I suppose the "antinomies" are merely polar opposite positions that we could take in philosophical arguments. As you implied, Kant was not concerned with the antinomies per se, but with the conflict that arises from such black-vs-white opinions. That's also why Aristotle advised us to aim at the Golden Mean, instead of "either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible".The issue then becomes what "limit" might mean, in regard to space-time. And it's not going to be the same now as it was for Kant.
This by way of showing that there is nothing in the antinomies themselves. — Banno
Perhaps. But overestimating the proper scope of Physics might also have bad consequences. Blocking access to metaphysical ideas would turn Philosophy into Empirical Physics --- and by what authority?. Would Physical Philosophy be a desirable alternative to the current unverifiable & unregulated metaphysical speculations of Philosophers & Cosmologists?It's not merely a grammatical matter... — Janus
Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno
Janus points to reification as an example, while I was pointing out that, the mere fact that we can negate any proposition tells us nothing about how things are. — Banno
The significance is no more than recognising that the question remains unanswered, indeed, unanswerable.I'm not seeing the relevance to the question as to whether the cosmos is infinitely large or finite in extent. — Janus
The significance is no more than recognising that the question remains unanswered, indeed, unanswerable. — Banno
Hossenfelder is/was an empirical scientist, and she insists that "Physicists must stop doing metaphysics"*1. Ironically, the same warning could apply to this forum : Philosophers should stop pretending to do Physics. Science is the search for practical knowledge that has a pragmatic "use" in the real world (e.g. food & clothing). But philosophy, by definition, is a search for abstract "wisdom" (e.g. to mature our minds). So, the "use" (purpose) of Wisdom is Discernment or Judgment : "ability to reach intelligent conclusions".So what makes them informative? Well, when they have a use. So this view is mote sympathetic to Hossenfelder, that if a theory can't be checked against the world, can't be made use of, then it amounts to little. — Banno
Yes, but this thread applies Kant's 400 year old antinomies to 21st century Cosmology : Philosophical Science and/or Metaphysical Physics? And the jam-fingered people quantum-tunneling through the imaginary wall between pragmatic physics & idealistic metaphysics are the professional physicists that Hossenfelder shakes her mommy-finger at*1.As for Kant, there's been some developments in philosophy over the last two hundred years. You wouldn't think so looking around here, but that's part of the oddity of these fora. — Banno
As I see it Kant doesn't offer the thing-in-itself as an explanation of anything, other than to point out that if something appears it seems to follows that there must be something which appears. and we seem to have no reason to believe that that which appears is the exactly the same as its appearance, or even anything at all like it. — Janus
Hoffman sheds new light on the old ding an sich question : evolution, via conditional survival, has taught us to treat "appearances" as-if they are the real thing. If you follow his evidence and reasoning, it should make sense. But, if you judge it by common sense, it may sound like non-sense. :smile:As I see it Kant doesn't offer the thing-in-itself as an explanation of anything, other than to point out that if something appears it seems to follows that there must be something which appears. and we seem to have no reason to believe that that which appears is the exactly the same as its appearance, or even anything at all like it. — Janus
...and no reason to think that it might be other than it appears. Kant is just using language badly. — Banno
...and no reason to think that it might be other than it appears. Kant is just using language badly.
I don't mind Zizek. — Banno
Yeah. I'm reading that. Not so impressed.Hoffman — Gnomon
Right, we have no reason to think that it is or is not how it appears, or even that it might be one or the other. Precisely Kant's point; and nothing to do with bad language use. — Janus
Of course. He makes use of Hegel, and is quite amusing (snuffle, pull t-shirt, whip nose on forefinger.) That's so much more interesting than talking about Hegel.Zizek is an avowed Kantian (and Hegelian) — Janus
Yeah, but we can move (have moved...) on. That very differentiation of how things appear as against how they are can be seen as a misapprehension of how language works. That's the lesson of Wittgenstein, Austin, and so on. — Banno
Of course. He makes use of Hegel, and is quite amusing (snuffle, pull t-shirt, whip nose on forefinger.) That's so much more interesting than talking about Hegel. — Banno
not sure who you think the "we" are — Janus
Ha! Yes, that's the way....you see him as using Hegel as a prop for stand-up comedy or some such? — Janus
I suspect that precious few academic philosophers nowadays would count themselves Kantian. If you want a more sophisticated counterargument, you might first produce a more sophisticated argument. That is, it's not clear what is being posited here, by the OP or by your good self. — Banno
I have read a couple of his books. — Banno
I pointed out that this is no more than saying that we can put a negation in front of any proposition. It's grammar masquerading as profundity.every idea contains the seeds of its own negation, — Janus
is utterly hollow. You keep saying nothing of consequence, as if it were relevant.Kant's antinomies are based on metaphysical speculations. It's not merely a grammatical matter; the grammar reflects what is imaginable. Any speculative idea may be true or false, or at least so we might think. Scientific theories themselves are never proven; they can, and often do, turn out to be wrong. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.