I already answered. It is ‘real’ to me. We experience what we experience. There is no ‘knowing’ for me in any absolute sense.

Now, how do you know what you perceive is ‘real’? If you answer your own question it might help, unless you find it meaningless?

Do you have a point or are you just going to throw out facile questions?

You are effectively asking me what I know about how I perceive anything. Right back at you. You can perceive what you perceive so tell us all what you know about what you perceive perhaps?

Frankly I find it to be a ridiculous question BUT given that you asked it I imagine if you answer it it may shed light on where you are going with this.

1. Real can mean physical existence. You are not just seeing something, but you can also touch grab feel use manipulate transfer and throw out physically.
2. Real can also mean genuine, not bogus, not look alike, not copy of the genuine.
3. Real means actual, not dream, not hallucinating, not illusion. — Corvus

And which particular version did you have in mind when you asked the question?

Again, cut to the chase please.

What do you know about the flying elephant in your mind? — Corvus

If you have a thought spell it out. It gets kind of boring talking in riddles.

Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? — YiRu Li

I will assume you are not ignorant. I would side with saying it is something you are rather than something you do … but clearly one without the other is kind of meaningless.

What I mean is some people ‘try’ to be honest whilst for others it is just who they are. I would have reservation about anyone claiming again and again that they are ‘honest’.

I try to always keep Richard Feynman’s quote in mind:

“People are easily fooled, and the easiest person to fool is yourself.”

Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception? — YiRu Li

No. This is under the assumption that we generally label ‘deception’ as a negative aspect of humans. That said, we often lie to avoid what we deem as ‘unnecessary’ conflict. I think it is reasonable to lie from an efficiency perspective as causing conflict can inhibit/scupper more progressive lines of investigation/communication.

What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty? — YiRu Li

To be combative and free. To be honest requires acting and speaking in a genuine manner. Doing such will lead to necessary conflict. An honest person can only be honest if they are strong willed.

Tell me what you mean by ‘real’.

Everything I perceive before me is ‘real’ in one sense - including illusions and delusions. In another sense if I see a flying elephant that is not actually there (everyone else denies it is there) then the elephant does not exist but is real for me - unless I am being gaslighted. I can form an image in my head no one else can experience, yet it is ‘real’ to me only. What is real to me comes to me through experience of how well my understanding maps onto my collective experience.

Recall I referred to the obsession some people have with certainty right at the start of our interaction here? Knowledge is limited. I feel like this is why you are probing? We know things because we can doubt them.

How do you want me too?

What kind of argument do you want me to present?

Note: I find no need to ‘prove’ it to myself.

Thank you :)

Could one perhaps say that the world as they experience it is real to them? — RussellA

We do actually say that for everyone. I will just assume you are wrong then. Bye

If they were a Phenomenalist, the Appearance is the real world. — RussellA

If you are talking about phenomenology this is incorrect. Phenomenology is not directly concerned with what is or is not real as it is a proposed method of exploring experience.

It’s fine, though. One inclined to “much prefer the phenomenological approach”, as you admit, isn’t likely to be persuaded by finespun transcendental arguments, regardless of their authors. — Mww

Try me. Just because I am familiar with one perspective does not mean I adhere to it with fanaticism. I view all popular philosophical positions are ‘tools’ rather than doctrines to live by.

What does it matter where it comes from? — Mww

Context.

Quote with no reference to where you got it? Come on now!

If I come to you with a piece of paper that does not exist in a spatiotemporal sense I am empty handed because there is no ‘piece of paper’.

I think someone on this forum mentioned some time ago that they chose to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘exist’ in terms that a unicorn can ‘exist’ but it cannot be ‘real’. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is neither of these as it is just an empty term that can neither be conjured by imagination nor experienced in reality.

If you could explicate in more detail it would be nice :)

If you do not wish to that is fine.

Note: do not ask which part because none of it said anything to me.

No idea what you mean?

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. — Corvus

I was not using Kantian terminology for ‘imagination’.

What does Kant say about it? — Corvus

Nothing I can recall?

My only point was that this says nothing about the existence of whatever it is we cannot know. — Janus

That would be impossible.

You seem to be talking about the possible existence of something due to sensible evidence.

If I come to you with a piece of paper with evidence saying that what is written on the paper outlines some ‘object’ beyond of sensory appreciation, and this paper has nothing written only it, would you accept this as evidence of some object wholly beyond our ken. You would not I expect.

The proposition of ‘a-thing-in-itself’ needs greater context. Without context there is nothing to talk about. We may as well argue for the existence of God - therein lies the very same issue. The ‘definition/labelling of’ some object does not render it real.

If we are talking about ‘existence’ as something separate to ‘real’ then we need to demarcate.

I am more in favour of absconding from the whole mess tbh and much prefer the phenomenological approach (Bracketing Out).

If you agree that we cannot know what we cannot know then that is pretty much all there is to what I have been trying to articulate.

If you disagree then I simply do not use language in the same manner you do.

So what is the boundary of our imagination? — Corvus

Intuitions (Kantian).

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

It is a question of semantics. It is useful to talk about existence in some circumstances and not in others.

I do not see any importance in speculating how we can point at something we cannot point at.

They exist in time and space. I was not suggesting that the universe ceases to exist when humans are gone.

It seems rather it is you that misunderstood what I was saying; It should be obvious that I was not claiming that we can imagine the unimaginable, but we can certainly imagine that something unimaginable may exist — Janus

And there is the key word! If it does not exist for us then in what capacity are you actually using that term. Think about it.

apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus

This is an assumption. I am unaware of our ability to think in an atemporal way and with complete disregard to space.

It doesn't follow that because something is "nothing to us" that it is non-existent. In any case the in itself is not nothing to us except sensorially; we do generally tend to think that things have their own existences independently of us. The fact that we (obviously) cannot determine the total or absolute nature of that existence does not entail that it is "nothing".

You say we cannot refer to such things in a meaningful way, but that is just your opinion; it seems obvious to me that we can refer to such things apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus

No no no. You misunderstand, I promise!

We know the world via space and time (a roughshod paraphrasing of Kantian Intuitions). We can only speculate on the canvas of these intuitions. ‘Beyond’ is meaningless/nought.

You cannot imagine something you cannot imagine - by definition. This follows the same principles. The ‘existence of’ some otherly, wholly incomprehensible item is the very same manner of word play. Just to be clear this is not as stating something currently beyond our ken, that may always remain beyond our ken BUT it a possibility of perception directly or indirect via instrumentation (microscopes, telescopes, etc.,.).

I understand the term to signify the sheer existence of a thing as distinct from its existence for us. — Janus

Which is necessarily nothing to us. Hence it is non-existent.

We talking about something existing based on human experience because, frankly, that is all we have and therefore all there ever is for us. It is a subtle obviousness easily missed.

It is not that we do not know what we cannot know - which is contrary! We cannot even refer to what we cannot know in any meaningful way.

I would say The Intuitions. Although ‘know’ is not exactly the correct way to put it. Otherwise, no. We know of of nothing prior to experience.

I think he more or less found something more interesting to look at. The journey was more important. The question was kind of futile in the same sense that asking ‘Does the world exist?’.

But we can guess, infer and imagine. — Corvus

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.

Noumenon is the objects of the intuition, not perception. — Corvus

Well, no, not really. That makes it sound like it is comprehended. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is an illusionary term just like talk of ‘square circles’ or ‘upside down trouser memories’. You know this though I believe so baffled why you are asking?

What is the quote? “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”

It relates to what exists in the sense that we can convince ourselves, or fool ourselves, about the knowledge we possess. This in turn frames what we mean by ‘existence’. Kant clearly demarcates between Rational and Empirical.

For myself, I find the entire idea of ‘existing’ fruitless if one expects a conclusive answer. We are limited. We are able due to limits. What is directly in the mind’s eye is up for scrutiny and we are able to ask questions of it. What is not in the mind’s eye (conscious focus) is accepted.

We are ‘roused from our slumber’ by existence when focus is shifted - and it is constantly shifting to some degree or another.

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?

We can talk of what we know not of what we do not.
We can never talk of what we can never know.

Those are not the same. The first does not say we cannot in the future. The second ‘points at’ (for want of some non-existent term) some inexplicable limitation that is not even possible to outline as a shadow on the wall.

I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

I can now outline an answer to this.

I experience. ‘Objects’ of experience vary. When I am not experiencing any ‘object’ (ie. Unconscious and not dreaming) I do not seem to cease to exist as I am existing again upon waking.

If I am able to hold a belief in anything I necessarily must attach said belief to some form of existence. I cannot believe in something that I am unable to have any inkling of - such is beyond me (non-existent).

There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. Such is a limit of human understanding (the ONLY understanding we have or can ever have). The horizon is an ever shifting item that will forever remind us of our limitations.

In more day-to-day terms people do not question existence of most things because they are too busy interacting with said things.

In terms of knowledge, what is known remains known with set limits too. A clearly set out abstract realm possesses Truths but non-abstract (day-to-day things) are always subject to some level of scrutiny as our certainty within experience had limits.

I can question this or that World because I cannot hold it all at once. I can question gravity but in day-to-day life I simply pay it no direct attention, just like I pay no heed to my legs moving when I walk.

There are countless perspectives to look at. What remains pretty clear overall is that to ‘believe’ is the existing world is a rather bizarre way of putting things. The answer (just like the no one around to hear a tree question) depends on the approach and meaning of ‘hear’ within the context given. The ‘sound waves’ exist but with no ear to hear it can be argued that there is no sound quite reasonably. To extend this to the totality of existence just leads me to ask why anyone would bother to do so?

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

Empty intentions and such might be worth going into here maybe. Could help progress the discussion?

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

The World meaning what?

‘Exist’ meaning what?

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.

Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.

Present what you mean by the terms you use. I can wait.

Until then bye bye :)

Words are words. You may not perceive the fist coming towards your face but you will sure as hell feel its impact.

The relevance of the ‘reality’ of the existence of such a fist does naught to reduce sensation of pain.

We undoubtedly tweak how we view the world through an intricate web of cultural indoctrination that it necessary to operate in said world. Solipsism is a very poor position to start from if you have no intention of bringing scepticism into play.

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points? — Corvus

B310-B312 | A254-A256

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation. — Corvus

I will wait for you to address the terms you use

Maybe then I can address whatever it is you wish to discuss.

There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations. — Corvus

On the particular point I was making it is quite clear in his own words. He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’.

In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …).

Look forward to seeing what you mean by the words you use.

Are you that ‘creationism’ guy by any chance? If so will be interesting to see if you have anything new to say :)