Because Kant allowed the illusion of God to continue for another 100 years or so. He was essentially just a Christian with his metaphysics. — Vaskane

Understandable. Nietzsche was an atheist.

So the question ought to be inverted. What are the grounds for believing that we are perceiving nothing, perceiving the extraterrestrial, or perceiving nothing at all? — NOS4A2

The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?

Or when we are not perceiving the objects we have been perceiving, due to not being present in front of the objects, what are the grounds for us keep believing the unperceived existence?

The idea that we can stop perceiving the world is a troubling one, but remains at the core of anti-realism. — NOS4A2

Not exactly anti-realism, but more to do with Academic Scepticism?

We’ve diverted from transcendental ideas, to distinctions in judgement. Was there a point in doing that? Did we just move on? Get lost? Lose interest? — Mww

No no, I was just responding to your points. :)

You say reading in English got comfortable for you. I am not really sure how the philosophical scene is in East Asia or in languages like Japanese or Korean. Thinking that your native language is Korean, don't you think you would benefit from reading in it, even with less material published in it? And for that I will quote Nietzsche like Vaskane did: — Lionino

I tried reading Philosophy in Korean which is my native language, but it was actually more difficult to understand. I think problem is the translation.

Likewise, how could the English language, alien, communicate to you in the same way that Korean, transporting concepts to you since a child, does? — Lionino

I have been using English since middle school times in the American High school in Indonesia, and have been reading in English for many years, and worked with English native speaking people, so it became like my main language now. It is not still perfect, but I would say it is par with my Korean.

Otherwise, I, like everyone else, also read philosophy articles written in English, as many important scholars of philosophy today write in English on peer-reviewed journals. But when it comes to classics, I believe that Korean has translated more in philosophy (Kant, Plato, Leibniz) than you could ever consume. — Lionino

Yes, almost every book in English has translated copy in Korean, and Philosophical academic interest in Korea is very high. There are people who are interested in the Western Philosophy, also Eastern Philosophies and Religious studies such as Buddhism. There are many seminars and study groups in the country with ardent passion and enthusiasm. There are internationally well known scholars such as the late JG Kim (USA), and a few working and teaching in Europe (UK and Germany). Here is the Korean Prof. H. Chang (Cambridge University UK ) presenting his paper on Realism.


There are many Youtube channels run by Koreans with Philosophical topics, which I watch sometimes.

This is a youtube channel run by a New Zealander working in Korea. He seems specialising in the continental philosophy. He has many Korean followers.

Intuitions (Kantian). — I like sushi

As you have suggested, intuition implies connection to knowledge, and indeed it is faculty for knowledge. Not imagination. Imagination is a faculty of its own. The nature of imagination is its freedom from the other mental faculties.

Note: I suppose we may have some other faculty yet to be unearthed. — I like sushi

What does Kant say about it?

Einflusse, den Kant auf die deutsche Philosophie ausgeübt hat, den Blick abzulenken und namentlich über den Werth, den er sich selbst zugestand, klüglich hinwegzuschlüpfen. Kant war vor Allem und zuerst stolz auf seine Kategorientafel, er sagte mit dieser Tafel in den Händen: "das ist das Schwerste, was jemals zum Behufe der Metaphysik unternommen werden konnte". - — Vaskane

Why did Nietzsche renounce Kant?

The propositions are always a priori constructs; the proofs for them, on the other hand, are always empirical. — Mww

Propositions have bivalent values either true of false. 5+7 itself is not a proposition until you add "="
and come up with 12. 5+7=12 is a proposition.

Peruse the section in CPR on pure/impure a priori knowledge, A2/B3. — Mww

Sure, here is B3 from CPR.

"By the term “knowledge à priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is possible only à posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge à priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge à priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience." - CPR B3

If we look at, "5+7", it is not a knowledge, proposition or anything on its' own. It is just a sense data. To the tribe man who never saw numbers, 5+7 would appear some mysterious symbols. And what was too heavy basket for him would be too light for his friend who trained in the gym for weight lifting.

It is only when you see the sense data and applied A priori and synthesise, you get the answer 12, which is a synthetic a priori knowledge. Would you not agree?
"5+7" is the simplest example for the demonstration. The logic will be more obvious if we look at the complex Calculus, Trigonometry or Geometry proof examples.

Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will know a priori, that there’s too much in it. And you’re right, in that he won’t care about the math, until he wants to know how much is too much. — Mww

Wouldn't he only know there are too much fishes in the basket, when he tries to lift it first? :) Just by looking at the basket, he would only be able to guess. But most importantly before all that, he must see the basket with his eyes to know, it is the basket which belongs to him.

We can imagine only what we are capable of imagining. Beyond that … well … you get the idea (or rather not!) which is the entire - obvious - point. — I like sushi

So what is the boundary of our imagination? How do you define the line between possibility and impossibility of imagination? Do we all have the same capability for imagination?

One shouldn’t mistake rote classroom instruction, for innate human intelligence. — Mww

I know what you are trying to say, and it is all over in the textbooks too. But that is the part I don't agree with. There are the tribe people who live in the jungle all their lives hunting and foraging for food, and never come across mathematics in their whole lives. They don't know what numbers mean, never mind math. Experience and education must synthesise with A priori to yield knowledge.

Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. But that depends on the nature of the judgement. A simple judgement, re: “the world exists”, is illicit on the one hand because existence adds nothing to the conception of world, and on the other, it is false insofar as world is not even a thing that exists. — Mww

:cool: :up:

We know of of nothing prior to experience. — I like sushi

I agree with this. There is no blind mathematician from birth unless he has been taught by someone.

So there are no blind mathematicians? — Wayfarer

No, unless he was taught by non-blind teacher.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course. — Corvus

It was a logical conclusion from the premises.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course.

Solipsism has a varied history, so…best be careful with the concept generally employed.
———— — Mww

OK, I am not denying, but trying clarify your points. It is interesting to see different points from the traditional commentary book opinions.

The reconciliation of the illusion, is don’t say a thing exists when it is impossible to know what it is. — Mww

So, it was illusions on their part, when the vulgars were shouting jumping up and down saying why on earth you doubt and ask for proof of the world existence. According to you, the world doesn't exist. It has never existed. There was no reason to believe in existence of the world. Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct?

How so? ‘Sensible’ objects are those perceived by sense. Numbers are not perceived by sense. — Wayfarer

Yeah, most people think that way, but I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper, or ears hear the sounds asking by someone, or see some external objects such as 5x apples and 7x oranges, you don't carry out the math. Just to emphasise the sense input is important in all mental process.

If you care to say what languages you speak/understand, I may be able to give some suggestions. If you don't want to for privacy reasons or any other reason, that is fine. — Lionino

Thanks, yes no problem. I have picked up a few different languages in the schools when my father worked in different countries such as Japanese, Indonesian, English. German was my 2nd foreign language in the high school. My the other main language is Korean, but now English is my main language because all the people around me are English speakers, and I am most comfortable communicating with them in English. Reading Philosophy in English got quite comfortable too.
Philosophy is a tricky subject even with my 2x primary languages (English and Korean) due to the abstract concepts the subject employs. Do you speak other languages than English yourself? What are they?

I don’t. I apply the concept of “world” as the representation of the totality of possible existences. I, as most regular folk, use the word conventionally as a matter of linguistic convenience. Which is fine, insofar as most regular folk aren’t doing philosophy when we speak conventionally.

Real physical objects, irrespective of how they are represented, when predicated with the pure category “existence”, or one of its derivatives, is a separate and entirely distinct problem, having its relation, not with pure reason, but with understanding and the logic of judgements. — Mww

Ok, fair enough. Will think on it, and get back to you if there are any points to add or ask. Thanks. :cool: :up:

Correct, according to the very specific tenets of a very specific metaphysical philosophy. The world doesn’t exist; things which can be phenomena for us necessarily do exist, and those things are conceived as belonging to the manifold of all possibly existing things, the totality of which is conceived as represented by the word “world”.

Beauty doesn’t exist, yet there are beautiful things. Justice doesn’t exist, yet there are instances of that which is just. Morality doesn’t exist, yet there are instances of moral agency. You get the picture. — Mww

Yes, we seem to agree at this point. :cool: :up:

‘The world’ is just shorthand for ‘everything that is’. Although I think the question ‘does the world exist?’ is a nonsense question. — Wayfarer

Yes, this seems what Kant had been trying to say in CPR.

A priori truths are those you know by dint of reason alone, 'prior to' or not requiring validation by experience (e.g. mathematical proofs). — Wayfarer

But doesn't math still need empirical sensibility to work? The need work together to produce knowledge i.e. synthetic apriori. e.g. 5+7=12, "5+7" itself doesn't contain 12, but comes from sensibility.

“world” is a valid concept, but does not lend itself to a synthesis with phenomenal representations, hence can never be an experience, becomes an object of reason, or, a transcendental idea. — Mww

Doesn't it imply that then you don't know what the world is? How could you logically say "the world exist." when you don't know what it is?
But before that, how can the world be a concept, when it renders no meaning, or definition?

By what measure? By whose standard? I’d never be so bold as to call him, or deny to him, anything he wasn’t on record as calling himself, re: a dualist, at least with regards to empirical determinations. He called himself other things in regards to other considerations, which don’t concern us here. — Mww

I have not come across any of Kant commentary books describing Kant as a solipsist. But from my own view he was anything but a solipsist. What is the proof Kant's solipsism?

Will be back with the other points :)

but then I realised English is better language
— Corvus

That is a great mistake. English must be among the worst languages to read philosophy in, especially compared to German with its wonderful accuracy. — Lionino

I meant in terms of popularity ( number of the speakers in the world) and the availability and price of the books on the subject. For accuracy, you are correct.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

I am quoting your message again where you made the claim. I have been asking you to clarify and explain what that meant. :nerd: :pray:

As for Noumenon. It is pretty bloody obvious you know how this relates to ideas of existence so why are you asking me to explain? — I like sushi

Did you not claim that Noumenon is important with the concept of 'existing' in your previous messages? I did a few quotes from your message for that.
Noumenon is the objects of the intuition, not perception. So it doesn't exist and is inconceivable.
I was wondering why you were keep bringing up Noumenon in relation to 'existing'. I was expecting your explanations on that point, because it was you who made the claim.

We can talk of what we know not of what we do not.
We can never talk of what we can never know. — I like sushi

But we can guess, infer and imagine.

The task Kant set himself was to ask ‘What can we know before experience?’ — I like sushi

Can we know something without experience? What was his verdict?

how dark can it be? Besides, given the overwhelming commonality in human thought that we’re all fundamentally the same between the ears gains credence. So if we all happen to be solipsists, big deal, right? — Mww

Was Kant a solipsists? No. he said the world is not a concept. The world is a subject of cosmology i.e. physics, and a part of the universe. So he was not a solipsist. Some says he was a transcendental idealist, and some says he was a transcendental realist, but not a solipsist. Neither was Hume.

Hell, that guy can say anything he wants about me. If he said that, I’d say, imitating my ol’ buddy Col Jessup….you damn right I am!!!!! Seriously though, I should hope he’d call me a transcendental idealist, insofar as I have not drank the real for merely logical predicate Kool-Aid. — Mww

The problem is, that if you say the world is a concept, then you cannot say the world exists. Because concepts don't exist as the physical objects do. All existing objects have properties and essence. What are the properties and essence of your world as a concept? And one applies concept to the perceived objects for experiencing. How do you apply the concept of the world to the world, when your world in physical form doesn't exist?

Regarding solipsistic mentality though, it is foolish of me to deny to any cogent rationality a mind as functional as my own, just as it is foolish of that mind to think to know me as well as I know myself. It never should be a matter of capacity, which is granted, but of accessibility, which is denied. — Mww

Yes, solipsistic mind is anti-scientific, because it lacks objectivity.

A logical predicate may be what you please, even the subject may be predicated of itself; for logic pays no regard to the content of a judgement. But the determination of a conception is a predicate, which adds to and enlarges the conception. It must not, therefore, be contained in the conception….” — Mww

But in that case, are you not committing yourself into the dark chamber of solipsism? If you say, the world is not an object, but a concept, and the predicate 'exist' is logical rather than real, then wouldn't Kant say you are an idealist with extreme solipsism? If the world is a concept, and it resides in your mind only, then it suddenly transforms into a mental dildo, rather than presenting into you from outside as a physical existence, where all the livings and objects co-exist struggling and enduring.

One man’s mental masturbations, re: Leibniz, et al, ca1712-14, is another’s epiphanic paradigm shift. — Mww

Didn't Kant revolt against the rationalist crowds such as Leibniz, Wolf, Spinoza opposing to their innate ideas only knowledge, trying to establish a new system of Metaphysics adopting Hume's empiricism thanking him for awakening Kant from dogmatic slumber?

If we are fully conscious and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., I cannot call an illusion my view of the world in that state. — Alkis Piskas

Could you tell us what is your criterion for being conscious and unconscious? What do you mean by you are conscious? and unconscious?

This is my reality. I live with it. (Well, most of the time.) Otherwise, we have to call everything that exists for us an illusion. — Alkis Piskas

Isn't the point of philosophy to get you out from the illusions by adopting and applying the rational sceptical methodology in perceiving truths?

This is basically true. But it's you who have insisted to go on! :smile:
And I don't complain. I enjoyed the trip. — Alkis Piskas

Thank you for your opinions and interactions. But our journey for the truths is never over. Because according to Heidegger, we are all "auf dem weg sein." - existence on the road.

I claim that skeptical doubt is already rooted in a decision or an assumption I.E. the clear distinction of the subject and the world. — JuanZu

:ok:

I think I made it pretty clear what I was asking for.

The World meaning what?

‘Exist’ meaning what? — I like sushi

I stated this in the previous messages to Mww, but will say again.  Kant says that the world is not a legitimate object of perception, because the totality of appearances in the world is incomprehensible by reason.  The world is a subject of cosmology, and he lists 4 antinomies regarding the world in CPR.

Due to this view, Kant believes that the proposition "The world exists." is a form of subreption caused by hypostatisation.

Present what you mean by ‘world’ and ‘exist’ in some kind of context to your position/s.

Until then nothing I have said has any relevance because I have literally no idea what the OP is saying.

Last time I am asking.

Give an account of PRECISELY what you are asking for. — I like sushi

So, it sounds like you have asked something that you have no idea what you were asking for.
If you read the OP, and some discussions in the thread, I would imagine that you would know what it is about.

Doesn't it necessarily fall into the liar's paradox? Doubting the world would be like cutting the branch on which I am sitting, waiting for the tree to fall and not the branch. — JuanZu

Doubting is not thoughtless action. Doubting starts with observation and investigation, then reasoning, and then conclusion for either action or non-action.
If you have adopted a proper scepticism as your methodology for knowledge, you would have inspected the tree and turned away looking for a tree with the solid sound branches to sit on that needn't cut and is concrete enough to support your weight, before you climbed up onto the unstable tree, and sat on the rotten branch.

The skepticism that questions the "external" world (as if we were not already world) would be, in a certain sense, the closure feigned by the subject in the absolutely immanent monad. A subject who believes he can distinguish himself absolutely from something else that he calls the "external world." — JuanZu

If we accept the definition that every knowledge is justified belief, then scepticism is a methodology to obtain the justifications. If one rejects scepticism, then one is rejecting the methodology for justification allowing possibility for mistaking groundless beliefs, superstitions and dogmas for knowledge.

It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael

As promised I thought over your points on the belief in the existence of the brain compared to a cup.

Brain is a biological organ, just like the other organs the human body has. Its main function is not just having mental events, but keeping the body alive. Brain controls all the biological functions happening in the body. When it comes to mental events, all we know is that the relationship between the brain and mental events are causality. Nothing else.

If you look into the brain, then you won't see anything that resembles or makes sense about any mental events. Because it is just a lump of tissue, blood vessels and neural cells.
We have no idea why and how the brain works in terms of any mental events. But neurologists have mapped out which part of the brain is linked to what type of mental events. And the injuries or problems of certain parts of the brain cause certain types of problems in the mental events or operations.

Because of this fact, it would not be meaningful to say, because we believe in the existence without seeing it, that explains our belief in the existence of an unperceived object or world.

The belief in the existence of the brain is purely based on the educated information or guess.
But belief in the existence of unperceived objects is based on, according to Hume, our imagination and memory of the perception. They are totally different types of beliefs.

Depending on the situation, the belief in the existence of a cup or barbecue rack in the garden can change i.e. if you threw out the rusty barbecue rack in the garden in the bin, and saw the bin getting emptied into the collection truck, then you have a reason / ground to believe why the barbecue rack doesn't exist anymore in your garden.

But there is no way, reason or ground to believe that one's brain doesn't exist as long as the person is alive, and the belief is based on purely educational information.

This is the limitation of Materialism. They can tell us what mental events are caused by the brain activities, but that is all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing else. It is too obvious mental events are caused by the brain, because upon the removal of the brain, there are no mental events. On the injuries to certain parts of the brain, there are always certain types of mental events problems are noticed. Nothing more.

Idealists have their problems too. They are imprisoned in their own mental space locked up, and think that whatever is projected into the wall of the mind is the objects themselves or the content of the world. This view has its points too, but it falls into solipsism. There are definitely material objects out there, and the world exists separate from the mind. But to show that it is objective knowledge rather than dogmatism, we need more arguments, evidence and proofs.

I might start some discussion threads about some common misconceptions about his philosophy and psychology. — Vaskane

:up: :cool:

In fact this aphorism was in part how I knew English wasn't your primary language, which I commend you with great admiration that you're capable of diversifying your mind to the point it can pull from many different languages. It provides an interesting scope in perspective, a certain overcoming of objectivity in a sense. — Vaskane

Thanks :) I was reading Philosophy with German initially, but then I realised English is better language in that there are more translated and originally authored books in English in all subjects under the sun, than in any other language. Plus English is easier language to learn than German.

I am still wondering on the aphorism, whether it was "blind faith" or "it" is telling you that you are thinking. I am also not sure what "it" means. "It" usually denotes some object.

And yes, I think translation of any original text into another language will render loss of some original meaning inevitably. But then all reading is inevitably interpretation in some sense.