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. — I like sushi
My only point was that this says nothing about the existence of whatever it is we cannot know. — Janus
If I come to you with a piece of paper with evidence saying that what is written on the paper outlines some ‘object’ beyond of sensory appreciation, and this paper has nothing written only it, would you accept this as evidence of some object wholly beyond our ken. — I like sushi
The proposition of ‘a-thing-in-itself’ needs greater context. — I like sushi
Why did Nietzsche renounce Kant?Einflusse, den Kant auf die deutsche Philosophie ausgeübt hat, den Blick abzulenken und namentlich über den Werth, den er sich selbst zugestand, klüglich hinwegzuschlüpfen. Kant war vor Allem und zuerst stolz auf seine Kategorientafel, er sagte mit dieser Tafel in den Händen: "das ist das Schwerste, was jemals zum Behufe der Metaphysik unternommen werden konnte". - — Vaskane
As you have suggested, intuition implies connection to knowledge, and indeed it is faculty for knowledge. Not imagination. Imagination is a faculty of its own. The nature of imagination is its freedom from the other mental faculties.Intuitions (Kantian). — I like sushi
What does Kant say about it?Note: I suppose we may have some other faculty yet to be unearthed. — I like sushi
5+7=12 is a proposition. — Corvus
Propositions have bivalent values either true of false. — Corvus
I tried reading Philosophy in Korean which is my native language, but it was actually more difficult to understand. I think problem is the translation.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: — Lionino
I have been using English since middle school times in the American High school in Indonesia, and have been reading in English for many years, and worked with English native speaking people, so it became like my main language now. It is not still perfect, but I would say it is par with my Korean.Likewise, how could the English language, alien, communicate to you in the same way that Korean, transporting concepts to you since a child, does? — Lionino
Yes, almost every book in English has translated copy in Korean, and Philosophical academic interest in Korea is very high. There are people who are interested in the Western Philosophy, also Eastern Philosophies and Religious studies such as Buddhism. There are many seminars and study groups in the country with ardent passion and enthusiasm. There are internationally well known scholars such as the late JG Kim (USA), and a few working and teaching in Europe (UK and Germany). Here is the Korean Prof. H. Chang (Cambridge University UK ) presenting his paper on Realism.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. — Lionino
The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?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? — NOS4A2
Yeah, you said so yesterday, I think it was.
Probably my fault for branching off, in that I think your “I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper”, doesn’t hold true.
Or I just misunderstood. Dunno. — Mww
The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?
Or when we are not perceiving the objects we have been perceiving, due to not being present in front of the objects, what are the grounds for us keep believing the unperceived existence?
I have opened this thread asking what is your reason to believe in the world, when you are not receiving it? — Corvus
Existence of God and proof is another interesting topic which is related to the topic of this thread.Don't mistake that for not doing "Gods" work. I too am an Atheist, and understand that Nietzsche, in a sense, is much like Nebuchadnezzar, although not a believer still carried out a similar mission to give people a purpose. — Vaskane
Did Nietzsche thought God had been alive and existing before? But died suddenly or gradually?Nietzsche found that "God is dead," to be highly problematic in the rise of nihilism. — Vaskane
But do you keep perceiving the world while you are asleep? Are what you perceive always what you think you perceive? Was there any room for doubts, illusions or mistakes in the contents of your perception?I mentioned a few reasons why we’d keep believing in the existence of the world. For one, we never stop perceiving it. But also, there is no reason to do otherwise. — NOS4A2
For the above reasons.It’s why I ask the question. If you never stop perceiving the world, what are the grounds for doubting the existence of the world? — NOS4A2
But could you not say that your perception is caused by your sense-data? i.e. the sense perception of the external world?As there is no information within an effect as to its cause, it is therefore logically impossible to know the cause of an effect just from the effect itself. — RussellA
As you have suggested, intuition implies connection to knowledge, and indeed it is faculty for knowledge. Not imagination. Imagination is a faculty of its own. The nature of imagination is its freedom from the other mental faculties. — Corvus
What does Kant say about it? — Corvus
But do you keep perceiving the world while you are asleep? Are what you perceive always what you think you perceive? Was there any room for doubts, illusions or mistakes in the contents of your perception?
But could you not say that your perception is caused by your sense-data? i.e. the sense perception of the external world? — Corvus
If you were perceiving the world while you were asleep, then you wouldn't need the alarm clock to be awakened by it. The fact that you set the alarm clock to be awakened by it proves that you don't perceive the world while asleep.If we weren’t perceiving in our sleep we wouldn’t wake up when our alarm went off. Our senses have evolved to wake us even in the deepest sleep. At any rate, I see no coherent reason why any of it should be doubted. — NOS4A2
While I look away, I wouldn't know if the cup exist, and I wouldn't know what the person would be doing either. The person could have looked away too, fell asleep, or walked out the room. Anyway, how can I believe in the existence of the cup when I am not seeing it, and base my belief in the existence of the invisible cup relying on the other person's perception, which is totally inaccessible to me?Think of the cup in your OP, the one you cannot be sure exists when you are not perceiving it. If you and someone else were sitting around the cup, and you look away, but the other person sees the cup has not moved or vanished or blinked out of existence, are you right to doubt the existence of the cup? — NOS4A2
Would you not agree that figures of speech can be confusing, and is illogical?However, perception, world, internal, external and sense-data should all be thought of as figures of speech rather than literally existing, and as figures of speech only exist in the mind as concepts. — RussellA
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.