The reason that this is not logical is that it presumes 'we know how things are' — Wayfarer
“...Not only in judgements, however, but even in conceptions, is an a priori origin manifest. For example, if we take away by degrees from our conceptions of a body all that can be referred to mere sensuous experience—colour, hardness or softness, weight, even impenetrability—the body will then vanish; but the space which it occupied still remains, and this it is utterly impossible to annihilate in thought. Again, if we take away, in like manner, from our empirical conception of any object, corporeal or incorporeal, all properties which mere experience has taught us to connect with it, still we cannot think away those through which we cogitate it as substance, or adhering to substance, although our conception of substance is more determined than that of an object. Compelled, therefore, by that necessity with which the conception of substance forces itself upon us, we must confess that it has its seat in our faculty of cognition a priori....”
(CPR B6) — Mww
Yeah, smoke 'em out of that platonic cave, counselor. :fire:If we are parts of the world (universe) along with everything else, including (as I believe) our thoughts, values, feelings, culture, conduct, societies, institutions, biases, prejudices...all being human is...what would that mean regarding "Being" and ontology? Are they, along with other non-ethical philosophical questions, dependent on a belief that we, and what we think, do, feel, etc. aren't parts of the world? A question. — Ciceronianus
If we are parts of the world (universe) along with everything else, including (as I believe) our thoughts, values, feelings, culture, conduct, societies, institutions, biases, prejudices...all being human is...what would that mean regarding "Being" and ontology? Are they, along with other non-ethical philosophical questions, dependent on a belief that we, and what we think, do, feel, etc. aren't parts of the world? — Ciceronianus
There is a more fundamental thinking that penetrates beneath the idea of a world as a container with ‘parts’(existing beings) of which we are just one more. Rather than the world being just object beings that are presented before a subject being ( who is also an object within that world), the world ( including the subject) is enacted , produced , synthesized rather than just mirrored and represented. From this vantage , ‘being’ isn’t the existing parts, it’s the synthesizing, enacting , producing activity that creates and recreates the subject and object poles. The being of this world is in its becoming, and our own indissociable becoming. ( Is that obscure enough for ya?) — Joshs
There is a more fundamental thinking that penetrates beneath the idea of a world as a container with ‘parts’(existing beings) of which we are just one more. Rather than the world being just object beings that are presented before a subject being ( who is also an object within that world), the world ( including the subject) is enacted , produced , synthesized rather than just mirrored and represented. From this vantage , ‘being’ isn’t the existing parts, it’s the synthesizing, enacting , producing activity that creates and recreates the subject and object poles. The being of this world is in its becoming, and our own indissociable becoming. ( Is that obscure enough for ya?) — Joshs
The interesting question: If the world, the things, just everything is the real production of "being", why should we not concern ourselves with them? The mysticism is of a kind that says "Okay, these things _are_ but beyond those, if you try hard, there is the world of being." But being "mediates" itself towards itself by those things. When shifting view away from the things as they _are_ towards "being", you are hunting a mere abstraction. The absolute nothingness. — Heiko
I've met a few so-called "pygmies"* is Congo, more correctly called the Twa people. Their environment is quite diverse, with plenty of open spaces such as rivers, clearings, hiltops, etc. Rest assured they can see things from afar and understand what they are seeing. — Olivier5
If we are parts of the world (universe) along with everything else, including (as I believe) our thoughts, values, feelings, culture, conduct, societies, institutions, biases, prejudices...all being human is...what would that mean regarding "Being" and ontology? — Ciceronianus
You are missing the point. The "in-itself" is a speculation. The "thing" will negate any phantasm you might have about it by itself. This is what is called reality. For example, if you mistake a table decoration for a real apple you will recognize it when it really matters.If we try to point to what it supposedly ‘is’ in itself , it vanishes, because it isn’t anything ‘in itself’. — Joshs
There is no construct, that is the real thing. If there is no reality preventing you from upholding a belief about it then the description, in fact, matches the subject. Propagating a general doubt "just because" is not backed by any reality, irrational, destructive and dishonest.It is only what it is as a comparison, and we need both sides of the comparison in order to have the event, the construct. — Joshs
Yes, "in itself" - you got it.I would argue it isn’t ‘being’ that is the abstraction , it is the idea of a thing in itself as static state, — Joshs
The "in-itself" is a speculation. The "thing" will negate any phantasm you might have about it by itself. This is what is called reality. — Heiko
Built into your model of reality is an ‘in-itself. You wouldn’t call it reality otherwise. How else does what happens negate or correct if not by the effect of something that persists or endures as what it ‘is’, independent of the context of your expectations and background of undersranding , and independent of social context of use? — Joshs
No, that is a supposed identity of the object. If the object crumbles into pieces the identity is lost. The identity certainly does not lie in the thing. — Heiko
What if the object doesn’t crumble into pieces? Does it have an identity up till the time it crumbles? If the identity doesn’t lie in the thing , where does it lie? — Joshs
What if the object doesn’t crumble into pieces? Does it have an identity up till the time it crumbles? If the identity doesn’t lie in the thing , where does it lie? — Joshs
The idea that it "has" a fixed identity is an abstraction from its identifiability. — Janus
Say the vase is a construct. That is deemed of missing something therefor you should reflect on the construct "construct"? Doesn't that miss something? More than that: I could not convince myself the vase was a pile of glass. So, taking the vase as a vase means there was no contradiction. But now there is a construct "construct" because constructs were deemed to not tell "the truth"? Please.... — Heiko
I’m nit sure I understand why a construct is ‘missing something’ or doesn’t ‘tell the truth’. Missing what? What truth? — Joshs
To experience anything is to construe it. And he defines a construct as a referential differential. Specifically, a construct is a dimension along which to perceive an event along dimensions of likeness and difference with respect with a prior meaning in our construct system. Furthermore, every new moment in time must be construed, so our construct system is changing from
moment to moment. — Joshs
What Kant fails to do is to take away his notion of space
as and idealized abstract geometry in order to reveal how it is produced by primordial acts of synthesis. — Joshs
It is not me who doubts the vase is a vase until it isn't anymore. — Heiko
There it is again. "You can construe". This is not the relation between you and a vase. — Heiko
Reality becomes visible when theories do _not_ hold. I doubt you can "construe" a vase out of thin air. — Heiko
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.