We are part of the world of course. But it doesn't seem that the world depends on us, on our perceiving it, in order to exist. Of course to exist in the form in which we (uniquely) perceive, it does depend on us, but even there we also depend on it, or at least that seems most plausible.
I agree that we might think that ultimately, or primordially, experience is prior to the subject-object distinction; but there we would be feigning to dip into the pre-cognitive ocean of being, and I think we can only hint at that, because all we can propositionally say remains firmly in the cognitive realm of subjects and objects.
So, I meant to say that we are affected pre-cognitively, and that 'affect' in this sense signifies some process prior to perception whereby our senses collaborate with the world (as part of, or not separate from, the world, of course) to give rise to sensory phenomena and the conscious and unconscious affects (or responses) we experience in respect of those. — Janus
The Axiom of Identity is utterly proven, a priori, by the conception of all Objects. — Michael Sol
You cannot even conceive of Matter that is not governed by Causality — Michael Sol
But the purported thing-in-itself, being transcendent to both the sensory and the transcendental, is NOTHING from the framework of human consciousness. — charles ferraro
I think you are misreading Kant. — Michael Sol
I have been sincerely trying to do that on each occasion. It seems you're not understanding what I'm trying to convey. I think you're approaching it from the natural attitude (beginning from 'From a phenomenological perspective....') — Wayfarer
Now you're speaking my language. — Wayfarer
Ok, so let’s not worry so much about making propositions, then. Let’s understand language as a logical structuring of qualitative ideas relative to affect. Let’s recognise this relativity even in our relation to propositions, rather than taking them on face value, as if subjects and objects exist unaffected. — Possibility
FWIW, I don’t believe this relativity is impossible to navigate, just complex and uncertain. But then, so is life, if we’re honest. — Possibility
Sheer genius......space and time are both incontestably infinite, and no empirical knowledge is at all possible of objects with infinite properties, so investigating the possibility of empirical knowledge necessarily begins by removing that which prevents it. — Mww
Correct. In Kant, transcendental merely indicates that which is given from a priori pure reason alone, having many conceptions subsumed under it. — Mww
Tom. I don't think there are any deliberate conspiratorial machinations or plots at work here or in any other grand materialist or idealist epistemological systems — charles ferraro
do you think any knowledge of objects with infinite properties is possible at all..... — Janus
......or are we confined to examining the logical implications (the a priori) — Janus
the problem with idealism in general is that it is an incomplete model — Tom Storm
It isn’t a question of being a complete model, but rather, whether it is accepted as such. So it is that either the model is complete but wrong insofar as it begins from the wrong path, or it is incomplete insofar as it disregards that which doesn’t belong to it, but should. — Mww
remain unclear or incomplete.... - the nature of the noumenal world for one (which by definition is unknowable but is this an acceptable position?) — Tom Storm
Personally, I don’t think objects with infinite properties are even possible. Given that an object is the sum of its parts describable by properties, then an object of infinite parts is immediately impossible because the sum of them is impossible. It follows that knowledge of impossible objects is itself impossible. But then....how do we know the objects we experience don’t have properties we can’t describe? And, if we don’t know how many of those there may be, we don’t know there aren’t an infinite series of them. — Mww
Leave it to a human, to wish to know everything, and then come up with something, all by himself, he can’t know anything about. Sometimes I think we got away from throwing rocks at each other, by sheer accident. — Mww
Your attempt to dismiss what I have said, without addressing it on it's own terms, by labeling it as coming from "the natural attitude" is facile, and shows your lack of ability to participate in open discussion in good faith. — Janus
We are part of the world of course. But it doesn't seem that the world depends on us, on our perceiving it, in order to exist. Of course to exist in the form in which we (uniquely) perceive, it does depend on us, but even there we also depend on it, or at least that seems most plausible. — Janus
But when you say this:
We are part of the world of course. But it doesn't seem that the world depends on us, on our perceiving it, in order to exist. Of course to exist in the form in which we (uniquely) perceive, it does depend on us, but even there we also depend on it, or at least that seems most plausible. — Janus
you're speaking from the natural attitude. It's the taken-for-grantedness of the separate reality of the world which we generally start from. — Wayfarer
I say that since it is outside our realm of experience and control it is unknowable; which means that if we want to commit to some view about it, that view will be based on faith, not reason or observation. — Janus
how we can know if something is unknowable in perpetuity? — Tom Storm
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.