I was taking an extreme example to highlight that there are grey areas.

100% subjectivity is pretty much where we all begin. We are not given a manual about how to perceive reality or what reality is.

I am not denying your seeing it or imagining it, but it must be UNREAL. — Corvus

But what if it is not? Of course if I said to you I saw a flying elephant you would question my mental faculties … but maybe I actually did and there are genetically modified elephants flying around somewhere.

You see how you see. It is a matter of subjectivity.

What you see and claim to know is necessarily limited.

what it real can be criticises and speculated upon.

Honestly, there is nothing here to talk about bye :)

I never said anything about anything being ‘true’.

I try to be precise. Corvus replaced ‘perceived’ with ‘imagined’ and now you have replaced ‘real’ with ‘true’.

If I see a flying elephant I would probably assume it is some kind of holographic projection when the reality is that it is a genetically engineered creature that looks very, very much like a flying elephant. It could just be a hallucination. Either way the experience is real for me.

If you find that impossible to take onboard I doubt we have anything much more to say to each other on this topic. Such is life :)

So you must really mean that the term ‘delusion’ is meaningless because we can never verify about their experience.

This is a little like saying Canada does not exist because I have never been there. Merely heresay.

Scepticism only makes sense to a certain degree.

it can just be used to defend any erroneous claim by declaring yourself deluded. — AmadeusD

? What are you talking about? If you are deluded you are deluded. You do not choose to be deluded. If you are pretending to be deluded you are lying.

That is not the only thing Kant was writing about. He wrote about wide variety of topics. — Corvus

In COPR this was the initial question. Of course he wrote other books …

After all you brought in the term 'Real' in your claim. — Corvus

False. You asked me the question using that term regarding my seeing an elephant flying (not ‘imagining’ one flying). What is sensible to me is real to me unless I recognise an illusion. What is a delusion is obviously beyond my examination (because a delusion is believed).

It would have no use, in this case. It is self-evidence that we do not share experiences. It is their comparison resulting in consistency or deviation that matters, and helps us delineate what we can rely on from what we cannot. I suppose, for an idealist this doesn't matter though so I could be barking up the wrong tree. — AmadeusD

We share an approximation of experiences. If we did not we would be nothing much to each other.

What about a rainbow? We all see them yet they are not there. The illusion is an objective one though, so whilst we can say it is not real in one sense (being an illusion) we share a common experience of it.

Your saying that you see a flying elephant and it is real to you, is a self-contradiction.
Because the flying elephant was an unreal object to you and to the world. You were seeing an unreal flying elephant. — Corvus

Different uses of terms. Nothing more. No contradiction. It is a real thought not an unreal thought … what would an ‘unreal’ thought be?

Equating ‘truths’ has necessary limitations. For my consciousness and experience I have no idea what my limitations are so application of ‘truth’ in the existing world is an overreach.

If I said the elephant does not exist and does exist then that is different. I used ‘real’ as a relative function of personal experience. I can imagine something and you have no idea what it is. It is possible for you to imagine similar things. Imagining something is a real experience, just as seeing a tree with your eyes is a real experience. How this maps onto what is existent is another matter and kind of what Kant went into in a deep way in terms of investigating what can be known prior to experience.

I doubt the OP is asking about English grammar. — hypericin

I am pretty sure I caught that. Hence me not assuming ignorance. I interpreted it as Action versus Innate Qualities or some such thing.

what do you know about your flying elephant? — Corvus

I know that it is there. I also know that my experience is limited. I generally have little reason to disbelieve what I experience. What I believe is real for me is real for me and may or may not relate to what you believe is real for you.

In a more broader sense I know via what Kant called Intuitions. Even with abstract items like numbers they are only known as abstracted from our ‘appreciation’ (for want of a better term) of the spaciotemporal.

What about you? If you see an elephant flying in the sky how do you know about it?

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.