Why did Nietzsche renounce Kant? — Corvus
I think someone on this forum mentioned some time ago that they chose to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘exist’ in terms that a unicorn can ‘exist’ but it cannot be ‘real’ — I like sushi
The ‘thing-in-itself’ is neither of these as it is just an empty term that can neither be conjured by imagination nor experienced in reality. — I like sushi
Kant's introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to reality as it is independent of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. The concept was harshly criticized in his own time and has been lambasted by generations of critics since. A standard objection to the notion is that Kant has no business positing it given his insistence that we can only know what lies within the limits of possible experience. But a more sympathetic reading is to see the concept of the “thing in itself” as a sort of placeholder in Kant's system; it both marks the limits of what we can know and expresses a sense of mystery that cannot be dissolved, the sense of mystery that underlies our unanswerable questions. Through both of these functions it serves to keep us humble. — Emrys Westacott
Would you not agree that figures of speech can be confusing, and is illogical? — Corvus
…..a unicorn can ‘exist’ but it cannot be ‘real’. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is neither of these. — I like sushi
….none of it said anything to me. — I like sushi
Yes, good point. Here is the summary from ChatGPT on the problems of OLP.Yes, figures of speech can be confusing, but as figures of speech are an inherent part of language, figures of speech and the confusion they bring is unavoidable. — RussellA
I think someone on this forum mentioned some time ago that they chose to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘exist’ in terms that a unicorn can ‘exist’ but it cannot be ‘real’. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is neither of these as it is just an empty term that can neither be conjured by imagination nor experienced in reality. — I like sushi
So I can equally say "the window was broken by a thing-in-itself". — RussellA
you cannot say “the window was broken by a thing-in-itself”.
— Mww — RussellA
As Kant was not a phenomenologist, and believed in both Appearance and Things-in-Themselves, where the Things-in-Themselves are the cause of the Appearance, the Category of Causality cannot apply just to the Appearance but must also apply to the cause of that Appearance, ie the Things-in-Themselves. — RussellA
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.
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?
Should you not say that you were disturbed by the alarm clock, which woke you up involuntarily from your sleep, rather than you perceived the alarm bell ringing from the clock?I’m not sure how that proves you’re not perceiving the world. If you weren’t perceiving the world you wouldn’t hear the alarm clock. — NOS4A2
When you are sleeping, I would say you were not perceiving the world, because you would have been unconscious during the sleep. Your brain would have shutdown from your normal perception taking rest. Maybe you might be having dreams in sleep, but no perception on the world for sure. If you were perceiving something in the world in your sleep, then it is likely you weren't in deep sleep, or you weren't asleep at all.Even so, if you’re not perceiving the world, what are you perceiving? Are you perceiving nothing? Are you not perceiving? Or are perceiving something other than the world? — NOS4A2
If you accept that your perception is caused by the external object, but for some reason, the object you were perceiving is invisible from your sight, then you have no perception because you don't have the object causing your perception anymore. In that case, it would be rational to have no belief in the existence of the object or the world.Given this, is it reasonable to doubt the existence of the cup when you were not looking at it? — NOS4A2
If they were a Phenomenalist, the Appearance is the real world. — RussellA
It’s fine, though. One inclined to “much prefer the phenomenological approach”, as you admit, isn’t likely to be persuaded by finespun transcendental arguments, regardless of their authors. — Mww
Phenomenology is not directly concerned with what is or is not real as it is a proposed method of exploring experience. — I like sushi
Try me — I like sushi
Could one perhaps say that the world as they experience it is real to them? — 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.