Building on what you said, we now know that both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries can be used successfully to try to explain the occurrence of certain physical phenomena.

The degree of success of the physical theories (paradigms) proposed to try to explain and predict the occurrence of certain physical phenomena is determined largely by the degree of appropriateness of the kind of mathematical/geometric tools which are selected for inclusion in the theories to try to accomplish such predictions and explanations.

This, I think, disproves the validity of Kant's explicit (testable) epistemic hypothesis that only Euclidean geometry must apply to the physical world because it is a transcendental (necessary and strictly universal) form of human sensible intuition.

However, can Kant's theory of sensible intuition be modified to better fit contemporary facts, or must it be completely discarded as a once very interesting, but now debunked, theory?

Might there not be, instead, objective multiverses, each functioning according to different kinds of mathematics and geometries, some already known others not, which have nothing at all to do with any transcendental forms of human sensible intuition?

I also think that Kant's notions of space and time are not the same as the space and time that I experience on a daily basis.

Einstein's notions of space and time are the dynamic ones that can be empirically verified through a wide range of experiments.

For example, empirical space bends in the presence of large masses and their strong gravitational fields; Kant's transcendental space is a static, rigid, container. Empirical time passes slower or faster depending on how near or far one is from a strong gravitational field, Kant's transcendental time flows uniformly everywhere for every person.

But, then, am I to conclude that the mentally spatialized universe is somehow located in my mind?

Each person who wills, or does not will, this or that state-of-affairs does so in terms of motives that are attempts to explain why the person wills, or does not will, this or that state-of-affairs.

However, each person's Will-to-Live, itself, has no explanatory motive for willing life -- it just does so.

That is why an unreasoning dreadful desperation usually sets in whenever a person is confronted with the immediate, undeniable, inescapable possibility of personal death. Each person is through and through nothing other than this primordial, unreasoning, blind Will-to-Live.

It is precisely the occurrence of this personal, visceral, subjective experience of the Thing-in-Itself as a Will-to-Live which clearly distinguishes the meaning of Schopenhauer's Thing-in-Itself from the meaning of Kant's Thing-in-Itself as the transcendent Unknowable.

As Albert Camus so aptly put it: "We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking."

Have a look, in this regard, at Schopenhauer's essay "The Four-Fold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason," where he clearly differentiates logical necessity from physical causation and the areas where each may be applied appropriately but considers both to be expressions of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

More comprehensively, I think one would have to take (a) a completely objective point of view, free of all subjectivity, or (b) a completely subjective point of view, free of all objectivity, or (c) a completely integrative point of view combining both the objective and subjective points of view, or (d) a completely transcendent (mystical) point of view that rises above all subjective and objective points of view.

I think each of the great philosophers tried to accomplish, in one way or another, either (a), (b), (c) or (d).

In fact, it would be interesting to give reasons why a specific philosopher's system belongs in one of these categories, rather than in another.

Or, perhaps even more to the point, is there a method whereby it is possible to determine if the existence of my consciousness and the existence of the world it experiences are always necessarily codependent and interconnected, or if one can exist independently of and unconnected to the other?

It all hinges on the meaning of the word "external" as used in the OP question, doesn't it? External in what sense, external to what? And precisely how is it external to the what?

Is the material world external to consciousness in a space within consciousness created by consciousness, or is the material world external to consciousness in a space outside of consciousness not created by consciousness?

Are both alternatives possible, or only one alternative?

Too bad we didn't have a debate between Sartre and Carnap.

Go back to Charles Ferraro's comments and respond. All responses are welcome.

No! By definition, geniuses have the uncommon ability to "think outside the box," to "interpret things in ways never before surmised." Will there no longer be geniuses? Will there no longer be humans who have this unique ability? Persons who can look at what we all take for granted and see in it, and show us, something new, strange, and absolutely marvelous? This is really what you are asking, isn't it? Geniuses have the ability to kill the old accepted paradigms.

To Cite Just One Example: Sartre's notion of pre-reflective consciousness as nihilation. This was absolutely new. Historically, no philosopher, other than Sartre, came up with this notion.

I anticipate that there will be many other such future geniuses.

Philosophy is far from being dead.

Instead, it is we, with our limited intellects, who have learned how to die!

Why not "unintelligent design"? Are not all biological entities examples of unintelligent design. Could not one argue, for example, that cancer research is a concerted effort to address and correct the deadly effects of the unintelligent design of the human body?

Absent a Deus ex machina, personal existence is experientially contingent because it does not have to be.

Technically, you're correct.

Perhaps. But since you and I are still alive, we cannot yet know, with complete certainty, if it belongs in your ontological spitoon, can we?

I'm tired of responding to Ludwig and Benedict. How about what YOU think!!!

For each of us, death is the MOST SIGNIFICANT and DEFINITIVE EVENT we will ever experience in our life, because it puts a definite end to our life, it cancels it.

We each live awaiting this ultimate, inevitable cancellation of personal life.

Eternal life, if it does exist, DOES NOT belong to those who live in the present, because eternity, unlike time, is dimensionless; it lacks past, present, and future.

Eternal life, if it does exist, transcends ALL temporal dimensions.

It's intellectual fun!

What I proposed does not necessarily mean that I believe in an afterlife. I simply wanted to investigate the implications a certain interpretation of the meaning of eternity would have on an afterlife if one assumed it existed.

No. I submit that self-creation is impossible because I never participated in either a decision to exist, or a decision who to exist as. Or, stating it in a different way, Self-creation would require an absolutely free will, which is impossible.

Wouldn't hurt in this regard to read Arthur Schopenhauer's "On the Four-Fold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason."

Gnostic Christianity proposed its own unique “explanation” for the existence of evil which differed significantly from the “explanation” proposed by orthodox Christianity.

It went something like this.

Gnostic Christianity believed in a completely unknowable Transcendent God which was revealed to be a timeless trinity of Father, Mother, and Son. This Transcendent God emanated and contained within itself a realm of spiritual fullness (the Pleroma) that consisted of a series of emanated spiritual beings (Aeons).

The very last emanated spiritual being or Aeon, called Sophia (Wisdom), longed to have an unmediated, direct knowledge of the Transcendent God. But such unmediated knowledge (gnosis) was not permitted to any Aeon because doing so successfully would erase the Aeon’s emanation, absorb it back into the Transcendent God, and cause the Aeon to lose its identity.

Sophia’s effort to have direct knowledge of the Transcendent God failed, but since she was a spiritual being, she automatically emanated from herself a defective, imperfect, inferior version of The Transcendent God. This inferior version of the Transcendent God was named Ialdabaoth.

Ialdabaoth stole spiritual power from his mother (Wisdom), fell outside the fullness of the Pleroma, and created an imperfect, defective copy of the Pleroma, which became our universe. Ialdabaoth also created imperfect copies of the Aeons, called Archons, to rule over the universe.

Ialdabaoth Is also said to be responsible for human beings falling from the Pleroma into the universe, imprisoning them in physical bodies, and causing them to forget their prior existence in the pleroma.

Being ignorant of the Transcendent God, Ialdabaoth claims that he is the only true God who rules over the created universe and its inhabitants.

Of course, there is much more to this religious epic, but enough has been presented at this point to at least indicate how and why evil exists in the created universe and who is responsible for it from the perspective of Gnostic Christianity.

Any opinions about this?

Correct!

Nothing external to me would be responsible for me being the who that I am.

Instead, either only I would be responsible for being the who that I am, or
not only no one, but not even I myself, would be responsible for being the who that I am.

Schopenhauer opted for the former.

As Schopenhauer noted, guilt and moral responsibility do not attach primarily to one's actions but to the who that one is. I can only be responsible for who I am if, at some point, I chose to be who I am.
Guilt, blame lies in one's character, not in one's actions.

If both the "that you are" (your existence) and the "who you are" (your character or personality) are dependent upon the will of another, the will of a creator, then, by definition, you cannot have free will. You can only be truly free if you yourself have the power to do both; to choose to exist and to choose who you shall be.

When one speaks of someone having "absolutely free will," to me this does not mean having the mundane uncoerced ability to choose between A or B.

Instead, to me it would mean having the ultimate ability. The ability to create oneself out of nothing while simultaneously choosing who one will be, one's moral character.

Perhaps everyone in existence is responsible for having chosen the wrong moral character and this constitutes original sin.

Perhaps, death provides one with another opportunity to choose correctly.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!

Certain sects of early Christianity presupposed that all created beings were originally in the presence of God prior to the Fall.

Certain of these created beings, who did not commit something called Original Sin, never fell and remained within the presence of God, or the Beatific Vision (the Angels).

Other of these created beings, who did commit something called Original Sin, fell and were removed from the presence of God (Lucifer, fallen angels or demons, and all human beings via Adam and Eve).

Now, the Presence of God, or the Beatific Vision, is what all created beings long for. It represents the ultimate reward of salvation, perfect bliss, the exquisite consummate fulfillment of all possible needs and desires of created beings.

Now, here's the problem.

If all created beings, before the Fall, were originally in the presence of God, how, then, was it even possible for any of these beings to have committed Original Sin?

Before the Fall, what need or desire of a created being could have existed and have possibly remained unfulfilled in the Presence of God (the Beatific Vision), thereby engendering an Original Sin?

How could it be possible for a created being to have had a need or desire that was not sanctioned by God? Did He create some beings who were defective because of Him?

You might want to read Arthur Schopenhauer's "Essay on the Freedom of the Will." Presents what I consider one of the best essays ever written on this topic. Does, however, presuppose the reader is familiar with some basic tenets of Immanuel Kant's philosophy.

Reality is that which can be perceived (observed) from every possible frame-of-reference.
Since human beings cannot do this, they only perceive (observe) appearances.

Only he who creates himself out of nothing has a completely free will.

My mind wills not the world I see,
Nor did it will itself to be.
Something else 'bove both must be,
That willed it so for you and me.

In the original Hebrew and Aramaic, the word for Spirit "Rhua" or Wisdom "Chakemah" is feminine.
When translated into Greek, the word for Spirit "Pneuma" is neuter.
And, lastly, when translated into Latin the word for Spirit "Spiritus" is masculine.

So, in harmony with original gender references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, there is good reason to believe that the Holy Spirit ought to have been characterized as feminine, rather than as neuter or masculine, by the Church Fathers when discussing the Holy Trinity.

I submit that acceptance of the feminine gender of the Holy Spirit would have had profound implications for the Church Fathers' interpretation of the Holy Trinity. For example, certain Gnostic Christians, who accepted the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit, characterized the Holy Trinity as follows:

The absolutely perfect, self-engendered source of divine life, reflecting upon itself, engenders eternally within its divine nature an absolutely perfect companion-image of itself. The latter is the eternal product of the former's thinking, its Wisdom, its perfect eternal self-knowledge, and the will of the latter is always in accord with the will of the former. The one has never been without the other.

The only difference between the two is that the former is the eternal self-engendered source of divine life, while the latter is the eternal other-engendered recipient of divine life.

Both the bestower and the recipient of divine life are unutterably perfect and exquisitely beautiful in themselves and to one another. They are eternally and irresistibly drawn to one another. For them there is no difference between love of self and love of the other. In other words, love of the other is self-love and self-love is love of the other.

An eternal, absolutely perfect divine love weds one to the other. And this reciprocal divine love between the giver and receiver of divine life is, in essence, an Eternal Spiritual Marriage (the Gnostic sacrament of the Bride Chamber).

As a result of this eternal spiritual marriage, the bestower of divine life causes the recipient of divine life to conceive a third divinity within the divine nature (the Gnostic Immaculate Conception). This third divinity is their eternal offspring. These three have never been without each other.

The divine offspring has perfect knowledge of and perfect love for both the bestower and the recipient of divine life (the Gnostic Divine Parent) and is the eternally generated perfect synthesis, embodiment, and expression of them, their divine will, and their perfect reciprocal love.

The bestower of divine life is the Person of God the Father, the male aspect of the One divine nature.

The recipient of divine life, who proceeds from the Father, is the Person of God the Mother, the female
aspect of the One divine nature, also called Wisdom, Holy Spirit, Barbelo.

And the divine offspring, who is generated by the Father and conceived by the Holy Spirit, is the Person of God the Son.

This, then, is a brief example of a Gnostic Christian interpretation of the Divine Holy Trinity or the Divine Holy Family: God the Father, God the Mother, and God the Son.

Tom. I don't think there are any deliberate conspiratorial machinations or plots at work here or in any other grand materialist or idealist epistemological systems. I just think all epistemic theories are destined to have contradictions and shortcomings inherent in them by their grandiose natures and aspirations.

Kant's epistemology never really explains satisfactorily where sensations come from before they are synthesized by the transcendental forms of intuition and the transcendental categories of the understanding.

To say that the transcendent thing-in-itself, or the transcendent noumenon, are the original sources of pre-synthesized sensations (that they stimulate sensations), is basically no different than saying that the pre-synthesized sensations are caused by NOTHING.

Ultimately, Kant's epistemology lacks explanatory power. I conclude that it fails.

Tom, one could ask: How precisely does Kant's thing-in-itself differ from Berkeley's (actually Locke's) substance, or matter? That "something, I know not what " underlying sense impressions.

I submit that they do not really differ at all because, bottom line, each can be characterized best as a "NOTHING," as that which, in principle, could never be perceived by human beings.

For what else would one be left with to perceive but a "NOTHING" if one could eliminate all empirical and transcendental characteristics from the object?

To still insist that something perceivable remains would be sheer nonsense.

Notice how the tactics used by Fichte to discredit the legitimacy of Kant's conception of the thing-in-itself (see Fichte's The Vocation of Man) are nearly identical to the tactics used by Berkeley to discredit the legitimacy of Locke's conception of substance, or matter (see Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge & Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous).

Certainly, as Kant claimed, the transcendental forms of intuition and the transcendental categories of the understanding without sensations are empty and the sensations without the transcendental forms of intuition and the transcendental categories of the understanding are blind.

But the purported thing-in-itself, being transcendent to both the sensory and the transcendental, is NOTHING from the framework of human consciousness.

Thanks. Will take a look at it.

RGC, what is the written work of Caspar Hare titled wherein he sets forth his system of philosophy which does not need to reference a transcendent factor?

Tom, any conjectures as to the "incomplete ideas" which might be unique to each system, or common to them all?

For example, Berkeley needed a transcendent Master-Mind to preserve, maintain, and explain the existence and inherent organization of ideas if and when they were not being perceived by any human mind.

Berkeley's system is coherent only because he postulates the existence of a Transcendent Master-Mind.

Kant's system is coherent only because he postulates the existence of a Transcendent Thing-in-Itself.

Fichte's system is coherent only because he postulates the existence of a Transcendent Absolute Ego.

Schopenhauer's system is coherent only because he postulates the existence of a Transcendent Will.

Can any system of philosophy be coherent without having to postulate the existence of some kind of Transcendent Factor?

And with respect to each system, what is it precisely that needs to be explained by the Transcendent Factor? Is it something peculiar and unique to each system, or something common to all the systems?

Has any thinker formulated a complete system of philosophy that did not necessitate postulating the existence of a Transcendent Factor?

Berkeley's idealism differs from Kant's in the same way that Fichte's idealism differs from Kant's. Ostensibly, both Berkeley and Fichte seemed to have successfully eliminated Kant's Thing-in-Itself as a material cause, but both ultimately were forced to reinstate it as an Absolute Mind.

Example of a metaphysical poem.

To Run Lovely Rings 'Round Each Other

Within My Mind's Imagination,
The Boundless World Surrounds
Me,
And You are in It

And Within Your Mind's Imagination,
I Imagine,
The Boundless World
Surrounds
You,
And I am in It.

And Within Their Minds' Imaginations,
I Imagine,
The Boundless World
Surrounds
Them,
And We are in It.

Magical Imaginations,
Eternally Born of Nothing.
All Subtly Intertwined and
Secretly Married from Within.

Magical Imaginations,
Blind Cosmic Conjurers,
Omnipresent,
Static,
Space-Time Travelers.

Magical Imaginations,
Perpetually Creating
Familiar Alien Visions
Of Magnificent Vaulted Prison Ceilings,
Filled with Spiraling Galaxies,
And Scintillating, Starry Skies,
And Bottomless Black-Hole Pits,
And Circle-Dancing Orbs.

Magical Imaginations,
Presenters and Portrayers of
The Unceasing Flux
And Shapes of Being.
Trapped forever
Within their Own Unreasoning Creations,
Forever asking, "Why?"

Magical Imaginations,
Despondent Creators,
Whose Fallen Fate It Is
To Be but Stages
Throughout the Ages
For the Blind Play-Acting Productions
Of That Unseen Other Will Within.

Magical Imaginations,
Despondent Creators
Forever being Forced
To Run Lovely Rings 'Round Each Other.