apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus

This is an assumption. I am unaware of our ability to think in an atemporal way and with complete disregard to space.

No no no. You misunderstand, I promise! — I like sushi

I don't believe I misunderstood what you were saying, I simply disagree.

You cannot imagine something you cannot imagine - by definition. — I like sushi

It seems rather it is you that misunderstood what I was saying; It should be obvious that I was not claiming that we can imagine the unimaginable, but we can certainly imagine that something unimaginable may exist, or that things might have their own existence independently of our perceptions and understandings of them, and that an unimaginable form of existence may be very different than our perceptions and understandings lead us to believe about the form of existence the things we perceive appear to have.

This is an assumption. I am unaware of our ability to think in an atemporal way and with complete disregard to space. — I like sushi

Again, it is not a matter of being able to imagine a non-spatiotemporal existence, but of being able to imagine that there may be such, despite our inability to conceptualize it.

It seems rather it is you that misunderstood what I was saying; It should be obvious that I was not claiming that we can imagine the unimaginable, but we can certainly imagine that something unimaginable may exist — Janus

And there is the key word! If it does not exist for us then in what capacity are you actually using that term. Think about it.

The term 'existence' does not have to be restricted to 'exists for us'. You can stipulate that the term is restricted in that way as you are using it, but it is merely a stipulation not a fact. It is uncontroversial that galaxies, stars, planets, dinosaurs and many other things existed prior to humans. Don't imagine that I haven't thought plenty about this.

They exist in time and space. I was not suggesting that the universe ceases to exist when humans are gone.

If they exist absent humans then their existence is "in itself", rather than 'for us" and we don't know that existence and can only imagine it in 'for us' terms, but it doesn't follow that that existence is of the same nature as what we can imagine, and that also applies to spatiotemporality.

It is a question of semantics. It is useful to talk about existence in some circumstances and not in others.

I do not see any importance in speculating how we can point at something we cannot point at.

If you care to say what languages you speak/understand, I may be able to give some suggestions. If you don't want to for privacy reasons or any other reason, that is fine. — Lionino

Thanks, yes no problem. I have picked up a few different languages in the schools when my father worked in different countries such as Japanese, Indonesian, English. German was my 2nd foreign language in the high school. My the other main language is Korean, but now English is my main language because all the people around me are English speakers, and I am most comfortable communicating with them in English. Reading Philosophy in English got quite comfortable too.
Philosophy is a tricky subject even with my 2x primary languages (English and Korean) due to the abstract concepts the subject employs. Do you speak other languages than English yourself? What are they?

How so? ‘Sensible’ objects are those perceived by sense. Numbers are not perceived by sense. — Wayfarer

Yeah, most people think that way, but I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper, or ears hear the sounds asking by someone, or see some external objects such as 5x apples and 7x oranges, you don't carry out the math. Just to emphasise the sense input is important in all mental process.

Solipsism has a varied history, so…best be careful with the concept generally employed.
———— — Mww

OK, I am not denying, but trying clarify your points. It is interesting to see different points from the traditional commentary book opinions.

The reconciliation of the illusion, is don’t say a thing exists when it is impossible to know what it is. — Mww

So, it was illusions on their part, when the vulgars were shouting jumping up and down saying why on earth you doubt and ask for proof of the world existence. According to you, the world doesn't exist. It has never existed. There was no reason to believe in existence of the world. Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct?

So, it was illusions on their part (…) Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct? — Corvus

Yep, provided one accepts the tenets of transcendental philosophy.

That is not to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course.

…..given its ubiquity in human dialogue.
— Mww
So, it is a linguistic illusion. — Corvus

No word is ever spoken that isn’t first thought. To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. The simplest nature or source, I guess, for this kind of illusory use, is plain ol’ misunderstanding.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course. — Corvus

It was a logical conclusion from the premises.

Yeah, most people think that way, but I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers — Corvus

So there are no blind mathematicians?

The distinction between rational and sensible is not one you are able to overturn

So there are no blind mathematicians? — Wayfarer

No, unless he was taught by non-blind teacher.

Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. But that depends on the nature of the judgement. A simple judgement, re: “the world exists”, is illicit on the one hand because existence adds nothing to the conception of world, and on the other, it is false insofar as world is not even a thing that exists.

We know of of nothing prior to experience. — I like sushi

I agree with this. There is no blind mathematician from birth unless he has been taught by someone.

Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. But that depends on the nature of the judgement. A simple judgement, re: “the world exists”, is illicit on the one hand because existence adds nothing to the conception of world, and on the other, it is false insofar as world is not even a thing that exists. — Mww

:cool: :up:

I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper — Corvus

If that were the case, synthetic a priori cognitions would be impossible, from which follows the entire ground of transcendental philosophy fails. So while it may be the case we usually don’t think 5 + 7 without perceiving the objects that represent that activity, we can still think the relation intrinsic to one quantity adjoined in a progressive series with another. Numbers do nothing more than represent the quantities, but do nothing whatsoever to illustrate the relation between them, which must be thought.

One shouldn’t mistake rote classroom instruction, for innate human intelligence.

One shouldn’t mistake rote classroom instruction, for innate human intelligence. — Mww

I know what you are trying to say, and it is all over in the textbooks too. But that is the part I don't agree with. There are the tribe people who live in the jungle all their lives hunting and foraging for food, and never come across mathematics in their whole lives. They don't know what numbers mean, never mind math. Experience and education must synthesise with A priori to yield knowledge.

Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will know a priori, that there’s too much in it. And you’re right, in that he won’t care about the math, until he wants to know how much is too much.

Which is sorta why there’s math at all. Because we want to know how things relate to each other, or, maybe more importantly, how they relate to us. The uneducated or inexperienced doesn’t have reason to care.

We can imagine only what we are capable of imagining. Beyond that … well … you get the idea (or rather not!) which is the entire - obvious - point. — I like sushi

So what is the boundary of our imagination? How do you define the line between possibility and impossibility of imagination? Do we all have the same capability for imagination?

Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will know a priori, that there’s too much in it. And you’re right, in that he won’t care about the math, until he wants to know how much is too much. — Mww

Wouldn't he only know there are too much fishes in the basket, when he tries to lift it first? :) Just by looking at the basket, he would only be able to guess. But most importantly before all that, he must see the basket with his eyes to know, it is the basket which belongs to him.

Wouldn't he only know….. — Corvus

In this case, that’s what I meant, yes. But it is a possible scenario where he already knows about the things in the basket, and because he knows that, he knows it’s too heavy to lift before the failed experience of trying to lift it. It isn’t when he knows from experience in one time, it’s what he knows without it in another time.

Peruse the section in CPR on pure/impure a priori knowledge, A2/B3.
——————

Whadyamean belongs to him? Maybe it’s his ailing grandmother’s basket. Or the guy whose wife he just stole and he’s feeling sorry about it.

Peruse the section in CPR on pure/impure a priori knowledge, A2/B3. — Mww

Sure, here is B3 from CPR.

"By the term “knowledge à priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is possible only à posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge à priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge à priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience." - CPR B3

If we look at, "5+7", it is not a knowledge, proposition or anything on its' own. It is just a sense data. To the tribe man who never saw numbers, 5+7 would appear some mysterious symbols. And what was too heavy basket for him would be too light for his friend who trained in the gym for weight lifting.

It is only when you see the sense data and applied A priori and synthesise, you get the answer 12, which is a synthetic a priori knowledge. Would you not agree?
"5+7" is the simplest example for the demonstration. The logic will be more obvious if we look at the complex Calculus, Trigonometry or Geometry proof examples.

….you get the answer 12…. — Corvus

Ahh, but my good man, you initially made no mention of 12. All you stipulated was 5 + 7, in which….

“…. That 7 should be added to 5, I have certainly cogitated in my conception of a sum = 7 + 5….”

….the mere thinking of a union of quantities is very far from construction a mathematical proposition, from which follows….

“….. but not that this sum was equal to 12.…”

….which is a mathematical proposition.

“…. Before all, be it observed, that proper mathematical propositions are always judgements à priori, and not empirical, because they carry along with them the conception of necessity, which cannot be given by experience….”

The propositions are always a priori constructs; the proofs for them, on the other hand, are always empirical.

So what is the boundary of our imagination? — Corvus

Intuitions (Kantian).

Note: I suppose we may have some other faculty yet to be unearthed.

Philosophy is a tricky subject even with my 2x primary languages (English and Korean) due to the abstract concepts the subject employs. — Corvus

Naturally, which is why the average public often accuses philosophy of being word salad. Most of the times it is not word salad, but it looks like it most of the time.

You say reading in English got comfortable for you. I am not really sure how the philosophical scene is in East Asia or in languages like Japanese or Korean. Thinking that your native language is Korean, don't you think you would benefit from reading in it, even with less material published in it? And for that I will quote Nietzsche like Vaskane did:

But how could the German language, even in the prose of Lessing, imitate the TEMPO of Machiavelli, who in his "Principe" makes us breathe the dry, fine air of Florence, and cannot help presenting the most serious events in a boisterous allegrissimo, perhaps not without a malicious artistic sense of the contrast he ventures to present—long, heavy, difficult, dangerous thoughts, and a TEMPO of the gallop, and of the best, wantonest humour?

Likewise, how could the English language, alien, communicate to you in the same way that Korean, transporting concepts to you since a child, does?

Otherwise, I, like everyone else, also read philosophy articles written in English, as many important scholars of philosophy today write in English on peer-reviewed journals. But when it comes to classics, I believe that Korean has translated more in philosophy (Kant, Plato, Leibniz) than you could ever consume.

The idea that we can stop perceiving the world is a troubling one, but remains at the core of anti-realism. It suggests that at some point a person can perceive nothing, can perceive the extraterrestrial, or is not perceiving at all. A question arises: what are the grounds for believing any of the above?

The question is tricky to answer. At least some grounds remain for the realist. For instance, when we close our eyes we are not perceiving a void, we are not perceiving the otherworldly, or are not not perceiving, but are staring directly at the back of our eyelids. The eyelids, as amazing as they are, cannot block all light (which is of the world) so it cannot be the case that the world vanishes upon closing one’s eyes. Even when we sleep our senses are dutiful sentinels, and only in extraordinary instances and interventions can they be numbed (anaesthesia, for example). That his senses point outward is indicative of the relationship between a perceiver and the objects of perception. Plus, other observers or recordings can confirm that our coffee cups remain when we are not viewing them. So there is plenty grounds.

So the question ought to be inverted. What are the grounds for believing that we are perceiving nothing, perceiving the extraterrestrial, or perceiving nothing at all?