Stop it...you're killing me! — Janus

Read some philosophy books, and learn instead of wasting time. :)

I agree. But I'm not sure people always consciously do this. But they tend to use arguments as surrogates for value systems. A classic example of this is presuppositional apologetics for Islam or Christianity. But this is a digression. — Tom Storm

Yes, some do. I don't see a point doing it.

My primary question when faced with arguments about whether the world is real, or if am I in a simulation, or if matter an illusion and idealism is the correct ontology - is what is the significance? Is there anything in my life I would do differently? Almost always the answer is no. — Tom Storm

The scepticism on the world was one of the historical philosophy themes. In the ancient times, they used to take it seriously, and some of them stopped judging on all things. But nowadays? We just use the topic to practice and study philosophy. If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. :)

Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade, and it is not I who is looking for, or in need of, help. In any case, by all means carry on going around in your silly circle, it may be useless, but at least it will most likely provide a few laughs along the way, for others if not for you. — Janus

The way that you keep resorting to the lowly languages and mention of laughs, whenever you appear here just seems to indicate you might be looking for either some help or attention. It just appears to demonstrate that you are not into a sound philosophical discussions.

Not for me. Philosophy is about how you orientate your values, then come the arguments. My view is that people often settle on beliefs that appeal aesthetically, then a lot of post hoc rationalization comes into play. I also think the most interesting part is why people are drawn to certain arguments. Arguments dontl necessarily speak for themselves, they often speak to the biases of those who hold them. — Tom Storm

It is not ideal, not morally good or even practically possible to force down a value of someone to the others. No matter how right the value was, it would be meaningless and counter productive endeavour / exercise for all those involved.

Arguments are intellectual and logical dialectic efforts looking to come to the answers in the middle or end of them heuristically, and they are one of the traditional methodologies of philosophy.

So is it more about the argument than a vital part of how you live? I am always interested in why people argue or hold positions. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is all about arguments. The conclusions are for each individuals.

I’m not making an argument, it is a question for you. — Tom Storm

I am mainly interested in seeing different arguments on the topic, and forwarding my counter arguments if and where necessary. The conclusion is up to each individuals.

The underlined would suggest: Yes! But we must be humble about it to a very high degree! Not that this is news lol — AmadeusD

Or if your definition of the world is, all that you perceive in your daily life, then you are seeing the whole world. But then a question arises, is your definition of the world objective?

So what if there is no world? What then? — Tom Storm

You need your argument for the statement. Without the argument, it would be just a passing suggestion. I cannot agree or disagree with your point without seeing your arguments for your claim.

What does the "absolute accuracy" in regard to experience even mean? Perhaps you are looking for some absolute certainty? It's a fool's errand, a dimwit's folly. See if you can dig your pointless hole even deeper; should be fun to watch. :rofl: — Janus

Well, whenever you return here, all you ever keep shouting is that whatever you read is fool and dimwit. How could anyone help you? :lol:

Reference? Link? — Mww

Sorry cannot locate the link or ref. for now. Will look for it and update when time allows. :)

An experiment on time. I’ll bet it’s actually an experiment on something relative to time. — Mww

Space as well. It is called "Spatio-Temporal Transcendental Deduction".

As with most sources, whether Fox or CNN, whether the BBC or Talk TV, one has to make a personal judgement as to whether the source makes a logical and reasoned case. — RussellA

Any popular media based information will be flatly rejected as propaganda in all philosophical discussions unless proved and verified otherwise. :)

From the Wikipedia article on Transcendental arguments, which presumably uses transcendental logic, Kant used transcendental arguments to show that sensory experiences would not be possible if we did not impose their spatial and temporal forms on them — RussellA

When you say, we impose space and temporal forms on the sensory experiences, it does imply we can also choose not to impose as well. So what happens if we choose not to impose? How do we decide to impose or not to impose?
I am going to tackle your points one by one taking time (no rush) in order to avoid any confusions.

Of course. There should be as many interpretations as there are folks that bother with it. What he wanted the interpretation to be, should be singular, no matter how many folks bother. Which was the whole point of grounding the theory in logic, insofar as if these premises are the case, then that conclusion follows necessarily. One can, then, grant the conclusions given those premises on the one hand, yet refute the logic by denying those premises ever were the case on the other. In which case, Kant hasn’t been refuted, he’s been replaced. — Mww

I read the scientists conducting the remote experiments on time and space in different locations on the earth based on TI of CPR. It wouldn't be imaginable if one insisted to stay in 1781 and inside the fence of CPR word by word for interpreting and understanding Kant.

Take it or leave it, but first, understand it. — Mww

There must be more than just one way to interpret Kant, because it is now 2023, not 1781. Tendency of denying the objectivity on the obvious points can induce the debilitating melancholy and misunderstanding. :nerd:

I suppose the other thing is, in what scenario are we not sensible of the world in one way or another? A deprivation tank still provides a temperature etc... It's just aligned so closely with homeostasis its hard to tell. It hasn't actually removed stimuli entirely. — AmadeusD

If we define the world as the totality of the whole universe, then what we have been seeing was tiny particle amount of the world. In that scenario, are we qualified even to say we have been perceiving the world at all? This is just one scenario.

To record, reason and apply logic presupposes the capacity for it. To come to judgement presupposes there is that which is possible to come to. — Mww

Under that system, one would be very prone to fall into prejudice and illusions instead of knowledge.

Undoubtedly, but irrelevant.
(Glances up at thread title) — Mww

There would be little point staring at the thread title all day long, if one cannot extend Kant's works into the present time of consciousness and reality.

Compared to what….2023? Wonder what the views will be in 2123. Oh so easy to look backwards, innit? — Mww

Past is only significant in the perspective of NOW. Future is the same. We only have NOW. We can only look at anything from NOW. If you think you can be in 1781 in reality, then you are in deep illusion. :)

Oh dear. The entire human intellectual system is presupposed. Do you have any idea at all, just how far it is in the procedural methodology, between reading the statement and the installation of the analytic content of it?????? — Mww

Nothing is presupposed in nature and human intellect. That is why we need observation, reasoning and logic in coming to knowledge. When you see the data or content, you record, reason and apply logic to come to judgements.

According to Kant, the most basic operation of logic “treats of the form of the understanding only”. How is your example anything like that? — Mww

That is just one side of logic, which is the traditional logic. You have a sea of different school of Logic doing things differently for different subjects, which you seem to have no idea of. Even just after Kant, Bolzano has his own theories in Science and Logic, and many other Neo-Kantian and Anti-Kantian philosophers came up with their own views and systems on Logic.

When he says stuff like, “further than this logic cannot go”, he’s just warning the po’ fools trying to misuse it, but not that the misuse is the fault of logic. — Mww

Kant had very limited views and knowledge on Logic.

An aberration of the whole point. You’re giving an example from understanding’s point of view, which presupposes the logic. — Mww

Until one reads the statement with the analytic content in full, nothing is presupposed. The statement can be anything until it ends with ".".

I’m denying the content of logic in its operation, which is true, I can still affirm the necessity of content for its proofs. Examples merely suffice to demonstrate the validity of a logical condition, but do nothing to establish what that condition is. — Mww

Even after the clear example of the most basic operation of Logic from the content of a concept, if you still keep denying it, then it seems you are denying not knowing what you are denying.

Or did he have a low opinion of the typical employment of it, in which manifests the “mere prating”? — Mww

It is a well known fact from the numerous commentaries on Kant.

Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon) in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever. Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy….” — Mww

Kant had low opinion on Logic, and his view on Logic is abnormally and impractically narrow.

if we look at an example….
— Corvus

A mistake at the expense of, or in spite of, the quotations. — Mww

Was giving an example from general Logic point of view (not related to the quotes).

Yep, he does, at least empirical content. If one wishes to insist the content of logic is its own laws or principles for its operation, he has misdirected it, insofar as the laws of logic apply to the operation of the understanding, such that the application of its own laws to itself, is absurd. — Mww

But if we look at an example, any analytic concept such as a bachelor, it has definition and logic all in the concept i.e. a bachelor is an unmarried man. If you didn't have the concept as a content in a statement, logic won't work. Will it?

If you say, that you know a bachelor who has remarried recently, you know instantly you uttered a logical nonsense. Without the content "bachelor", how would you have come to the conclusion, the statement was illogical?

However, according to the Wikipedia article on Logic, logic only deals with the form of an argument and not the content of an argument:
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. — RussellA

I don't subscribe to the most of Wiki info. In the past any tom dick and harry used to go to Wiki and populate the contents with whatever contents they like. Not sure this is still the case.

From the traditional logic perspective, they insist that contents is not dealt by logic. Fair enough on that. But from all the other logic, content itself is important part of logic. If you read Bolzano's Theory of Science, you would agree.

These secondary sources point at a distinction between the importance of the form of a logical statement in traditional logic and the importance of the content of a logical statement in transcendental logic

Perhaps this means that a logical stalemate is as much dependent on its content as its form — RussellA

Great point. :up:
In the past I have been stating this point to @Janus and @Mww in some previous threads. They sounded to have read somewhere about the traditional logic, and think that it is the only form of logic in existence. They have been opposing on the view that Logic can require contents for its operation. :roll: One can feel pointless trying to argue with the narrow perspectives.

The only thing I have ever known myself to exist on/in, is the world. It would be far more unlikely that at times i'm not perceiving it (unconscious ,whatever..) it has disappeared, than it would be that I am simply not perceiving it because my senses are not trained it. — AmadeusD

To immaterial idealists, the world is just perception. When they are not perceiving the world, they don't believe it exists. But to the realists, they tend to believe the world keep exists even when they don't perceive it. Beliefs are psychological state. You either believe something or not with or without reasons. But are there beliefs that need rational justification? Or do we tend to believe in something due to our nature as Hume wrote?

I suppose the other thing is, in what scenario are we not sensible of the world in one way or another? A deprivation tank still provides a temperature etc... It's just aligned so closely with homeostasis its hard to tell. It hasn't actually removed stimuli entirely. — AmadeusD

I suppose it depends on the definition of the world as well. Yes, the definition of the world, the concept of existence, and the nature of belief.

Why would you believe something for which you believe you have justification for believing? Sounds like the definition of stupidity to me. — Janus

To a stupid, everything sounds and looks like stupid.

Everything I experience gives me reason to believe the world does not depend on my perception of it. Perhaps you believe it doesn't give you such reason; if so, I can only conclude that you are a fool. — Janus

You don't seem to have understood the question. Do you believe in absolute accuracy on everything you experience?

The opposite of ingenuity...foolishness, self-contradiction. — Janus

Why do you believe in the existence of the world, when you are not perceiving it?
Do you have logical explanations for your belief?

Don't assume i understand more than 10% :P — AmadeusD

"All I know is I know nothing." - Socrates
That is my 1st philosophical principle. :nerd:

Welp, i've just this morning reached the Transcendental Logic, Second Division :Transcendental Dialectic. — AmadeusD

You are well ahead of me. I have gone back to the very beginning and starting over from the Preface.

Disingenuity. — Janus

Why? Under what ground?

What could certain physiology mean?

"In more recent times, it has seemed as if an end might be put to all these controversies and the claims of metaphysics receive final judgement, through certain physiology of the human understanding - that of celebrated Locke." - CPR A.ix

:cool: :ok:

Knowledge given from the objective sciences is empirical, it informs as to experiences of the world; it is the way in which the knowledge is acquired, the systemic methodology for the development of principles and judgements, better known as logic, the intellect uses to acquire it, that is pure a priori. — Mww

Kant thought that just empirical knowledge for the objective sciences were not enough to be the source of infallible knowledge. The A priori elements are needed for the science to be able to have grounds for the rigorous system of knowledge.

“….. Mathematics and physics are the two theoretical sciences which have to determine their objects à priori. The former is purely à priori, the latter is partially so, but is also dependent on other sources of cognition….”

Partially so means impure; other sources means from out in the world, or, experience. — Mww

We were quoting the same verse. I am not sure "impure" would be the right term. He has given out the official term for it i.e. "synthetic a priori" knowledge.

It is nothing to do with pure or impure….
— Corvus

….yet he states, clear as the nose on your face…..impure. How can it have nothing to do with exactly what he’s saying? — Mww

This is where Kant seems to be showing his inconsistency in CPR. If you think about it, you only observe the objects and the changed objects in empirical reality through time via your sense. There is no such a thing as "change" in the empirical reality. The concept 'change' comes from your mind via a priori intuition. It is nothing to do with the way reason works, but it is how we acquire a priori synthetic knowledge in TI.

Math is purely a priori because it constructs its own objects; physics is a posteriori because its objects are or can be given to it from an external source, re: the world. — Mww

Some physics knowledge is definitely both a priori and a posteriori, hence synthetic a priori.
" Mathematics and Physics are the two theoretical sciences which have to determine their objects a priori, the later is partially so, but is also dependent on other sources of cognition." - Preface 2nd Edition CPR, Meiklejohn.

Yes, but a priori is not necessarily pure: — Mww

Kant mainly uses a priori to mean pure in CPR.

“…. “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience….” — Mww

It has nothing to do with pure or impure. It is a priori synthetic proposition.

A priori carries the implication of universality and necessity; pure/impure carries the implication of the contingency of experience. — Mww

Not sure if pure / impure has much to do with experience. If it does, it would be minor context.

Kant wants it understood that by a priori, he means without regard to any experience or possible experience whatsoever. He just released himself from having to qualify the term with “pure” every time he used it, the word in the book’s title sufficing as the ground of the whole, the justification for the ground given early on in the text itself. — Mww

But please bear in mind that Kant thought some knowledge is both a priori and also a posteriori e.g. Physics.

What does “pure” mean; what does “a priori” mean; — Mww

Pure in CPR means "a priori".

To think space empirically is not to think it as being real, but merely to think of it as that which contains the real, in order for the relations of things becomes comprehensible. — Mww

A tree is standing in the space and on the ground. For you to perceive the tree, the physical space must allow the particles of the light which reflected from the tree, to enter to your eyes. Without the physical space, the light won't be able to travel from the tree to your eyes making all visual perception impossible. So physical space in empirical reality has to be real existence.

If the representation has no meaning whatsoever, to then talk of its empirical reality, is sheer nonsense. That Kant uses that wording, indicates he means something else by it. — Mww

When empirical reality caused the representation to happen in the mind, but if the mind thinks it is sheer nonsense, then it is a problem of the mind.

very few of us have had the time to read the almost 800 pages, — RussellA

JMD Meiklejohn version CPR is only 500 pages long (the 2nd edition only). All the other versions are 700 - 800 pages because they combined the 1st and 2nd Editions into one book.

Almost, yes. He is talking about space as an intuited a priori representation, in order to remove it from the necessity of being a phenomenon. — Mww

Yes, that was my point all the way along. Glad to see some sort of agreement. Well almost.

We're sometimes wrong about things; what, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case? — jorndoe

Hence, we try to seek justification on our beliefs and perception.
But point here is, can belief be justified properly? Belief is a psychological state, which cannot be justified rationally in nature.

Or are some beliefs also epistemic when justified? But if it cannot be justified, then it can't be. How do we justify our beliefs rationally?

If one does not believe an external world exists, then one is a solipsist, right? — jorndoe

But when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it. What would you class the position?