So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe you don't understand the question, and doesn't know the difference between happiness and good in morality. It was not a joke, but just a plain philosophical question.

I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins

Happiness is a psychological term, and is a subjective mental state. If you say, happiness is the foundation of morality, and some theft are moral, then that view is an extreme moral subjectivist. What makes you happy can make the others unhappy. There is no such thing as universal happiness. Moral good emerges from the good conducts of an agent, and have little to do with personal happiness.

Is a happy thief morally good, because he is happy?

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Isn't Good the foundation of morality, rather than happiness? Maybe happiness is linked to Good. If so, how so?

Is happiness always good? Therefore being happy is morally good? Not sure if it is the case. Please elaborate on the points.

The idea of despair has been developed further within existentialism, especially by Camus, — Jack Cummins

What is the arguments for Camus' idea of despair in his existentialism? i.e. why does he think it is the case?

People like me, and even more complacent individuals still. I wont lie, I'm in a cozy spot in my life, for once, and yet, it's like that feeling of being fulfilled has resided and now I seek new drives to fulfill. — Vaskane

Everyone is unique in their experience, background, content of life, thoughts and perception, and also in value judgements too. In that respect, I am wondering, if there is a man called "average man" or "common man". From the description about you in the post, you appear to be an unique man rather than average or common man.

Nietzsche is a man who talks to himself, in doing so, he looks up to his archetype of the "old wise man," which to him, has always been Zarathustra. — Vaskane

I have a book called C. G. Jung's Seminar on "Thus Spake Zarathustra", and in it, they talk about Zarathustra having much similarity with Jesus - for example, they both had disappeared for some time from the profane world, Jesus wondered in the desert field, and Z. lived in the no man's mountain cave. After the disappearance, they returned to the profane world to preach to people etc.

But then I was under impression that Nietzsche was an anti christian, and atheist declaring "God is dead." Why would he make a religious human God as the preaching main character of his book?

C G Jung Seminar on "TS Zarathustra" also says the book has many religious and psychological symbolism, and they talk about various symbolism, and possible underlying philosophical, religious and psychological meanings related to the symbolism in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Interesting, but it looks like "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is not for reading with the analytic philosophical approach.

Zarathustra declares he will not seek to gather his sheep but let those who have the eyes and ears for his (Nietzsche's) words come to him! — Vaskane

Who is supposed to be Zarathustra? Here in your statement above, it sounds like you are implying Z. was N. Would he be Nietzsche himself? Or some other bloke?

the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man. — ChatteringMonkey

that Nietzsche's intended audience WAS the common man, but the common man, seems to miss the points Zarathustra makes, blinking thereby ... — Vaskane

Who are the average man and common man?

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.

The IEP article Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics differentiates between an "empirical world" in the mind and a "mind-independent world" outside the mind — RussellA

What do you mean by "mind-independent world"? Did Kant say anything about it?
What significance does "mind-independent world" have with CPR?

IEP seems another site with the run-of-the-mill infos. It is handy at times for getting quick info about simple terms, but not sure if they are accurate enough and offering you the depth in knowledge.
I don't quite agree with the Online info mostly (because for one, any Tom Dick and Harry on the street can go into the online add and edit the contents - why should anyone trust the accuracy of the info???), and also don't see the point of word searching in CPR, and giving out the obscure interpretations making the original text in question more confusing either.

The point of reading CPR is to interpret the original text in logical way, but also in clear and meaningful way, so it is easy to understand for everyone. If any CPR commentary appears sounding more obscure than CPR itself, then it should be committed to flames. :D

With your comment on my misusage of "empirical world", please prove why my usage was a misusage. From my point of view, "empirical world" was not even a main concept Kant delves into deep in CPR. He mentions a few times here and there to denote the external world we live in and interact with.

And please explain what is your "mind-independent world" is, and where is it coming from.

There are several things in your posts that I don't agree with, but as I am off on holiday, I won't be able to tackle them. — RussellA

You are free to disagree as long as you back up with your arguments and evidence for your disagreement. At the end of the day, no one is wrong or right in philosophical discussions, but the points they are making could be.

Enjoy your holiday. Take time. No rush.

We perceive appearances, phenomena, in our senses. We may see the colour red, feel a sharp pain, taste something sweet, smell something acrid or hear a grating noise.

We have the fundamental belief that something caused these phenomena. But we don't perceive what caused these phenomena, we only perceive the phenomena. — RussellA

This is a completely different interpretation from what I think, and I am afraid to say that it doesn't make sense. In Kant, our daily perception is via appearance and phenomena from the empirical world. And we know the contents in phenomena very well. The whole science is based on the appearance from the empirical world. Denying that would be denying the whole scientific knowledge, then you are degrading yourself to the Pyrrhonian scepticism, and must stop all your judgement on the world.

But obviously there are objects which we can think of, but don't have the matching physical objects in the empirical world such as God, Souls and Freedom. They must exist somewhere, otherwise we are just dreaming or fantasising about them. Kant didn't want that. They are the important metaphysical objects. Where do they belong? They belong to Thing-in-themselves = Noumena.

If you think about daily physical objects in transcendental idealistic way, then of course, you wouldn't know about them. Because you are not using your sensibility then. You would be just thinking about them. You are thinking about books that you have never read, trees that you have never seen ...etc, then of course you don't know what books and trees you are talking about. This makes sense. You can only know what you have experienced. But you can still think about them in concept without knowing.

With all your arguments and points so far which sound totally off the main ideas of CPR, I am wondering if you have been actually reading CPR, or just been reading the run-of-the-mill Wiki and SEP articles trying to jigsaw puzzle the Kant with some unfounded perceptual theories.

There are many uses for the word "world". There is the world of dance, the world of science, the world of literature, the world inside our minds, the world outside our minds, etc.

One word having several uses is in the nature of language.

What is real? Is the thought of a mountain any less real than the mountain itself? — RussellA

I am not going to say you are wrong, because you can interpret Kant as you think right for you. But some arguments are more valid or invalid, more plausible or less plausible from the objective perspective.

In Kant, the world is one of the antinomy of pure reason, if you read CPR. Kant says, the world is a totality of all the objects and events in the universe, hence it cannot be conceived.

But he is not denying the outside empirical world where you see all the daily objects and interact with them. One point to bear in mind with CPR is that it is a Treatise for building a transcendental system for Metaphysics. What Kant is mainly interested in is how to build a metaphysical foundation for the transcendental objects such as God, Souls and Freedom. CPR is not a theory of perception or epistemology, but it is a treatise for metaphysical foundation of transcendental objects.

For that, he was trying to demonstrate how it all happens in transcendental way, not empirical way.
He was not interested in Direct Realist or Indirect Realist or Idealist.

Here is a clue. Why did Kant have two concepts on space and time? In CPR, he mostly talks about space and time as internal A priori condition for experience. But he also talks about space as a physical existence in empirical world. Can you think of the explanation for that?

The other points later~

It depends what you mean by "external world". There is the external world that I perceive as Appearance, and there is the external world outside me that I cannot perceive that is causing these Appearances. — RussellA

How many external worlds do you have, and which one is the real world? Why do you need more than one world?

To my understanding of Kant, Appearances are affected by unknowable Things in Themselves that exist outside me. — RussellA

What is the unknowable Things in themselves that exist outside you exactly mean? What are they?

However, as we can also think in general terms about Things in Themselves using Transcendental Reasoning on Appearances, thoughts about Things in Themselves exist in the mind. — RussellA

So Things-in-themselves exist outside you, but it also exists in your mind? Are they the same Things-in-themselves? Or are they different entities? Are they visible or audible to you? Can you touch them? If they are not perceptible, then how do you know they actually even exist?

n B276 Kant refers to objects existing outside any human observer: "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me."

You say that you see only one world, it is empirical, it is physical, it is external, it is not internal and it is not Mind-Dependent. — RussellA

There seems to be some logical flaws in the refutation, but it is good to know that Kant believes in the existence of the external world outside him.

Now the question goes back to Thing-in-itself. Is the Thing-in-itself something in the mind or does it exist outside of the mind? If outside, then would it be in the external world, or some other world totally separate from the external world?

If inside of the mind, then in which part of mind does it exist? Or is it just an abstract concept or idea in the mind?

Are you:

An Indirect Realist who believes that the objects they see are only a representation of different objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world?

A Direct Realist who believes that the objects they see are the same objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world? — RussellA

I don't know what ism I am following. None actually. As you pointed out very well this time, I believe in one empirical (physical) world outside of me. I am not sure if it is a mind dependent or mind independent world. My perception says that without my mind, the world doesn't exist, but my inference says, without my mind, the world will keep existing. :(

Physically. — wonderer1

Please elaborate further?

If you want to consider the question seriously it will involve studying a lot of science. However, I suspect you just wanted to do philosophical performance art, by asking a non-serious question. Am I right? — wonderer1

I was just asking the most compelling question I used to have on mind problem, but had no answers.

Fair enough. So how does the physical brain generate consciousness or awareness?

The most compelling question on mind is still, is it a substance i.e. is it some existence of its own, be it physical or non-physical?. Or is mind just a totality of intelligent and sentient actions and responses on the environment without its own existence?

Although it supports the functions of mind, surely physical brain is not mind itself is it? Has any Science come to a concrete answer to the question?

I assume you know your own existence within time, yet you don't seem to believe in an external world. — RussellA

Please don't misunderstand again. I do believe in only one world i.e. the physical world. I was asking about the external world in the Refutation for the Idealist you quoted.

I'm sure they do. I know I have. — RussellA

It didn't appear to be quite the case.

As Kant's philosophy is extremely complex and notoriously difficult to understand, I think the sensible approach is first to read various commentaries and then look at the original material. — RussellA

CPR is not a bible. You don't accept the whole lot in CPR as if it is some religious text like some other folks do. One thing for sure is, it is a great classic with lots of great ideas in it, but also there are some contentious, inconsistent parts and contradictions too.

You must try to clarify the contentious or obscure parts before accepting them. As I said, just relying on only one commentary source, and believing in all it says is not helpful and even might be futile. But also the most important part is your own interpretations on it backed by the logical argument, the original work and the various academic commentaries.

Interpretation based solely on one's own mind sounds more obscure than Kant, and the points based on mainly the popular media sounds too obvious. Mix them all up, and come up with the best points you think correct seems the best way to go for it.

In B276, Kant starts his proof with "I am conscious of my existence as determined in time."

He doesn't start his proof with "I am conscious of my existence". — RussellA

"as determined in time" sounds like it needs awareness of time, which can only be achieved by the outer sense perception such as perceiving the movement of the sun around the earth. How does one know one's own existence "determined in time" without yet being sure of the external world?

Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Refutation of Idealism B276 make sense to an Indirect Realist but perhaps not to a Direct Realist. — RussellA

Should the indirect realist not check the argument of the Refutation for the Idealism for any logical obscurity before accepting it?

For posts on the Forum, the SEP as source information is more than adequate. — RussellA

It would be likely to be a biased opinion. It is better to look at the original work first, and then various other commentaries rather than just relying on one 3rd party commentary source.

:cool: :ok:

I understand this. And i understand it to be an emotive defense of a patently incorrect assertion, based on an irrational response to a perceived slight.

Which is why I am not amendable to taking it too seriously. — AmadeusD

In a thread, I would never say someone is wrong blatantly (without having gone through much mutual arguments exchanges), because the arguments and logic will speak for themselves. I would only say something similar or same level of tones, it if the other party said first. If it were the case then the philosophical discussion would be derailing into an ordinary discussion from that point.

It was nothing serious event for me. Just explaining the situation and the logic that operates. :)

As noted, in light of this complete meltdown, I don't care.
The majority of my posts are seeking correction, and accepting correction. So the patent falseness of your ad hominem is just not a good way to comport yourself. — AmadeusD

You sounded blatantly irrational just demanding me to accept I am wrong. You had no arguments for your points, and also appeared to be not knowing exactly what has been discussed as well. God was only mentioned to add clarification to Thing-in-Itself.

Kant's Theology is a huge area itself, and it is another topic of its own. It would only possible to discuss a concept or two out of Kant's theology in CPR thread as a passing point in conjunction with some other main CPR topics, which was the case here.

But you claimed that Kant's view on God is unknowable ...etc went on with God blah blah, and accused me of being wrong. I thought that is not a proper way to oppose someone philosophically.

I felt that your point of telling me wrong was based solely on your blind trust of the other people (authority, or someone you respect etc) or source of the info (the internet), rather than the arguments or the truth itself, and for some reason having strong emotional urge to put my points down for no particular reason. Not fair was it?

You don't seem to be aware the way you behave towards others. I just let you know about it.

I told you exactly what you are, and have done. Nothing less or more.

It sounds like the whole purpose of your presence is to tell people they are wrong. I don't care who they are, if their points don't make sense, I would raise questions for the points to clarify.

You? Just butt in, and tell people they are wrong, and demand to accept whatever you say? Who do you think you are?

It is my point, and I am trying to prove it with my argument. Whereas you blatantly jump in with no arguments, demonstration or proofs, but shouting "Your claim is wrong." Why should anyone take your claim seriously?

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Mww — AmadeusD

It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus

Just a word "God" doesn't mean that we are discussing Kant's Theology.

No, they are not. One is so-called, the others are merely transcendental ideas, the conception of an object adequate for representing it, is impossible. — Mww

Aren't they all transcendentally deduced objects? Please elaborate.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects
— Corvus

He did that, it was significant, but hardly his main interest. — Mww

My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point.

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that we have been discussing God here, but God is not really a main topic in reading CPR. It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God and his Theology in this thread as far as I am aware.

Pretty much what I thought as well. There is no relation. The reference shows what god, freedom and immortality are, and from that, it is clear the thing-in-itself doesn’t relate to them. That’s the connection you missed. Which is sufficient refutation that the thing-in-itself was never used, as you claimed, “to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality”. — Mww

What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims.
If you think about it, what is thing-in-itself, and God, Soul and Freedom in Kant? They are all transcendental objects.

My guess was Kant wouldn't have been simple and naive enough to introduce Thing-in-itself to bung all your daily physical objects into it, and tell the world, you don't know anything about your books, cups and trees ... etc.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building a logical path and residence for the transcendental objects viz. God, Souls and Freedom, and it was named "Thing-in-itself".

Dunno what to tell ya, bud. If you can’t find the connection, or you think there isn’t one, that’s all on you. But I’m not doing your thinking for you. — Mww

I never asked you do thinking for me. I was trying to find out how on earth you came to the claim. The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them.

If you actually read the reference, you’d know. Which begs an obvious question…..why are you asking? — Mww

I actually did read the reference, but couldn't find the part backing your claim, hence asked you which part and also your argument for your point.

The Empirical World inside us we know through our sensibilities. The Mind-Independent World outside us we know through Transcendental Reasoning about the Empirical World inside us. — RussellA

Do you have the CPR reference for backing that points up? No Wiki or SEP, but CPR.

In his Refutation of Idealism is his Theorem "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me" B276. — RussellA

You cannot prove the existence of the objects in space outside of you by simply saying you are conscious of your own existence. You could be conscious of your existence in your dream or hallucination. Does that prove any existence of the objects in space outside of you?

These are not contradictory positions. — RussellA

Not contradictory, but not making sense either.

My statement that your claim is not the case is proved in the reference. The only thing that has to do with me, is I know where to look for the refutation of your claim. — Mww

I was asking which part of the reference backs up your claim, but you refused to provide the evidence.

I’m not making a claim; I’m merely citing a source-specific refutation of yours. — Mww

I was meaning, your claim " ….which just is not the case.
— Mww"

Why is it not the case?

This is why a single photograph cannot show a Mind-Independent World, as knowledge about a Mind-Independent World requires Transcendental Reason, and reason in order to have content requires a complete logical form. — RussellA

1. You didn't need to take a photo of the whole MI World. Just a part of it would have done. No one can take a photo of the whole world in a single shot anyway.

2. You seem to think a world is some logically reasoned object. A world is a totality of the domain in which you specify all the attributes about it. But since you haven't done so, I was assuming that you were meaning the world in which we live in.

Therefore I can only conclude that your claim was groundless and unfounded.
— Corvus

Suit yourself. Hell, you might even be correct. — Mww

For your claim to be correct, you need the argument and valid conclusion backed by the original source. But you failed to produce that, and when re-asked for it, you refused to do so. Hence the conclusion. :wink:

Nope, not gonna do that. You asked for a reference, you got it, do with it as you will. — Mww

I have read the pages in CPR, but couldn't find any part which back your claim that my proposition (regarding to Thing-in-itself and the concepts i.e. God, Souls and Freedom) is not the case. Therefore I can only conclude that your claim was groundless and unfounded.
I didn't just asked for the reference. I asked for your reasons for your claims (preferably with the reference). You only forwarded the reference, which appear to be unrelated, and you refuse to clarify on the relation of the reference and your claims. Your postings seem to be lacking consistency and truths from the facts. :chin: :wink:

Kant refers to Berkelian Idealism in B275, which is part of his purpose in the Refutation of Idealism. — RussellA

In that case, would it be the case that you have been mistaken Kant's refutation of Idealism as Kant's TI?

Because a "mountain" as a representation in the Empirical World within the mind is different in kind to a "mountain" weighing one billion tonnes in a Mind-Independent World outside the mind. — RussellA

In that case, should it not be a representation of the empirical world in your mind, rather than an internal world inside you? It sounds too far-fetched for you to carry an internal world weighing one billion tonnes in your head.

More later~