• Bob Ross
    1.7k


    Yeah see, this is, on it's face, a totally contradictory set of claims. It represents nothing, unless there is a real thing to which you are referring. In which case, it represents that. It can't really cut both ways. This is one of my personal gripes with the CRP that makes it come apart in some of its most important aspects. This reply would go to a couple of your further paras too.

    I am not following the critique here: a thing-in-itself represents something real—it represent “that”. It doesn’t represent nothing.

    I am saying that seeing a true disconnect

    Ok, I was misunderstanding what you mean by “disconnect”. It would be, then, under my view that there is “connect” between the object which excited the senses and the phenomena of it insofar as the former is required for the latter but is not knowable, in terms of its properties, from the latter.

    there is simply no reason whatsoever to assume the object which causes perceptions would be significantly different to the perception

    You would have to experience the world as it were independently of your experience of it to verify how accurate your perceptions are; which is impossible. All you can know, is that when you strip out the way your brain is pre-structured to experience, then there’s nothing intelligible left. Take the coffee, e.g., and remove space, time, the twelve categories of the understanding, logic, math, etc. … what do you have left? Nothing but an indeterminate object.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    Sorry for the delay Bob, my work and life have recently picked up quite a bit, and I have not had enough time recently to sit down and address your post in full. The conversation seems to be continuing on with others at least, so keep examining apriori and aposteriori with them. I'll see you in another post when my time becomes more available again.
  • Bob Ross
    1.7k


    No worries at all, Philosophim!
  • AmadeusD
    2.5k
    I am not following the critique here: a thing-in-itself represents something real—it represent “that”. It doesn’t represent nothing.Bob Ross

    If there is 'nothing out there' corresponding to your perception (which you have very expressly positied) then, no. It isn't anything. It represents nothing but a gap in the knowledge of hte perceiver. Maybe that was hte intention, but it butters no bread as far as I can see.

    Ok, I was misunderstanding what you mean by “disconnect”.Bob Ross

    Fair enough - I'll try to be clearer (generally, not going to restate).

    It would be, then, under my view that there is “connect” between the object which excited the senses and the phenomena of it insofar as the former is required for the latter but is not knowable, in terms of its properties, from the latter.Bob Ross

    I agree. Which, to the degree I can make heads or tails of it, is precluded by the above issue of correspondence.

    You would have to experience the world as it were independently of your experience of it to verify how accurate your perceptions areBob Ross

    Apodictically, yes.

    All you can know, is that when you strip out the way your brain is pre-structured to experience, then there’s nothing intelligible left.Bob Ross

    This is yours, and Kant's view. I'm unsure it's mine, but it also does not defeat what I'm putting forward here.

    what do you have left?Bob Ross

    The coffee. Quite blatantly.
  • Bob Ross
    1.7k


    If there is 'nothing out there' corresponding to your perception

    So, something cannot correspond, from reality, to, one-to-one, your perception: that wouldn’t make sense. Your perception(s) are the aftermath of the intuition and cognition of whatever was in reality that excite your senses—that will never one-to-one map because (1) there are a priori preconditions by which your brain cognizes and (2) your brain is cognizing multiple objects, from those sensations, into one coherent stream of consciousness.

    If by this you just meant that there must be something exciting your senses in order for your brain to have the material required to represent (i.e., the sensations), then you are absolutely right.

    The coffee. Quite blatantly.

    How? The idea of a coffee is inherently spatiotemporal, logical, mathematical, conceptual, etc. All of that is a priori.
  • AmadeusD
    2.5k
    So, something cannot correspond, from reality, to, one-to-one, your perception: that wouldn’t make sense.Bob Ross

    I understand, and I'm not quite suggesting this (though, it seems far more reasonable than pretending there isn't one at all). To reiterate something from an earlier take, there is no good reason to think that which excites our perceptions is significantly different from them. The fidelity between people's perceptions tends toward this, as does "objective measurement" to the degree that that is actually going on LOL.

    (1) there are a priori preconditions by which your brain cognizes and (2) your brain is cognizing multiple objects, from those sensations, into one coherent stream of consciousness.Bob Ross

    So say's Kant's system. Am well aware of this position. But I don't think that's necessarily the case. The idea of a priori concepts is a baffling one, if you're not going to invoke like genetic memory or whatever. This isn't decisive for me, but I think this, coupled with the above, are points, again, at which for me Kant is left seriously wanting.

    If by this you just meant that there must be something exciting your senses in order for your brain to have the material required to represent (i.e., the sensations), then you are absolutely right.Bob Ross

    To make this a speculative proposition: That "something" must be (in the sense of, it would be required) sufficiently similar in form, function and aesthetic to your perceptions to cause them absent any notable aberration in perception (this leans on the above two objections, I suppose, and I take that they are all speculative, and work together).

    How? The idea of a coffee is inherently spatiotemporal, logical, mathematical, conceptual, etc. All of that is a priori.Bob Ross

    I don't think so, no. And even if it were, you need to explain to me how the thing which causes coffee is not coffee (albeit, having never been named as such - but that's clearly not what's at issue here). If it's not coffee... well. I'm sure it's quite clear why this a rocky road to go down. And perhaps why philosophies like Kant's don't make it further than universities... No one relates to this nonsense.
  • Bob Ross
    1.7k


    there is no good reason to think that which excites our perceptions is significantly different from them

    The fact that space, time, logic, math, and various core conceptions is not evidence enough that there’s no reason to believe that our perceptions are closely mirrored of things-in-themselves?!?

    The idea of a priori concepts is a baffling one, if you're not going to invoke like genetic memory or whatever.

    It’s an innate capacity; not memory.

    And perhaps why philosophies like Kant's don't make it further than universities... No one relates to this nonsense.

    That’s true of all major philosophical movements to a large extent, because people don’t critically think.
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.