it is logically possible that any given statement about the world is false. — philosophy
One can dispense with the idea of the world as representation by accepting that the experiencing mind is part of the reality it experiences, — counterpunch
That's not actually true. Just because a biological mechanism exists to produce the representation does not mean that the abstractions are 'part of reality.' It means that the abstractions do exist, and therefore, higher functions of the mind must be supported by mechanical apparati which typically don't do a very good job at ensuring all members of the species are actually capable of handling higher-level abstractions without making fundamental errors. Some even dispute the process of reason is actually an advantage, calling it 'intellectual elitism' or some such, and they've had alot of success, so it's not even clear the ability to reason is a competitive advantage in the first place. False representations of reality go a long way these days. — ernest meyer
We'll die out if we are not correct to reality. — counterpunch
That is a logician's assumption. For lower-order concepts there is obviously a need to distinguish between what is food and not food. Above basic, first-order concepts on the needs of life, it's not actually clear that the abstractions loigicians consider necessary truth actually are either necessary or true. From a logician's point of view they are. From Schopenhauer or Nietzsche's point of view, that's even naive. Human beings do not control themselves based on a logician's view of 'reality' and from what behavior ive observed in the USA during the Trump administration, doesn't care how many people it kills either, as long as those with power are having their desires satisifed. — ernest meyer
lol, I have no idea what is happening in the mind of Trump, or his supporters, but whatever illogical process it is that enables them to decide what is true, and whatever 'representation of reality' they have if any at all, its beyond me, but they are winning
Chief Justice Thomas said last week he'd be 'open to hearing' arguments that Twitter violated rights to free speech by banning Trump. As its now a GOP majority in the supreme court, that means, without question, more Trump tweets by 2024. Fait accomplis. One could wonder how long ago Trump knew that would happen i guess, but its here now. More Trump tweets.
There's no rational explanation for this or any 'representation of reality' it fits in lol. Its insane. Sorry I have to go to bed. Good night ) — ernest meyer
1. Is it true that, for Kant, the assertion of the existence of things-in-themselves is made according to a purely analytic judgment?
2. Do, for Kant, appearances and things-in-themselves constitute two separate kinds/levels of existence? In other words, is it true that an object must exist as appearance along with things-in-themselves, or, rather, an object-as-appearance can exist only as the thing-in-itself? — Sentience
An appearance is not what appears; a representation is a word for appearance. — val p miranda
What appears is the thing-in-self.... — val p miranda
......but our sensibility detects macro reality. — val p miranda
science is indirectly working on totally uncovering the thing-in-itself with the Standard Model as a good beginning. — val p miranda
You know, from a Kantian point of view, science only tells of a thing, what a human asks. If we don’t know a thing as it is in itself, but only as our sensibility presents it to us, what could we direct science toward, other than the representations sensibility gives us? In effect, we are asking science to justify our interpretation of the world, rather than inform us with direct evidence of the world as it is in itself. — Mww
Kant, through logic, felt like all metaphysical inquiries were fruitless — 3017amen
he at least did acknowledge that humans have that (....) wonder...which is intrinsic a priori to the intellect. — 3017amen
In effect, we are asking science to justify our interpretation of the world, rather than inform us with direct evidence of the world as it is in itself. — Mww
“...At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves. For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears, which is absurd...” (CPR Bxxvii) — Mww
we never see the tree itself, but only the reflected light from the tree, itself then assembled into our own image of it - our image removed in time and substance and by successive media from anything the tree itself might be. — tim wood
Defining science as the asking of well-crafted and answerable questions, which in the course of experiment are in fact answered (some way or other), with respect to, say, that tree over there, is it the Kantian position that we can know nothing about it (-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself)? — tim wood
And we can build up quite bit of knowledge about the tree, if even only by negation (e.g., by what it isn't and where it isn't, etc.). — tim wood
The substance being not that science cannot know.... — tim wood
but rather, it is us that sometimes may not know what to ask science to tell us and, possibly, it is us that doesn’t accept what science has to say. — Mww
What Kant is trying to say in his Prussian Enlightenment way is that the world is as it appears...... — Gregory
The proposition all events must have a cause is not formulated from pure reason. — 3017amen
If we were not able to ask that question/said proposition, virtually no scientific discoveries would be made. — 3017amen
Ok...the proposition does not derive from pure reason, any proposition being merely an expression derived from antecedent cognitions. That all events have a cause is a principle of pure reason, nonetheless. Can we say that much is true? — Mww
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.