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

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Kant critiqued Philosophical Realism that claimed the only real things are things that exist independent of the human mind or existence of humans, is a scandal [insult] to Philosophy; in [] = mine
  • ... it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us [claimed by P-realist] (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
    and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we [philosophical realists] are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
    Kant- CPR -Preface B
In another point, Kant claimed there is no real corresponding external independent object as claimed by the philosophical realist;
  • in that it [Philosophical Realism] regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
    treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
    On such a view [Philosophical Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things,
    [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
    A371
G E Moore in response to Kant's accusing P-realists as scandalous responded with his,

Proof of an External World
  • Kant says it is a scandal not to be able to give a proof of the existence of external objects … He says that, " if it occurs to anyone to question their existence, we ought to be able to confront him with a satisfactory proof. …" CPR Preface B

    I have, then, given … conclusive proof of the existence of external objects. [It] was a proof that two human hands existed at the time when I gave the proof … It is also obvious that I could give many others … now. So that, if these are the sort of proof that is wanted, nothing is easier than to prove the existence of external objects.
However the latest-Wittgenstein in his "On Certainty" countered Moore that his proof of External World failed.

In the Preface of 'On Certainty'
  • What we publish here belongs to the last year and a half of Wittgenstein's life.
    In the middle of 1949 he visited the United States at the invitation of Norman Malcolm, staying at Malcolm's house in Ithaca.
    Malcolm acted as a goad to his interest in Moore's 'defence of common sense', that is to say his claim to know a number of propositions for sure, such as
    "Here is one hand, and here is another", and
    "The earth existed for a long time before my birth", and
    "I have never been far from the earth's surface".
    The first of these comes in Moore's 'Proof of the External World'.
    The two others are in his 'Defence of Common Sense'; Wittgenstein had long been interested in these and had said to Moore that this was his best article. Moore had agreed.
If W had agreed with Moore's argument, he would have said 'I agree with Moore's argument.'
But in 'On Certainty' W critiqued Moore's argument at length that it is flawed.

There are pro-Moore supporters who insisted the great W had misinterpreted Moore and blah blah ..

Btw, I merely mentioned W as a side-note, but rely heavily on Kant's argument that the P-realists' claim of a mind-independent reality, noumenal or thing is impossible to be real. It is delusional to insist there are absolutely real mind-independent things.

What is most real are human-based FSK-ed things arising from experience that is conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of forces since the Big Bang.

So, it is a scandal and insult to Philosophy that P-realists insist there are mind-independent things based merely on speculations, assumptions and faith without proof.

Otherwise, show me the proofs?
If none, P-realists cannot deny there are human-based objective moral facts, i.e. morality is objective in that sense.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:49 am n another point, Kant claimed there is no real corresponding external independent object as claimed by the philosophical realist;
  • in that it [Philosophical Realism] regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
    treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
    On such a view [Philosophical Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things,
    [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
    A371
1) Kant claims there is no real corresponding external independent object.
evidence...
2) it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.

Kant claims it doesn't not exist comes from
Kants says it is far from certain that it exists.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:03 am 2) it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
Well, every single one of my words/sentences represent and corresponds to a thought.

But if you are saying that your words don't... who am I to judge?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:06 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:03 am 2) it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
Well, every single one of my words/sentences represent and corresponds to a thought.

But if you are saying that your words don't... who am I to judge?
2) it is still far from certain that,
if the Representation exists,
there exists also the Object [mind-independent thing claim by P-realists] corresponding to it.

Kant overall argument is [as paraphrased];

it is certain there is no mind-independent thing, there is only the human-based FSK-ed thing.
To insist there is a mind-independent thing is delusional.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:06 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:03 am 2) it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
Well, every single one of my words/sentences represent and corresponds to a thought.

But if you are saying that your words don't... who am I to judge?
Is your grasp of logic really that bad, or do you just hope that every one else's is? :?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:17 am Is your grasp of logic really that bad, or do you just hope that every one else's is? :?
Piss-poor trolling again, Hairball.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:32 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:17 am Is your grasp of logic really that bad, or do you just hope that every one else's is? :?
Piss-poor trolling again, Hairball.
I only asked you a question. :|
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:36 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:32 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:17 am Is your grasp of logic really that bad, or do you just hope that every one else's is? :?
Piss-poor trolling again, Hairball.
I only asked you a question. :|
Did you?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:46 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:36 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:32 am
Piss-poor trolling again, Hairball.
I only asked you a question. :|
Did you?
Yes, I did, and I even left one of these "?" at the end of it, as a clue.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:56 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:46 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:36 am

I only asked you a question. :|
Did you?
Yes, I did, and I even left one of these "?" at the end of it, as a clue.
But did you ask a question for a number of different reasons (one of them being trolling); or did you only ask a question?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:57 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:56 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:46 am
Did you?
Yes, I did, and I even left one of these "?" at the end of it, as a clue.
But did you ask a question for a number of different reasons (one of them being trolling); or did you only ask a question?
My question was meant to highlight how full of crap you are. That seems like a legitimate thing to do on a philosophy forum, but I can understand why you would want to pass it off as trolling. Not that I mind; I've been called a troll far too many times to be sensitive to it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:08 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:57 am
Harbal wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:56 am
Yes, I did, and I even left one of these "?" at the end of it, as a clue.
But did you ask a question for a number of different reasons (one of them being trolling); or did you only ask a question?
My question was meant to highlight how full of crap you are. That seems like a legitimate thing to do on a philosophy forum, but I can understand why you would want to pass it off as trolling. Not that I mind; I've been called a troll far too many times to be sensitive to it.
Pointing out that words (and language in general) represent thoughts is me being "full of crap"?

My apologies. Then again you do seem like somebody who speaks without thinking.

Language is for expression and represents human thought. I figured a 68 year old troll on a philosophy forum would know this basic fact.
expression noun the action of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:10 am
Pointing out that words (and language in general) represent thoughts is me being "full of crap"?
Describe it how you like, but it doesn't change what it is.
My apologies. Then again you do seem like somebody who speaks without thinking.
What are you apologising for, and how does it relate to my seeming to be like somebody who speaks without thinking?
Language is for expression and represents human thought. I figured a 68 year old troll on a philosophy forum would know this basic fact.
Oh dear, I've descended to being a 68 year old troll now. :(
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:49 am
Kant says it is a scandal not to be able to give a proof of the existence of external objects
Then Kant was clinging to certainty where there can't be certainty. That just means that Kant was mentally weak.

In fact, there is even less certainty than that. Even all the appearances could be illusions. Deceived by an evil demon, or by a little green alien who runs this computer simulation, etc. I never really understood why someone would worry so much about the uncertainty of the noumenon, when the phenomena are also ultimately uncertain.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:49 am
Kant says it is a scandal not to be able to give a proof of the existence of external objects
Then Kant was clinging to certainty where there can't be certainty. That just means that Kant was mentally weak.

In fact, there is even less certainty than that. Even all the appearances could be illusions. Deceived by an evil demon, or by a little green alien who runs this computer simulation, etc. I never really understood why someone would worry so much about the uncertainty of the noumenon, when the phenomena are also ultimately uncertain.
I've been wondering, yes, if there is also a vulnerability to a regress in the antirealist position. For example, we have to rely on memory of perceptions. But this memory of perceptions is now treating the orginal perception as a noumenon. My memory of what I just saw is true and about something that was real (the original perception). Why is that allowed?
Post Reply