Where does it exist? — Corvus
But of course, you know this is miles from Kant. — Astrophel
This whole structred conception of evolution itself is just this, a phenomenological consturction, leading right into Kantisn thinking's hands, which is that the true source of rational thought is transcendence. — Astrophel
Localizing the apodicticity of what we call causality in a brain's structure suggest that outside such that this the principle would not apply. — Astrophel
Therefore, the brain is a construct of the brain. — Astrophel
But how does brain generated anything produce a reality that is anything but brain generated somethings? — Astrophel
I can't see where we disagree, then. — Astrophel
Yes. Kant, who died in 1804, was not aware of what is described today as Enactivism and Innatism. However Philosophers working today in 2023 should be aware of these concepts, and should take them into account when contemplating about non-propositional knowledge. — RussellA
Transcendence has different meanings. It depends what you mean by transcendence. For Kant, "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them. (Wikipedia - Transcendence (philosophy). Kant does not explain how we can know objects before we experience them. Today, however, because of the concept of Innatism, we are able to explain how we can know objects before we experience them. — RussellA
Why? Why should it follow that because the understanding of causality is innate within the brain the principle of causality would not apply outside the brain? The concept of Enactivism shows that an understanding of causality is innate within the brain precisely because the principle of causality applies outside the brain. — RussellA
It depends what the word "brain" is referring to. Yes, in the sense that the "brain" as a word in language is a construct of the brain as something that physically exists in the world. — RussellA
For the Idealist, reality only exists in a mind, meaning that the reality the mind perceives has been created by a mind. For the Indirect and Direct Realist, there is a reality outside the mind which the mind relates to. This reality outside the mind has not been generated by the mind, but how the mind relates to this reality is generated by the mind. For the Indirect Realist, the reality they perceive is a representation of the reality existing outside the mind. For the Direct Realist, the reality they perceive is the reality existing outside the mind.
There are different opinions as to the source of one's perceived reality. — RussellA
But, with respect to that comment, I’ve been there myself. Pure reason’s intrinsic circularity has been obvious for millennia, and advances in neurological science has made it even worse.
The brain goes so far as to manifest itself as an immaterial something-or-other, imbues the seemingness of knowledge into it, but prevents the seemingness of knowledge for informing the immaterial something-or-other of what it is or where it came from. Like, brain says…..YOU are allowed to know whatever YOU think YOU know, in a progressive series, but YOU are not allowed to even think YOU know anything at all in a regressive series, which, of course, includes YOU.
The brain in its mighty magnificence gives its self-manifested subjectivity QM science, a progressive series. One of the tenets of QM science is the fact that observation disrupts the quantum domain by intruding into it, also progressive. A sidebar given by the brain in its mighty magnificence is the incredible density of the constituent parts of itself, informing its self-manifested subjectivity of its ~3b/mm3 synaptic clefts, which is the very domain of QM science….progressive. So eventually the self-manifested subjectivity goes so far as to invent a device for exploring the quantum domain of itself, progressive, searching for a YOU that has been allowed to know…..oh crap!!!!…..regressive.
Now the self-manifested subjectivity takes the chance of disrupting itself, in which case….was it ever there? The brain has tacitly allowed the extermination of its own avatar. — Mww
In other words, before making, or, in order to make, experience possible at all, there has to be these structure in place just due to an analysis of what experience is. — Astrophel
the innateness is not out there, — Astrophel
But to affirm what is not brain, you would have to step out of one. — Astrophel
For the phenomenologist, reality is just reality, it is exactly s it appears, — Astrophel
Kant wasn't dismissed because he was essentially wrong. He was dismissed because he had been worn out, — Astrophel
Transcendental arguments are not intended for empirical conditions, so, no, there wouldn’t be one. No need to argue for that which gives you a bloody nose, or a headache, or hurts your eyes if you look at it too long
There isn’t a proof. Remember….we’re not even conscious of this part of the system as a whole. The transcendental argument sets the technical groundwork, nonetheless, as the first part of the work.
No. Like….how is it called a cup-in-itself.
it appears as though Kant has no grounds to be an indirect realist. — Bob Ross
Kant gives a proof for everything he claims — Bob Ross
the cup which is experienced vs. the cup as it is in-itself — Bob Ross
To the things themselves" said the phenomenologists. For them experience was primary. Colors may be said to be in the mind but everything is. Color is "there" just as much as primary qualities. I think this is what they meant. — Gregory
Reason can reflect on itself. — Corvus
The whole part of CPR is about reason reflecting on itself via critical thinking. — Corvus
The answer appears to have emanated from the situation of someone who misread, or haven't read CPR at all.Impossible. — RussellA
CPR is the critic on Pure Reason, explaining how it works with all those objects, and its limitations too. The only way that can be done is by Reason reflecting on itself.Reason in the CPR looks outwards to objects of reason not inwards to itself, which would be a logical impossibility. — RussellA
Of its 785 pages, can you narrow it down a bit? — RussellA
For science the world is contingent while for philosophy the thing in itself is necessary, only by being in-itself can it make the contingent share in its necessity by application of universal laws. Fitche comes to mind — Gregory
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.