That's where phenomenology dovetails well with Buddhist philosophy, which says that nothing exists in itself, but only in relationship. And also with Rovelli's relational interpretation of qm. — Wayfarer
A shame you need to make a personal attack. We're done. — Jackson
There is no problem with saying there is being outside of any perspective, or that things exist independently of any perspective; but it's obvious, by definition, that anything we say about it, including the statement that there is being outside perspective, or things existing independently of any perspective is from a perspective. — Janus
My tentative, meta-philosophical claim is that this implies that in some sense, the appearance of conscious sentient beings literally brings the universe into existence. Not that ‘before’ we came along that it didn’t exist, — Wayfarer
How could the appearance of conscious sentient beings bring the universe into existence if it is not the case "that 'before' we came along it didn't exist". And why the inverted commas around "before"? — Janus
Thus we see, on the one hand, the existence of the whole world necessarily dependent upon the first conscious being, however undeveloped it may be; on the other hand, this conscious being just as necessarily entirely dependent upon a long chain of causes and effects which have preceded it, and in which it itself appears as a small link. These two contradictory points of view, to each of which we are led with the same necessity, we might again call an antinomy in our faculty of knowledge... The necessary contradiction which at last presents itself to us here, finds its solution in the fact that, to use Kant's phraseology, time, space, and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but only to its phenomena, of which they are the form; which in my language means this: The objective world, the world as idea, is not the only side of the world, but merely its outward side; and it has an entirely different side—the side of its inmost nature—its kernel—the thing-in-itself... But the world as idea... only appears with the opening of the first eye. Without this medium of knowledge it cannot be, and therefore it was not before it. But without that eye, that is to say, outside of knowledge, there was also no before, no time. Thus time has no beginning, but all beginning is in time. — Schopenhauer
No. Epistemology cannot posit "knowing" it's own "conditions of possibility" – begs the question, no?Or was it epistemology under the guise of (a new kind of) metaphysics or proto-phenomenology? — Janus
No. Kant's 'transcendental scheme' is, in effect, a anthropocentric fiat: if humans experience X, then Y consists of the 'conditions of the possibility of' any human experience. A ("groundwork of the") metaphysics of human experience.Do you think it is possible to reflect on and know what characteristics any possible experience or judgement must have?
No. Epistemology cannot posit "knowing" it's own "conditions of possibility" – begs the question, no? — 180 Proof
But then they simply fall into the fallacy of I don't know... I'll just call it whatever the opposite of curiosity is. — schopenhauer1
"STOP!!" "Thouh shalt not pass!!" :lol: :lol: — schopenhauer1
Can we access the worm's eye view? Any animal's? Ubermensch's? — Janus
Non-empirical knowledge (e.g. mathematical theorems) does not "come from experience".Knowledge comes from experience; where else? — Janus
I understand anthropo-centric to denote knowledge restricted to "human experience" – limited to only what humans can perceive – which implies that "beyond" "human experience" there is not anything (e.g. neither quasars nor quarks) knowable by humans.It's not an "anthropocentric fiat" unless it purports to extend its findings beyond the anthropos, in other words as long as it doesn't aim to make claims about what lies beyond human experience. The latter is what anthropomorphizingconsists in, as I understand it.
Non-empirical knowledge (e.g. mathematical theorems) does not "come from experience". — 180 Proof
Kant was a Newtonian. He thought there was absolute time and space. — Jackson
When you say ‘human’ do you have in mind an a priori ala Kant? To be human is then to be possessed of a prior categories. This makes humanity a divine notion. — Joshs
That is the very claim which Kant refuted. — Janus
At issue in the way that line of thinking developed, was the fact that through the faculty of reason, you could know something with apodictic certainty - mathematical certainty, as we like to say. — Wayfarer
So, from the empirical perspective it is of course true that the Universe precedes our existence, but from the perspective of transcendental idealism, ‘before’ is also a part of the way in which the observing mind constructs the world.
My tentative, meta-philosophical claim is that this implies that in some sense, the appearance of conscious sentient beings literally brings the universe into existence. Not that ‘before’ we came along that it didn’t exist, but that the manner of its existence is unintelligible apart from the perspective brought to it by the observer. We can’t get ‘outside’ that perspective, even if we try and see the world as if there’s no observer. (Sorry for the length of this post.) — Wayfarer
“… the logical edifice of the Tractatus came tumbling down and with it the whole notion of ‘logical form' that.played such a central role in Wittgenstein's — Joshs
Well, I find "intuition" as an equally faulty word, because that word as we normally use it, has mental experience implied within. — Metaphysician Undercover
We dont have some general body-maintenance feedback first and then have to decide how to explain its meaning by relating it to a current situation. Emotions come already world-directed. There is never just some generic arousal that then has to be attributed. Feelings emerge from within experiences that are relevant to us in some way. We are never without a mood. — Joshs
As I understand it, the picture theory of language was abandoned, but the insistence of logicality was not. For me, no one has ever convinced me that idealism of some kind is wrong. — Constance
Do you have a reference? I'd be interested in reading more. — T Clark
Babies have to learn everything about the world and how to put it into words. In particular, emotions have to be expressed in socially specific ways. What we call "anger" isn't just one thing, it's a whole bunch of related but significantly different things. That's something else I've experienced directly. — T Clark
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.