Can they explain the origin of the universe? Science has a real problem with origin when the practical side of a scientist turns speculative.

'A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realize the unimportence of time is the gate to wisdom.. Whoever wishes to see the world truly, to rise in thought above the tyranny of practical desires, must learn to overcome the difference of attitude towards past and future and to survey the whole stream of time in one comprehensive vision."

Why save people by science from death if they can't go out and philosophy afterwards?

Thanks for the conversation

Truth is neither subjective nor objective, but just how things are. — Banno

That's what objective means. I don't think you have a proper appreciation of what philosophy is about

As such it doesn't give a fuck about what you or I believe, faithfully or otherwise — Banno

Faith can work miracles. A good mind believes in miracles

If reason is controlled by will, even yet truth controls both — Banno

Whether truth is subjective, or instead, objective has been answered differetly throughout history. If it lives only in minds then truth is subjective. But material objects follow the "law of Nature" as essentially logic. Logic can't be taken out of any practice performed by a human. (But in mystcism, logic will have to be tamprred with in order to express insights of the mystical) And when thoughts agree with the law inside each one, then truth becomes objective

You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. Or maybe you do. Maybe you are satisfied. Smaller size truths like those found by science can't make for a substitute philosophy however.

"Reason is a harmonizing, controlling force rather than a creative one. Even in the purely logical realm, it is insight that first arriverà at what is new." Bertrand Russel in Mysticism and Logic

Reason and will are indeed different faculties. The former is the "I' in, or as, each person. But will is in complete control of reason

Accepting the results of science is an important part of being a modern adult. Medicine and those who create them go back far back into haze of history. They are venerable. However, i don't see why the law of the excluded middle is violated when something supported science can't be reconciled with philosophy. How can you tell me that physic equations should be allowed to be rewinded back 14 *billion* years. We can't even form an idea of a hundred thousand properly, let alone a billion. And how can you know all the forces that were acting in the universe, say 10 billions years? Are you really going to say you know all the universal factors acting at time 10 billion BC? Inuition and reason go hand and hand. Reason by itself is insanity, pure will

Neither: I adjust my "beliefs" until the "contradiction" dissolves — 180 Proof

"There are, he [Bergson] says, 'two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first implies that we move round the object: the second that we enter into it.'" Bertrand Russell in Mystcism and Logic

If the good in the world is seen as united, as a body of goodness bringing good to the world, we could say it is the historical manifestation of Plato's "Form of the Good". In mystical moments the truth cannot be contained by the mind and is interpreted as infinite. Beliefs and docttines cone about by Interpetatiom.

Everyone has the right to form there own interpretations. This is a natural right. A peaceful society is all that can limit it

The laws of the heart are hard to decifer, so i can't declare i know Kant's inner reflections, but his system for me leaves something missing.

What if you found a real contradiction at the heart of all you believe. Do you 1) go with faith, or 2) go with dialetheism

Or 3) go with both, or 4th neither

Of course. Hegel claimed Aristotle as his own, but his logo-becoming theology is the reverse of Aquinas's world view. Kant is opposed to it too. Kant kind of just rests on morality and says "let's 1) be moral, 2) do science to figure out the assumed (critique of judgment) to be designed world. Aquinas says "the perfect is in every way first". For Hegel it comes last (so history has importance. The potential that is actualized!). Kant can't prove that the perfect is real. Plato's "good" alludes him, except in that he contemplates his own conscience

Lordship and Bondage — Paine

Hegel was pointing out that slavery is a part of the human condition; however, he believed in the progress of history. Things can get bad, but they lead to what is best. I would say Hegel believed in Leibniz's best of all possible worlds, but in a world that evolves into the best, the perfect. A current contemporary philosopher who has similar views is Tim Freke

Kant's primary psychological observation is that we are separate from something about which we are very curious. Hegel tries to create thought spaces where we can satisfy our desires for complete systamization

What was Hegel's main response do you think to Kant's divided (by antimony?) world of phenomena and the beyond?

See Bxxiv — Mww

Thanks. I've read several places that Kant wanted to complete Descartes "universal algebra" agenda. That is, a system that can explain everything that humans can know. Leibniz tried this as well

Cool. You must be very much familiar with Hegel's system — Corvus

After getting better at reading his works, it felt as if i could predict what each next paragraph would be about. Or maybe it was a psychological trick, idk, but his arguing is dizzying, so it's best to keep it abstract and keep in mind the various uses of the words form, universal, particular, negative, positive, abstract, concrete, ratio, measure, essence, ect.

I believe the same was the fate of Kant and Leibniz. They never finished their systems to their own satisfaction.

I think Hegel was just philosophically spent by the end. Anything else he would have written would have been redundant in my opinion

As for Heidegger, his sense that time is alive and informs us of life reminds me of the turning wheels of the system of Hegel

Heidegger ends Being and Time on Hegel's analysis of time. He might have been referring to Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, the first pary of it about math, space, and time. Have you read one of Hegel's books? I've Phenomenology of the Mind about 7 times, and his "encyclopaedia' a few times. Sometimes there can be synchronisity in life

The world seems to be objects we perceive by our senses as extended. But there is so much more to experience than that. Phenomena is embedded in the pure extension stripped of color, smell, and taste (subjective?). There are all the ideas of philosophy living in the very being of things. Hegel presents the world as negative, moving, and as positive, objective, and Platonic on the flip side. Where does purpose come from? We don't know but it's there. Where does the extended come from for that matter

And yes, Hedeigger was a finitist Hegelian lol, imo

But my senses only feel in my visiom of sense. It takes abstract thought coupled withe imagination to think of something or someone not before you in their presence. We know each oher as humans, so then should we treat the body as phenomena or the thing in itself

If I think of the Big Bang for example, since there was no consciousness in the space-time reality at that time, to even think about it is to declare that a subjectless object existed once. People are very attached to being one with the past, as in evolution and cosmology (we are stardust?). It sems odd to take your own body thougy as phenomena instead of the intergal thing-in-itself, thrown through the chaotees of history.. Kant would have learned a lot from Hegel ii think, had he only lived longer

that knowing the truth has a spiritual dimension. There is an insight — Wayfarer

I use intuitiom and insight interchangeably. These leads to true knowledge though. Otherwise all is will. That knowledge is different from scientific knowledge. Will and reason are both necessary, so Schopenhauer and Hegel may have both been right

Truth is seen in that ignorance clouds the eyes of the mind that are, nonethless, seeing. Plato learned this from Socratea. There is a common stream running from Persia (Zorastrianism) to the Gnostics, neo-Platonists, and the followes of Mythra (largely Roman soldiers) which whispers of release from ideas that only know particular things as just that. Intuition is sometimes called the third eye... I was going to say something about Eckhart, but i have to go back and see my sources

What about this rock question however: are there rocks in existence when they are never seen? But what if they are heard, or tasted or smelled. Suppose there was one conscious being in the universe and his only sense was smell. If he smelled a "rock", does the rock exist? It seems individuation is on the part of the object presenting itself to me. Maybe truth i the reverse of science

So this discussions seems to boil down the idea that we experience the world but can't truly understand it.

People who enter my room experience a different room then the one i call my own space. Every object is understand by each person just as people are understood differently by different people.

I would ask you, what about the human faculties do you think enables them to arrive at an understanding of the true nature of reality? I think the hallmark of Kant is actually his intellectual humility. He is one who dares question what most take for granted — Wayfarer

What of truth for it's own sake? Why is desire for a knowledge wrong? What if we spent less thoughts on doubts and more on constructing what we can know. Truth is always seen. It's not always recogized

https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Construction-Nature-Metaphysical-Foundations/dp/0521198399

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_Foundations_of_Natural_Science

I read the first part of the former but i never felt like it really clicked with me

Oh right, the Construction of Nature book. I had forgotten about it. We did discuss it way back when. I had a thread 'what is phenomena' way back when, but i haven't those old posts since then

Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this perplexity without any fault of its own. It begins with principles which it has no choice but to employ in the course of experience, and is thus encouraged to extend them beyond all limits of experience. But it soon becomes aware that, by this means, its enterprise is drawing it into darkness and contradictions from which it can never escape. The battlefield of these endless controversies is called "metaphysics."

and later in the text:

We have now not only traversed the region of the pure understanding and carefully surveyed every part of it, but we have also measured it, and assigned to everything therein its proper place. But this land is an island, and enclosed by nature herself within unchangeable limits. It is the land of truth (an attractive word), surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the region of illusion, where many a fog-bank, many an iceberg, seems to the mariner, on his voyage of discovery, a new country, and, while constantly deluding him with vain hopes, engages him in dangerous adventures, from which he never can desist, and which yet he never can bring to a termination — Wayfarer

Do you agree with these passages? Can reason never know full truth? Did Kant fail by going to far into doubt?

I can see when i ponder billions of years before me that the mind can despair and say "without the warm of a knowing mind, what does it even mean for material objects to exist". And yet i know this rock here has existence if no one looks at it. What exactly phenomena is needs to be explored further it seems.

The world without mind is called sometimes "pure potential", "emptiness", "randomness", even "freedom", ect. There has to be some rationality that lets the intellectual difficulties fall into place after having shown themselves in the past to be unsolvable. If the world is will, will at least has to have imagination in order to be a functioning faculty, right?

Kant avoids history and history making perhaps because his noumena is always haunting his phenomena. Without knowledge of what is real except "i think therefore i am" all he has is faith, which makes him more a sceptic than anything else so it would seem. Many scpetics in the Enlightenment (Pierre Gassendi e.g) used sceptical arguments to let themselves forget about reason and leave all behind except faith. This was already done. So what exactly does transcendental philosophy add to this tradition of fideism? What is Kant's one great idea? Hegel, for one, has his historical dialectic

Kant's use of the antinomies was to demonstrate that we do not know such things -- we can rationally argue for both the assertion and the negation, and both will appeal to reason, and they can be put side-by-side and end up in contradiction. For Kant this shows a limitation on reason's ability to answer some questions.

Ideas having a two-sidedness is very much a Hegel move and not a Kant move — Moliere

But each antinomy has for its subject matter everything we experience in the now: past and future, space and matter, spirituality vs materialism. Could it be said that Kant was not Hegelian, but was he an absurdist? If objects and our identity have paradox, how can we say all ideas we have have only one side to them?

If you think, imagine, remember or believe in the existence of the large desk, then it is idea of the desk in your mind. If you stand in front of the desk, touch it, push it or work on it, then it is a matter, or a physical desk you are dealing with — Corvus

The world or reality means that you live in it, interact with other minds and objects in the world. If you cannot do that, then it is not a world, and it is not the world either. In that sense mind-independent world is a fiction — Corvus

All this is too obvious. Beneath the surface of things there is a paralogical bi-reality. We have matter first. We are matter, we are extended so we are extension. People think saying matter is extension is too Cartesian but look: that car there is extended that way, pushes off to the side there, ect. It's extended. It's not the principle of extension maybe, but what does that even mean?

On the other hand we have Descartes arguments for soul. There is nothing about pure abstraction that speaks of an entended organ. This feels strange to write because i feel my own brain and know i am just a body on a material, dangerous planet. However, he has a point that spiritual experiences are perceived as going beyond matter. And if we asign our tactile feelings to the skin because that's were they seem to come from, and the other sensations to each senses, maybe we should asign thought and love to the soul if for nothing else than for psychological necessity

Idealism can be tricky. Is that desk there an idea. A large, wooden idea and if i push it over, am i pushing an idea? Is my soul an idea? How does my sole know matter as matter? Is there something that connects all philosophical ideas within my soul?

said what I should have said — MoK

Any argument you provide for continuity i can and have countered. Something has to give.

From the book: "Strictly speaking, for Leibniz it is not possible for two worlds to differ only in a single detail. If one thing is different between two worlds, then every other substance must be different as well. This is because in Leibniz's philosophy, within any one world 'all is connected' and there are 'no purely extrinsic denominations,' and thus the differences in that thing will be reflected in concomitant differences in all other substances. For the same reason, it does not make sense to speak of one and the same thing existing in two worlds, because each thing expresses or is a reflection of the particular world which it belongs."

Leibniz insists there is something spontaneous in each monad (think hidden variables) which reflect each other monad but keeps each one individual at the same time. Unity in plurality. I don't know if this modal theo-philosophy accords better with Plato or Aristotle. For too idealistic for Cartesian extension however

already presented two arguments against the existence of the gap — MoK

Math can only do so much. There is a gap and there isn't a gap. There is separation but not such that there is no smooth motion. Sometimes philosophy and logic have to step in where math fails

As Hegel says in the lesser logic, you must think of the continuous mixed with the discrete in order to understand either one. The continuous is illogical I say. There nothing between two discretes but they are close enough to allow movement between them, contral Leibniz's monads

Faith is a philosophy with all the questions left out — PoeticUniverse

Isn't it that there are nothing but questions for faith? Certainty does away with faith. Isn't faith reallying a doubting that accepts the state of doubt with hope?

Piety is not a very pretty word. Love is of course a great English word, put together so well. Hope is cozy, but faith seems to have many connotations

Thus faith pretty much = (hope - empirical evidence) + conviction. — schopenhauer1

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for" Hebrews 11:1

So faith and hope run parallel. Maybe faith is more of mind and hope is more of heart

Genesis 6:6 among many others — Hanover

Aquinas reinterprets that because his philosophy demanded that to suffer was a change and God was pure unchanging actuality

That's incredibly insightful