What I deny is that such a world is philosophically relevant, because such a world, in principle, cannot be experienced. — Brian

would differentiate these with the terms the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself.

I would differentiate these with the terms the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. — Brian

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it. — Brian

Does the world-for-us (i.e., things that human beings can experience) include those things detected and measured through the use of sense-enhancing instruments (such as particle accelerators), or are those things part of the world-in-itself?

...what ever is known is only known th[r]ough thought. — Cavacava

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it. — Brian

The goal of philosophy is not to see through appearance to get to the world in itself, but to immerse yourself in mastering the world-for-us, the only world we ever have any access to. — Brian

Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly.

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

To me those [the study of cosmology and quantum mechanics] would all be included in the world-for-us. We don't directly experience them via our senses but we do experience their effects on us and the world of our experience. In fact, they constitute the very world of our experience. — Brian

For kant, things-in-themselves were independent of the wold of space and time, since space and time are mere a priori conditions of our experienced world contributed to experience by our mental faculties. — Brian

Meno. And how will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?

if the word ‘cat’ means anything, it means something which is not this or that cat, but some kind of universal cattiness. This is not born when a particular cat is born, and does not die when it dies. In fact it has no position in space or time, it is ‘eternal’.

What is this "sense of the infinite" ... a desire for immanence, intimacy with what is in-it- itself, intimacy that thought necessarily lacks, leading to alienation. Does this "sense of the infinite" express our need for the absolute, the universal, the "infinite knower" [whom we create in our own image and likeness] as a form of explanation. — Cavacava

Tonight I have been reading some F.H. Bradley and thinking about the concept of the reality of the world.

I'm trying to get clear on my thoughts about this.

The question I am raising comes down to this: The world we inhabit is the world of our experience. This is what people usually mean by "the world." But metaphysicians are always seeking a world behind the world; a reality behind the appearance.

I would differentiate these with the terms the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself.

I do not deny the existence of a world-in-itself. Surely, trees, dogs, rivers, mountains, planets, solar systems and stars would exist regardless of whether humans were here to experience them.

What I deny is that such a world is philosophically relevant, because such a world, in principle, cannot be experienced. The world-in-itself exists, but it is not "like" anything. It just is.

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it.

I take this view to be an essential tenet of traditional phenomenology. The goal of phenomenology is to describe the only world that can ever be experienced, the world-for-us. The world-in-itself, like the Kantian thing-in-itself exists - there would still be entities if there were nobody to experience them. But they wouldn't be like anything in particular, because because like something requires experience of those things. They would just be there, exist, as pure being. And there's nothing else to know about such a world physically, other than that it is coherent and exists.

The goal of philosophy is not to see through appearance to get to the world in itself, but to immerse yourself in mastering the world-for-us, the only world we ever have any access to.

I believe pragmatism and existentialism deal with this in a very distinctive and logical way. The world-in-itself exists - it just shouldn't make the guest list for the big philosophical party, because it's a basicalaly useless cognitive placeholder for us.

Thoughts on these themes? — Brian

Russell's cat is only eternal in thought, but I don't think anyone can imagine what it means to have the view point of a thing in-itself. Kant said we can't know the in-itself but he also thought the concept could be used in thought. — Cavacava

The world we inhabit is the world of our experience. — Brian

What is this "sense of the infinite" ... a desire for immanence, intimacy with what is in-it- itself, intimacy that thought necessarily lacks, leading to alienation.

I'm not sure if these are questions or statements Cavacava. Are you saying that thought leads to alienation?

The main point I wanted to make was that without an infinite knower the in itself cannot be like anything other than or beyond what it is like for us, or for other finite knowers.

Just as we cannot understand the concept of God and yet his omnipotence is clearly understood, we as humans become one - albeit imperfectly - with the nature of God, but never completely. As cats need certain requisites to become one with cattiness, these ideals enable us to ascertain the temperament, disposition and other duties familiar to the concept of God - the highest Form of Good - that we seek to attain, striving to perfect virtue that can reach beyond the learnings of social history and materialism. The process is indeed real and that would mean that God and cattiness is also real.