Might I suggest Kant meant for space and time to be the pre-condition for experience? They are that which makes experience possible? — Mww

Yes, great point thanks.
It is definitely written in CPR as "precondition for experience" - Norman Kemp Smith Abridged Edition 1952 MacMillan & Co Ltd, London CPR p.44

But I am wondering if Experience is a far too wide concept even covering the other mental activities and perceptions which take place with the internal mental contents such as memories and imaginations which don't associate with space and time.

Do some more reading on him. That’s all I could recommend. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your recommendation. I was going to try philsophising from my own reason and reason alone for a while, but I think I better pull out all my old philosophy books from the cupboard again. :) I am sure I have a few Schopenhauer books including his main text books in 2 volumns.

“…. For as the world is in one aspect entirely idea, so in another it is entirely will. A reality which is neither of these two, but an object in itself (into which the thing in itself has unfortunately dwindled in the hands of Kant), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignus fatuus in philosophy.…”

So, yeah, one might call that a criticism. — Mww

:100:

His idealism is much more interesting than his pessimism in my view. — Wayfarer

Sure. But I was wondering if it would be even more interesting if his idealism and pessimism could be studied together i.e. what was the ground for his arriving at the pessimism. Could his idealism had contributed to his pessimism? or the other way around?

We know nothing better than we know our own will. If the world is will, then there is nothing we couldn’t know about the world. Kant’s “epistemic limitation” disappears.

While it may indeed be a credible philosophy on its own, it is an altogether illegitimate transfer of conceptual correspondence when juxtaposed to Kant. — Mww

I used to think Schopenhauer disagreed with Kant in many areas, and just mentioned Kant's "Thing-in-Itself" to criticise him, and clarify for his points.

It’s true that Schopenhauer’s philosophy is described as pessimistic, but he never said those things. And he did say that there could be freedom from suffering. Maybe a good place to start would be the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry which has been cited a number of times in this thread. — Wayfarer

"What does Schopenhauer say about death?
Schopenhauer interprets death as the aim and purpose of life. He maintains that to live is to suffer, that the triumph of death is inevitable, and that existence is a constant dying." - Google

He sounds awfully pessimistic even in quick Google search.

It’s true that Schopenhauer’s philosophy is described as pessimistic, but he never said those things. And he did say that there could be freedom from suffering. Maybe a good place to start would be the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry which has been cited a number of times in this thread. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your suggestion. I find Schopenhauer a very interesting philosopher, but have not read any of his books yet. The pessimistic remarks I heard about him was from my philosophy lecturer in my 1st year in the university. We heard him saying it, and even made notes on the paper at the time I vividly recall. I cannot prove if Schopenhauer really said it, or was it just the lecturer's idea on him. I have a little book somewhere by Schopenhauer called "On The Suffering of the World". Will get it out, and start reading it. :)

From laymen's idea of Schopenhauer, he was a staunch pessimist who used to preach that life is not worth living, and it would be better for all life not to have been born into this world, which is nothing but suffering. But once born, it would better to die as soon as possible, but I wonder why he would want to know about the world, and trying to equate his concept of Will to Kant's "Thing-in-Itself", which was to declare epistemic limitation of human mind. Any explanation? Thanks.

If you say mental is same as the physical bodily process, then you fall into meaningless reductionism of blind science. If you say, mental is separate entity from physical bodily entity, then you are a dualist, and fall into occultism and religious opinion.

You could say mental is functions of physical states (functionalism), or phenomenon of physical states (epiphenomenalism), and I feel this makes more sense.

You can imagine a body without mental (e.g. person in comma state - when the physical is in some compromised state), but you cannot imagine mental without body. Well you could, but you would sound like an occultist hiding the confusion.

I write in the present moment. The past is thoughts and memories. The future is memories. The present is real. It’s tangible. It’s here and now. It’s reality. The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future. Only the present is here and now. Only the present is real. — Art48

You seem to think time is somehow severable into the present, past and future cleanly, like you could sever a lump of butter into 3 separate pieces. Under that presumption, one could feel that the past has gone, the future is not here yet, what is available for him is just the present, and that is the only reality.

But if you view time as a continuous mental entity, then you can see you have the past, present and future at the same time or one by one using your memory (the past), consciousness (the present) and imagination (the future).  Aren't your memories and imagination as real as your consciousness?

If God is real, I can only experience God in the present. Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God. — Art48

Is God real?  Before that presumption or proclamation, should you not first  define God, and what it means to be "real"?

Question: Is the space Kant discusses in the Aesthetic the same space I experience and move through on a daily basis and is the time he discusses in the Aesthetic the same time I experience passing by on a daily basis? — charles ferraro

If my memory serves me right (often it doesn't), Kan't space and time is non-physical entities, which are the pre-condition of perception i.e. what makes perception possible.

What is truth (and what isn't?)

Is truth everything objective? Or can subjective things such as memories be truth as well?

Does truth have to be factual or could it be (partially) fictional as well? — Kevin Tan

Truth is judgement about something - proposition, knowledge on facts or situations.
What truth is not, is it is not some solid material object such as drinks or food. That's what I used think. but I was wrong. In some culture, people say truth to mean solutions to their needs or problems. They say, on hot days like this, cold beer is truth.

When one says "Tell me the truth", one is demanding the fact or situation as happened, not distorting it or adding lies or exaggerations into it. You can tell the truth from your knowledge, but whether the other party would accept it as truth, is up to his judgement.

Your past memories can be true to you, if it is vivid and certain. You only know it is truth, and all memories are subjective.
Is truths objective? Can you define what "objective" is?

My philosophical methods has changed recently. Before I tried to read the classic text books as much as possible, and tried to understand them as much as possible quoting and using them where and when relevant in discussions or thinkings. It was hard work, and didn't work out well for me.

Now I stopped reading books. I still do some reading, but it is really too little amount compared to past. I try to avoid complicated concepts, theories and systems.

I try to look at the problems from my own point view, my own reasoning and thinking, and compare with other peoples arguments, points and reasonings. So dialogues and discussions are always helpful.
Mostly my arguments tends to sound grotesque, simple and basic, but that is what I seem to be doing with philosophy recently.

I can doubt anything that is not a direct perceptual observation. — introbert

Could you doubt that you are doubting?

And what would the data for certainty be? — Moliere

Certainty is not some material object, but a mental product of knowledge. So what data it would be for certainty would depend on what knowledge the certainty derived from. If the knowledge was that it is raining outside now, then certainty gets generated from the sense data of the sound coming from the window even if it is dark night, and you cannot see anything, you can hear the noise of the rain falling down onto the ground will give you the certainty of 100% that it is raining outside?

There are percentage of certainty attainable in accurate maths value if the data was available. For instance, I am looking at tomorrow's local weather forecast on the internet. It says it will rain at 12pm with 40% of certainty and at 3pm 90% of certainty. The forecasters surely have done some observation on the weather data via satellite monitor weather system, the movement direction of the clouds, the speed of winds etc. They must have apps for calculating the certainty in percentage.

But there are cases, as you pointed out, the calculation is impossible, but people still use statements such as - I feel 90% great today. I mean where is the data to utter such statement apart from just feeling great in most areas of life although I have some stress in finishing the project in time back of mind, or feeling rough on my back muscles due to heavy work in the garden ...etc.

Also there are cases, where certainty in percentage don't apply logically, because the topic belongs to in the realm of faith and belief such as Gods and souls, reincarnations - because it has no physical evidence in anywhere under the sun, apart from in the literature or religious text books. People could still say I am certain that souls exist, or reincarnate after deaths, it just means he has faith in existence of such entities or phenomenon, and believes in them - but most people will not take the statement as a truth or certainty.

I was talking about the people in the family. It started with 1+1=2 people, but later through time and the process, the member in the family became 4. The added 2 originated from the already existing 2, not added or come from outside somewhere. In this case, could it be said 1+1+1+1=4? It would be rather 1+1 (later +1+1 never existed before the original 1+1=2) =4

For other example, you get 2x separate bricks, and glue them together with cement mortar, it becomes 1. So 1+1=1 not 2.

Thanks for the links. Interesting read. :up:

Of course, things change, and even 1+1 =2 is not certain truth.
1 man and 1 woman married and became 2 people in the family. A few years later they had offsprings, and the family became 3 and then 4. So was 1+1=2 true? No, 1+1 became 4.

So all certainty is subject to change by time, or situation or process be it natural or artificial.
Certainty is not something that is absolute and fixed concept. It is relative and changeable.
You always get percentage of certainty. Some certainties are more certain than other certainties.
Therefore I suggested "All life on the earth will die eventually." was one of the 100% certainty. Because it is a conclusion derived by billions and billions of examples in millions of years of historic records, the biological facts of lives + the on-going processes happening right now. There maybe other 100% certainty cases, I am sure.

But Gods, souls and reincarnation? Where is your data? physical evidence? witnesses? Nothing? You must recourse to faith and belief.

In that case I'd say I'm completely certain of many things. But importantly, I've been completely certain of beliefs which have turned up false. So I'd draw a distinction between certainty and knowing that my knowledge is true and infallible. — Moliere

There is again difference between bogus certainty and genuine certainty. Just because one felt something was certain, does NOT mean it was truly certain.

I have never witnessed souls either. I am an agnostic regarding the existence of Gods, souls, reincarnation, resurrection, karma, etc. — Truth Seeker

Yeah, when it comes to having faith in / believeing in God, souls, reincarnation, resurrection, etc, there is no room for certainty. Because there is no certainty, one has to have faith and belief in them.

Relevant?

Philosophy is the only tool which enables us being critical, reasonable and analytic about the world, life and existence. All other subjects are just accumulation of facts and imagination (art, literature). Science is just superstition and religion glorified with the so called "scientific methods" i.e. hypotheses, experiments and observations. Technology is just a child of science destined to be outdated and replaced with the newer technologies, which will in the end, contribute to / result in the end of the planet.

All beings devoid of Philosophy are just comedian.

If souls exist, it is possible that souls reincarnate or resurrect after death of the body. I don't know if souls exist or not. — Truth Seeker

When the word "Souls" is uttered, it indicates the speaker is already speaking from religious or artistic literature point of view, which is based on faith / belief / imagination, not fact or knowledge.

I have never witnessed detached souls reincarnated from dead bodies in real life. I have read about souls in fictions and poems and religious texts.

How would I know if others really exist? How would I know if others are really conscious or are actually philosophical zombies?

Eventual death of all life is definitely more certain than doubts on other beings existence or consciousness from general induction.

Please bear in mind everyone ever born on the Earth have all died, and are still dying even at this moment.

And not knowing something doesn't have relevance with more certainty or less certainty. Your not knowing something just means you don't know it.

100 % just means 100 out of 100 cases?

"“Per cent” means “out of every 100”. Percentage figures are derived by dividing one quantity by another with the latter rebased to 100. Percentages are symbolised by %. Besides being especially useful when making comparisons, they come in handy for studying a difference compared with a benchmark or initial value." - Google

Thank you Javi for remembering me :D I have been busy with the other hobbies which are electronics, music and gardening.

For death of every life on the Earth, I was not so sure in the past. When I was a child, I believed people die, but they come back or resurrect next day - because I have seen a film, and the actor was killed and the film ended. I saw another film with the same actor but different role, and I recognised him, and thought to myself, wow people die, but they resurrect no problem.

As time goes by, and you get older, and you notice that was not true. Truth is that, everyone dies eventually, and they never come back forever.

Thank you TS for your good topic. Unfortunately that is the only fact which I am certain now, which will take place in the real world as time passes by, as a truth. The rest, I am not so sure.

The fact that everyone will die one day.

In philosophical discussions definitions are useful, so what is time? — val p miranda

Time is a psychological product such as feelings, awareness or perception. It doesn't exist out in the world.

Measurements of time result in a number, so in this sense time is mathematical. — val p miranda

Measurement of time is a measurement, but not time itself. Mathematic is a mapping tool for time.

Art, especially music can distract from the pointlessness of existence. But then, even they become pointless in the end.

Maybe death is the only way for total distraction from the the pointlessness of existence.
Life is presupposed with the pointlessness of existence. It is fundamental fate of life. Life cannot exist without the pointlessness of existence.

Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd, play along by Corvus.

Why nit? Can't I jump in the Mississippi twice? — Hillary

I think he meant that the river you jumped 2nd time was not the same river as the one you jumped first time.

It has been said well before Plato time, by Heraclitus "You cannot enter the same river twice." By the way, I have never met Plato in real life, but just intuiting the time of his living from what I read on some of the books.

Yeah, if it worked that way, then guitar playing would be impossible. I struck a chord to play the Eagles song, but it goes backwards and the sound die out, and so on ... it never happens fortunately, logically and rightly in the real world. :) So, guitar playing is possible.

But cause and effect you mentioned, and the topic had been much discussed by Hume. I think he said that causality doesn't exist. It is, just like time, an intuited entity from your habit, of seeing some event(s) and what follows immediately after the event. You keep seeing them and happening the same result every time the event happens first, and you get the idea of causality. Would it be correct to say that it is just the way how time works? :)

We could have felt it the other way round. Effects preceding causes. — Hillary

Any real life examples for effects preceding causes? :)

Precisely! But don't they perceive time then? — Hillary

They feel time, but it is different from visual or audible perceptions.
It is kind of intuition, or feeling rather than sensory perception.