosophy [critical thinking and rationality].

• "Critical philosophy" is also used as another name for Kant's philosophy itself. Kant said that philosophy's proper inquiry is not about what is out there in reality, but rather about the character and foundations of experience itself.
  
  Kant's theory of knowledge is summed up in a statement: “Thoughts without contents are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.” or lack of one element makes knowledge impossible. The interplaying of sensibility (with its power to receive) [empirical] and understanding (with its power to think) comes about knowledge.
  
  Critical Philosophy is the exercise of critical thinking skills to clarify problems, issues and concepts. It can be conducted on a one-to-one basis, or with groups. It is the core service of philosophical consultancy.

[Iwannaplato]

Btw, science is a direct subset of philosophy until it became a specific field of knowledge.
"The word Science is derived from the Latin Scientia: knowledge. This word came into English only in the 19th century. Before that the word for what we now call science was Natural Philosophy."

You've been caught lying again and instead of owning it you accuse someone else, and mention some irrelevant thing from centuries ago.

Look at the grammar....
Science is a direct subset of philosophy until it became....
Not 'was' 'is.
Also note all the missing steps in the 'argument'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, science is a direct subset of philosophy until it became a specific field of knowledge.
"The word Science is derived from the Latin Scientia: knowledge. This word came into English only in the 19th century. Before that the word for what we now call science was Natural Philosophy."

You've been caught lying again and instead of owning it you accuse someone else, and mention some irrelevant thing from centuries ago.

Look at the grammar....
Science a direct subset of philosophy until it became....
Not 'was' 'is.
Also note all the missing steps in the 'argument'.

Cheap shot focusing on grammar.

I believe the Principle of Charity is very relevant in this case.
In a certain perspective, science is still and can be a subset of philosophy at present.

[Atla]

There is no denying that are elements of faith regardless, but the degree of faith has to be kept to the most minimum.

The problem with Atla's position is he just rely on 100% faith that the positive noumena exists upon inferencing from science.
What science does is merely to accept what is beyond the empirical as an assumption, i.e. there is a real 'apple' out there independent of humans.

"Assumption" and "faith" here are one and the same thing here, so as usual, nonsense from you. The noumenon is unknowable.

But you've been "kicking your own back" real hard for many years now by sticking to the negative noumenon, which requires much more faith. Now you have to explain why absolutely everything is consistent with positive noumena, and yet there are none. Your whole philosophy is based on NOT keeping faith to the minimum. I'd say you're pretty dishonest about this too.