See how metaphysics leads one astray? — Banno
An obtuse reference to another of Bob's threads concerning the legitimacy of metaphysics. — Banno
aren't we getting a little over-simplistic here? — J
...except that I think what's going on is mostly veridical. There are true statements about the world. Lots of 'em.The point is that, veridical or not, something is going on. — J
I wasn't appealing to "another metaphysical claim", but to common usage.If the claim that there are two cups is metaphysical, then so is the counterclaim that there is only one. — Leontiskos
I wasn't appealing to "another metaphysical claim", but to common usage.
I won't ask you to get a cup out for tea. Heaven knows what might happen. — Banno
Probably not, given certain prejudices about what a "real" response might be.Wittgensteinian hand-waving isn't a real response. — Leontiskos
Perhaps the rest is just shite we make up. — Banno
Yes, you caught me out, I appealed to both metaphysical realism and to common usage. — Banno
One does not generally ask for two cups of tea, the perceptual and the numinous. It's not a knock-down argument... — Banno
I get the impression you are not laughing at my jokes. — Banno
...was a joke directed at Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge, another thread in which Bob questioned Metaphysics on the grounds that it was, at it's core, imaginary stories. The aim, roughly, was to draw attention to Bob's apparent change of heart, given his endorsement of the two-worlds view of Transcendental Realism. It was a crude attempt at asking how Bob might reconcile these apparently incongruous views.See how metaphysics leads one astray? — Banno
Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process. — E.B. White
Me as a representative faculty would, but me as a self-reflective cognition (i.e., reason) or psychological tip of the iceberg (‘ego’) would never know. Another way to put it, is that one epistemically would never have any justification to say their sensibility was 100% accurate, even if it turns out, ontologically, it was. — Bob Ross
It is just an ambiguity between our uses of indexical pronouns (e.g., ‘you’, ‘I’, etc.). — Bob Ross
You are deducing from, ontologically, one’s representative faculties being 100% accurate whereas I was starting from what one could epistemically justify with reason (and not the understanding). — Bob Ross
Yeah, I can see your lack of comprehension.
So you are happy that you have two cups, when realism and common usage says there is but one.
If you try to understand what your cup of coffee is, you will find that you always bring up uses and situations of cups of coffee, and also what others told you about it from when you experienced being young.
So maybe people who are telling you the representation is all that's practically needed are the true idealist.
. This can come apart even further though when analyzing our own thoughts, the very structure of them, as we think of the parts of objects. What does it mean to say atoms exist? The word atom is said in the mind and images are brought up and combined with pure thoughts one has about research into atoms. The thoughts don't stand alone without the images. But if the images are wrong, completely not applicable to reality, how much reality is left when it's asserted atoms "exist".
To say we only know what we say about the world and not the world in itself is idealism
What do you mean here? The only thing ambiguous is the statement. I used 'you' to denote you = Bob Ross, and 'I' to denote me = Corvus. But I don't think I used 'I' on my previous posts, did I? I used 'you' to denote you for sure.
You are deducing from, ontologically, one’s representative faculties being 100% accurate whereas I was starting from what one could epistemically justify with reason (and not the understanding). — Bob Ross
There seem misinterpretation going on even what I asked about. I did not deduce anything, but pointed out, and asked if what you have been saying about Transcendental Idealism could be a self-contradiction or possibly misunderstanding of T.I, or both.
I like simple. I don't understand "bedrock Existence-with-a-Capital-E". — Banno
I am just saying that using “you = Bob Ross” is ambiguous. Is bob ross my reprsentative faculties? Whatever exists in-itself that that faculty is representing? Etc…
I am pointing out that that ambiguity is the source of our dispute (or your question) here: if my representative faculties were 100% accurate, I would never being about to know it with my faculty of reason. This doesn’t negate your point that yes, the representations, minus our a priori means of intuiting and cognizing them, would be 100% accurate but, rather, that, even in that case, I wouldn’t be able to epistemically (with reason) acquire such knowledge: so I would be forced yet to formulate the ‘thing-in-itself’ conceptually. — Bob Ross
Also, something I forgot to mention, even if the sensibility was 100% accurate, it does not follow that the representation is 100% accurate; because the sensations are intuited and cognized, which is synthetic. — Bob Ross
it is not a contention with transcendental idealism; as it is a necessary and perfectly anticipated consequence of it. — Bob Ross
...was a joke directed at Metaphysics as an Illegitimate Source of Knowledge, another thread in which Bob questioned Metaphysics on the grounds that it was, at it's core, imaginary stories. The aim, roughly, was to draw attention to Bob's apparent change of heart, given his endorsement of the two-worlds view of Transcendental Realism. It was a crude attempt at asking how Bob might reconcile these apparently incongruous views.
Thank you for not recognising this, Leo, and putting me to the task of making explicit this vital aspect of the discussion. — Banno
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.