Sure, but it is totally different thing asking about them to find out what Kant had meant by them, and asking about them to conclude their origin is innatism. The origin of A priori ideas in biological psychological sense would be in the interest of the evolutionary science rather than Philosophy.Possibly, but his philosophy isn't complete without asking where these a priori pure intuitions and a priori Categories came from. — RussellA
Universally to mean "under all conditions", not in the physical universe.When you refer to "universe" do you mean a universe within the mind or a universe external to the mind? — RussellA
To talk about the unknowns, it would only make sense in the possible world of unknown, as I have made clear in the other thread "Reason to believe in the existence of the world".From the Principle of Sufficient Reason, an appearance must have a cause, which may well be unknown. This unknown cause can be called "x", or even "Thing-in-Itself". — RussellA
To believe in atoms, I must see it with my own eyes, and even be able to touch them. I was never been able to do so in my whole life, hence I cannot believe in its existence.How can you know atoms exist, yet not believe in their existence? — RussellA
If the concept of "apple" didn't exist, how could we be talking about the concept of "apple"?
If the word "apple" wasn't real, how could we be writing about the word "apple"? — RussellA
"apples" and "electrons" are real in that they have an objective independent existence within language. — RussellA
Consider the mind and a mind-independent world. — RussellA
for the Empirical Realist, the apple that is perceived is a mere representation, not something that is mind-independent.
When you say the apple exists, but doesn't have inherent existence, what do you mean? — RussellA
If everyone was at your level, then they would still believe in flat earth. Experts worshipping syndrome does not prove anything.Wrong...you know they are said to exist. And since there is no controversy regarding their existence among the experts, you have good grounds to believe they exist, You, curiously, have it all arse-about. — Janus
you know they are said to exist. — Janus
I feel my side-comments are derailing the thread. — Wayfarer
'Objective and independent' stands in contradiction to 'within language'. — Wayfarer
We cannot consider a mind-independent world, because to consider anything is to make it the subject of thought. You refer to 'the mind dependent' and 'mind independent' as if these are two separate realities, but that is comparison that can't be made. — Wayfarer
I'll bow out now unless I have something to add specific to the text. — Wayfarer
The origin of A priori ideas in biological psychological sense would be in the interest of the evolutionary science rather than Philosophy. — Corvus
Isn't it admirable within philosophical language to be objective and have an independent point of view? — RussellA
Yet we consider a mind-independent world every time we talk about the Universe before life began on Earth. — RussellA
whatever judgements are made about the world, the mind provides the framework within which such judgements are meaningful. So though we know that prior to the evolution of life there must have been a Universe with no intelligent beings in it, or that there are empty rooms with no inhabitants, or objects unseen by any eye — the existence of all such supposedly unseen realities still relies on an implicit perspective. What their existence might be outside of any perspective is meaningless and unintelligible, as a matter of both fact and principle. — Wayfarer
whatever judgements are made about the world, the mind provides the framework within which such judgements are meaningful. So though we know that prior to the evolution of life there must have been a Universe with no intelligent beings in it, or that there are empty rooms with no inhabitants, or objects unseen by any eye- the existence of all such supposedly unseen realities still relies on an implicit perspective. What their existence might be outside of any perspective is meaningless and unintelligible, as a matter of both fact and principle — Wayfarer
can it be true that the content of all the scientific literature about the Universe prior to life can be dismissed as meaningless and unintelligible? — RussellA
Wrong...you know they are said to exist. And since there is no controversy regarding their existence among the experts, you have good grounds to believe they exist, You, curiously, have it all arse-about. — Janus
If you were wise enough to use proper language instead of the derogatory word in you post, you would have not lowered your level in public as you have done.If you addressed the points I presented instead of making pointless claims about "my level" you might actually begin to do some philosophy. I don't believe in a flat earth by the way; do you? If not, on what basis do you not believe it? — Janus
You seem to be confusing between knowledge and truth, and justified belief.By the way, it's not a matter of "worshipping experts" but of provisionally accepting that in their area of expertise their experience is more comprehensive and their judgements better informed than yours are. You go further than I do anyway in trusting their judgement, since you say you know Andromeda exists. And to say you know something, but do not believe it is incoherent. — Janus
Sure.Surely good philosophy needs to justify its premises. — RussellA
If you had strong enough evidences supporting your claims, then you might get somewhere.If I said that aliens from Mars are running all governments, and made no attempt to justify my statement, I would get nowhere. — RussellA
I am not sure if your justification using innate-ism were coherent for your premises or conclusions.Similarly, if I based a philosophy on the premise of a priori pure intuitions and a priori pure concepts of the understanding without attempting to justify my premise, my philosophy has been based on a weak foundation and will thereby be unpersuasive to many. — RussellA
I am not sure if your justification using innate-ism were coherent for your premises or conclusions. — Corvus
I suggest that his premise can be justified by the Principle of Innatism, a natural consequence of 3.5 billion years of evolution.
Is there a better justification for his premise? — RussellA
No apple, as such, ever existed independently of that by which it is conceived, and, thereby, is represented by that name. The object represented by the concept, however, does. — Mww
I mean if evolution were true, we would have had wings and fly around to the work instead commuting stuck in the traffic jam polluting and burning the toxic gasoline paying out fortune just for one example. — Corvus
No apple, as such, ever existed independently of that by which it is conceived, and, thereby, is represented by that name. The object represented by the concept, however, does.
— Mww
This has struck me, in CPR, as absolutely nonsensical (which may just be me, hence questions).
How could the concept of an apple indicate it's actual existence? — AmadeusD
You couldn't possibly have the concept without the phenomena, and the phenomena informing the concept is tautological. — AmadeusD
You couldn't possibly have the concept without the phenomena — AmadeusD
What about the concept of God? Which came first? The phenomenon or the concept? — Corvus
….concepts has nothing to do with existence or phenomenon of objects? — Corvus
Possible existence and phenomenon are not the actuality until they manifested, so should they not be irrelevant?Concepts alone, their origin and method of use being granted, in the domain of pure thought they do not, but consideration still must be given to possible existence and phenomenon. — Mww
Here we are talking about Existence as the actual instantiation of objects rather than the category.Existence, the category, does not grant existence to objects, but only makes necessary that an object exist for it to be an experience. — Mww
Yeah you could apply the concepts to the phenomena to get the understanding, but that is not the necessary connection is it? You can have a brand new phenomena with no concepts and no understanding presumed, attached or presupposed as just a sensibility. What is "Nature" here? What does it include?Within the system as a whole, from appearance in the beginning to knowledge at the end, it is impossible concepts have nothing to do phenomena, but Nature is still presupposed as having to do with existence — Mww
Possible existence and phenomenon are not the actuality until they manifested, so should they not be irrelevant? — Corvus
You can have a brand new phenomena with no concepts and no understanding presumed, attached or presupposed as just a sensibility. — Corvus
What is "Nature" here? — Corvus
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.