Philosophy gets us clearer on empirical reality perhaps….
— Janus
If one holds with the position that it is we who decide what reality is, or, perhaps, how the reality that is, is to be known as such, that says more about the decision-maker than what is decided upon.
Philosophy gets us clearer as subjects, yes, regardless of that to which we as subjects direct ourselves. — Mww
My getting us clearer as subjects, is probably more closely related to metaphysics, which in turn is closer to your mention of critical thought.
What do you mean by….what would it be like to be……affected pre-cognitively? — Mww
Do you mean getting clearer via critical thought….. — Janus
don't think being affected pre-cognitively can be like anything — Janus
that there are processes that are, or "something" that is, that we cannot be aware of creating this shared world of things we inhabit. — Janus
I meant the curtailment the extravagances of thought without stifling it. The subject imagining freely, but understanding he can only go so far with it. — Mww
There very well may be those processes. I just figure if we not only aren’t, but couldn’t possibly be, aware of them, it makes no difference to us whether there are or not. How would we ever be able to tell? Correct me if I’m off-base, but isn’t that what the doctrine of phenomenology posits? Those processes creating this shared world we may be able to know about? — Mww
Question: Is the space Kant discusses in the Aesthetic the same space I experience and move through on a daily basis and is the time he discusses in the Aesthetic the same time I experience passing by on a daily basis? — charles ferraro
Might I suggest Kant meant for space and time to be the pre-condition for experience? They are that which makes experience possible? — Mww
It may be too wide for all that the human intellect can do, sure. But with respect to space and time, experience is only ever going to be whatever they allow. — Mww
My interpretation of the meaning of Kant's philosophy, in this respect, is that space and time (or extension and duration) have an inextricably subjective dimension — Wayfarer
Acc. to Kant we can't have experience about ideas like "society", "freedom" etc. We can think these ideas but we don't have knowledge about them. We have "only" beliefs concerning them. "Society" can't be appearance in space and time. This means also that ideas like that are outside the realm of verification or falsification. The idea of freedom can't be verified or _falsified_ scientifically. — waarala
Would they belong to "Ding-An-Sich"? or would they be just invention of human mind? What do we have to do or what can we do with Thing-in-itself? — Corvus
when the object of perception are the mental contents such as images in the past memories or imagination, which doesn't need space and time — Corvus
Kant said, or would say that space and time still applies to the memories or imaginations for their content? — Corvus
Would you not agree that space and time only applies as the precondition of perception, only when the objects of the perception are the external material objects? — Corvus
In Kant, then, the external material object is that which appears, and the object of perception is the sensation afforded by that which has appeared. Now perhaps it is clear space and time have nothing to do with any of this, insofar as all that has happened thus far are simply physical manifestations, not yet subjected to intelligence. — Mww
Does perception not require time? — FrancisRay
I'm not sure it would be possible to doubt the reality of time without doubting the reality of the entire phenomenal world. — FrancisRay
I'm not sure what it means to say that perception doesn't require time metaphorically. It seems indisputable to me that perception requires time in order in order to to happen. Are you suggesting this isn't the case? . . .Not metaphysically, it doesn’t, with which the thread topic is concerned. We perceive a thing, or we do not. Perception requires an object, and even if the object requires time for its relations, it does not follow that the mere perception of the object does. — Mww
Agreed. But that doesn’t say much. We don’t doubt the world, and if time is a necessary condition for the manifold of phenomenal representations of that world, the the reality of time is given. But, real in what sense?
It seems indisputable to me that perception requires time in order in order to to happen. — FrancisRay
Ok. What do you think perception is? — Mww
What you experience is the end result of an intensive assembly line of computational processes.” — FrancisRay
If there is a time of no perception and a time of perception then would this not suggest the necessity of time? — FrancisRay
Does perception not require time? — FrancisRay
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.