The presumption that I seek only easy answers and have not read a lot is a low effort response on your part. — Paine

It was a natural inference on your question. Not a matter of effort.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason. — Paine

It doesn't matter what you believe in my reading of CPR. It is not a philosophical issue.
It is also not matter how many times one read CPR, if one doesn't understand it correctly, or misunderstand the whole point and picture of it, then it would be blind and empty claims.
CPR is not the only work by Kant. Kant had written many other original texts.

I was asking you to support your claims by quoting CPR. — Paine

The point is that it is not a claim that can be supported by quoting a few recondite sentences in CPR. You must read the whole lot of authors involved in the system at the time, and understand the whole picture to be able to understand the claim.

I found often it is meaningless to cite CPR in few sentences where the writings are vague and ambiguous due to the old translations. It would be far better reading the academic commentaries such as, Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth Century: 341 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 341), and Kant’s Cosmology: From the Pre-Critical System to the Antinomy of Pure Reason: 12 (European Studies in Philosophy of Science, 12).

Anyhow, if you are genuinely interested in the topic, you must also do some your own hard work trying to find out about it by your own researches and reasonings, and share the resources and your own arguments on the topic with others, rather than trying to get easy solutions just asking around to other folks. That wouldn't be much meaningful exercise to your own philosophizing.

Yes, by all means present your own arguments citing all the authors and CPR and the other Kant's original texts too supporting your points, and we will take it from there.

I agree. But to know a word is to use it, and to us either is to know it. — Banno

We have a part agreement here, which is a rare event.

...but nor does it mean that they do not! — Banno

Actually it is difficult for me to imagine what colour blind would be like without being one myself, hence the point was purely from inference. You could be right. Please carry on.

Well if your are to convince me of this I'd first have to be convinced that you understood Wittgenstein. — Banno

If one says one can use words without knowing its meanings, then he is wrong, whoever he is.

... and so on. If I ask for the red pen, and they hand me the red pen, that's not metaphorical, nor is it merely rhetorically, and it certainly isn't idiomatic. It's pretty much literal and extensional. — Banno

They must have been acquainted with something other than "red" to be able to do that by habit or guessing. That doesn't mean they know what "red" is. Their use of "red" could be based on the high chance of fluke guessing.

Is there a place in the CPR where "experience" has a self-evident role such as you describe? — Paine

You really need to read much more than just CPR to understand what Kant was up to at the time. Read Leibniz, Wolff, and Baumgarten, then Hume and Newton, and many the other Kant's writings apart from CPR in order to grasp the full picture of what Kant was up to when writing CPR. Possible experience is what Kant regards as the domain of efficacy in our reasoning, where metaphysics is possible as a science.

Not that I’m aware. Metaphysics in Kant does not, in itself, deal with experience or its objects. It deals with how it is possible to know about them, which means, it deals with us and the proper use of our intelligence. — Mww

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? Physics cannot deal with any of these issues. Metaphysics can, and that is what Kant laid out in CPR as the principle of Metaphysics as Science.

Think on it some more. — Banno

... and Red herring, red meat of course.

So what. — Banno

Wittgenstein was wrong.

Colour blind folk do use the word "red" correctly - how can that be? — Banno

They could be using the word red metaphorically, rhetorically or idiomatically to mean something other than the colour red such as red tape, redline, red-light district.

Not everyone agrees with Wittgenstein. If you don't know what red means, how could you use the word "red"? If you are a colour blind, how could you tell red objects? For you being able to use the word red means that you know what you mean by red from your experience of seeing red via your perception, and folks describing red objects as red.

What is the difference between learning the meaning of a word and learning to use the word? — Banno

Meaning of a word is in conceptual level. Using a word is in application level. They are different.

Turns out, metaphysics cannot be a proper science given the empirical criteria of Newtonian materialism, nor can it be a science given the Kantian rational criteria of pure synthetic a priori principles, insofar as, first, Newtonian materialism already refers to the science of physics thus to attribute to it metaphysics at the same time is self-contradictory, and second, those principles belong to reason alone, and science cannot be justified by any domain the only objects for which are transcendental ideas. — Mww

Didn't Kant say that Metaphysics is possible as Science as long as it deals with the objects in our experience? For instance we can think and discuss about ideas, matters, logic and reasoning from metaphysical point of views. Physics cannot deal with these concepts. Metaphysics can. They are different types of Science.

Yep - The meanings of words are learned by using them... — Banno

The inference of the meanings are not the meanings themselves, are they?

If that were so, no one would ever learn the meaning of a word. — Banno

Nonsense. Meanings can be learnt via inferences from observations on the real world and how others use the words in social situations.

I'm wondering what the ISBN of that book is in your picture? I want to look it up and see what the difference is. — Moliere

Sure.

I think Kant is a dualist because there is the "I think therefore I am" thinking person, and the thing in itself that is unknowable. Kant fails to get rid of the thing in itself. He wants to know more, but can't. Kant can't. Poor Kant — Gregory

Kant was not interested in dualism or transcendental idealism.  His main aim was to prove that metaphysics was possible as a science.  In order to do that, he was arguing that reason has its limits to the boundary where experience is possible.  Within the boundaries of reason and experience, metaphysics as science is possible.  Objects belonging to outer boundaries of reason and experience are not legitimate objects of science or metaphysics.

That is not a proper foundation for dualism.  Remember he wrote  different versions of CPR.  Brining in some minor unclear remarks on dualism in CPR doesn't mean he was a dualist. He also wrote many other original texts apart from CPR, and his academic life gets divided into different stages during his life.

His ideas and thoughts have gone through different forms and beliefs. It would be too simple and naive to claim Kant was a dualist or idealist or realist just by citing a few ambiguous quotes from CPR.

  Kant was very much into Newtonian Physics too.  Believing in two different worlds for Kant would have been impossible for his academic interest and beliefs.

I read the books, not the commentary on them. Skip the middle-man, donchaknow. Translators being subject to peer-review critique, so out of my cognitive jurisdiction. — Mww

I try reading them both, but try to come to my own interpretation from my own reasoning which may or may not be correct. But if it is not resonating with my own reasoning, then I just move on.

If you say so. — Mww

That is just my view which might not be 100% correct. I invite counter arguments on it as always. :)

Of course not. He’s dead. — Mww

It seems daft view to say there are two worlds. I don't believe Kant would have said it.
There were miriad of Kant commentators who were making unfounded interpretations on Kant's ideas.

It boils down to a simple common sensical logic that just because we see the world in two i.e. the known and unknown, the world itself is two is not the case.

If we do it, then it would be because of the faults in our perception or the limit of our reasoning which gives us that illusion. The world is one, and there is only one world and one universe. I believe this is what Kant meant.

Now we have already declared ourselves for this transcendental idealism from the outset. Thus our doctrinea removes all reservations about assuming the existence of matter…”
(A370, Guyer/Wood, 1998) — Mww

It would help if you could define what dualism is in philosophical sense, and elaborate under what account / sense Kant was a dualist.

“…The transcendental idealist, on the other hand, may be an empirical realist, or, as he is called, a dualist, that is, he may admit the existence of matter (…) — Mww

“…. The transcendental idealist, on the contrary, can be an empirical realist, hence, as he is called, a dualist, i.e., he can concede the existence of matter (…) — Mww

Are they direct claims of Kant? Or are they interpretations of the commentaries? Anyhow, they both sound unclear and ambiguous on their claims.

Just because someone admits the existence of matter doesn't entail that he is a dualist, does it?

Kant’s worldview is a dualism. — Mww

Why would it be the case?

He admitted to being a dualist, — Mww

What was his exact words?

I keep seeing a need for "meaning" in order to give a convincing account of how intension works. — J

One cannot use words without knowing the meanings.

I am reading the thin book with tiny printing "Science of Logic" - it hurts eyes due to the small prints in the pages but makes the book cheap, thin and light. This book has no information on the book apart from it says "Science of Logic by Georg Hegel, Printed by Amazon". For the commentaries, Rosen and Painz books seem good.

It will be very slow progress due to my intermittent and sporadic reading on them because I am also reading on some other subjects for my works which is ongoing. The Hegel books were dug out from the cupboard because of this thread just to see what Hegel books I got. I forgot even I had them, but nice to know I still got them. :)

Yes. You should know some of Kant before reading Hegel — Gregory

In that case, I am not sure if Hegel was understanding Kant properly. Because from my view, it is not clear that Kant's world view was dualism. What Kant said was that our knowledge can only give us understanding to the point of our experience, and that is the limit our reason.

It was rather setting the limit of our reason in dealing with the world, rather than claiming that the world is divided into two different worlds. That is no contradiction. Hence it appears to be misunderstanding on Kant to say that Kant was a dualist, and his world view has a contradiction.

The dualism between mind and body is real in Hegel, but at the completion of Spirit all is One, as it always was. — Gregory

The concept "spirit" is too abstract if not unclear and esoteric in Hegel. Does it contain both mind and body? Or is it some disembodied entity? Or is it something which instantiates when body dies?

This result, grasped in its positive aspect, is nothing else but the inner negativity of the determinations as their self-moving soul, the principle of all natural and spiritual life." Science of Logic, Introduction — Gregory

"self-moving soul, the principle of all natural and spiritual life" needs explanation for its meaning and ontological and metaphysical nature. Does Science of Logic do that?

True, Kant's expositions in the antimonies of pure reason, when closely examined as they will be at length in the course of this work, do not indeed deserve any great praise; but the general idea on which he based his expositions and which he vindicated, is the objectivity of the illusion and the necessity of the contradiction which belongs to the nature of thought determinations: — Gregory

Would it be the criticism on Kant from Hegel's point of view?

Hegel tried to bring contradiction into a non-dual unity where there is no room left for contradiction. — Gregory

Why does Hegel try to avoid contradiction and dualism? Are contradiction and dualism unacceptable faults in philosophy?

The point I was making regards standards of citation. — Paine

Yes, I agree. Detailed and accurate source info for the quotations and citations are important and critical in the postings. Without them, some readers might accuse you for plagiarism.

What does "reality" mean in Hegel? Is the dualism for the world(s), or between body and mind like the Cartesians?

We create the world (philosophy), and the world thru atoms make us (science) — Gregory

Do we create the world? How do we do that?

Are you questioning that Hegel is an idealist? Most scholars say he was. The world is universals and we are Idea. — Gregory

What about we as matter and bodies?

Of course. Hegel claimed Aristotle as his own, — Gregory

Rosen says it is impossible to understand Hegel without understanding Plato and Aristotle. Do you agree? Why is it the case?

My Hegel books.

Ok, good idea. Will update soon.

Which Hegelian text are you referring to? There are at least three your description could be pointing to.

How about quoting some text so that the context can be appreciated? — Paine

I have Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, Phenomenology of Spirit and some other books too. I need to get back to reading them. I did read a couple of introductory books on Hegel long time ago, so most of them are faded away from my memory. Need to refresh searching and looking for the books somewhere in the cupboards. This is not a Hegel thread, so maybe if someone starts one on Hegel, I would follow. I am only a learner, hence would be for studying mostly reading and asking if any questions arise.

After getting better at reading his works, it felt as if i could predict what each next paragraph would be about. — Gregory

I feel Hegel is an important and significant philosopher, and was planning to read his original texts sometime. His metaphysics, and philosophy of religion were interesting. But Science of Logic sounds interesting too. Look forward to discussing on Hegel sometime in the near future with you and others who are interested in Hegel too.

Reason, in Kant, is a generalizations of the various powers of judgment which ultimately want truth. — Moliere

In Logic Lecture book, it says logic is derived from reason. and is is a doctrine, it provides rules / it is a demonstrated theory. It contains the ground for passing judgements as to whether something is true or false. -pp.432