Of course. There should be as many interpretations as there are folks that bother with it. What he wanted the interpretation to be, should be singular, no matter how many folks bother. Which was the whole point of grounding the theory in logic, insofar as if these premises are the case, then that conclusion follows necessarily. One can, then, grant the conclusions given those premises on the one hand, yet refute the logic by denying those premises ever were the case on the other. In which case, Kant hasn’t been refuted, he’s been replaced. — Mww
Any popular media based information will be flatly rejected as propaganda in all philosophical discussions unless proved and verified otherwise. :)As with most sources, whether Fox or CNN, whether the BBC or Talk TV, one has to make a personal judgement as to whether the source makes a logical and reasoned case. — RussellA
When you say, we impose space and temporal forms on the sensory experiences, it does imply we can also choose not to impose as well. So what happens if we choose not to impose? How do we decide to impose or not to impose?From the Wikipedia article on Transcendental arguments, which presumably uses transcendental logic, Kant used transcendental arguments to show that sensory experiences would not be possible if we did not impose their spatial and temporal forms on them — RussellA
Wasn't Kant refuting the rationalists rather than idealism? If it were idealists, who were they?An example of a Transcendental argument is used by Kant in his refutation of idealism. Idealists believe that things have no existence independently of the mind. — RussellA
What is the proof of the legitimacy of the concept that things exist independently of the mind?His Transcendental argument does not prove that things exist independently of the mind, only that the concept that things exist independently of the mind is legitimate. — RussellA
Any relevant quotes for this argument from CPR?Kant argues that:
1) since idealists acknowledge that we have an inner mental life, and
2) an inner life of self-awareness is bound up with the concepts of objects which are not inner, and which interact causally,
3) then we must have legitimate experience of outer objects which interact causally. — RussellA
Any popular media based information will be flatly rejected as propaganda in all philosophical discussions unless proved and verified otherwise — Corvus
When you say, we impose space and temporal forms on the sensory experiences, it does imply we can also choose not to impose as well. — Corvus
Wasn't Kant refuting the rationalists rather than idealism? If it were idealists, who were they? — Corvus
What is the proof of the legitimacy of the concept that things exist independently of the mind? — Corvus
Any relevant quotes for this argument from CPR? — Corvus
No, because this imposition is a priori, and as priori is beyond choice. In the same way that when I see the wavelength of 700nm I have no choice as to what colour I perceive . — RussellA
Speaking as an Indirect Realist, none. I believe that things exist independently of the mind, and can come up with reasons to justify my belief, but cannot prove it. Such is the nature of Indirect Realism. — RussellA
No, because this imposition is a priori, and as priori is beyond choice. In the same way that when I see the wavelength of 700nm I have no choice as to what colour I perceive . — RussellA
How does he know for certain what he is conscious of is not an illusion?In other words:
1) I am conscious of my existence in time
2) Therefore I am conscious of something persisting in time — RussellA
Does this mean, if something was conscious of itself, then it could be inside him? :chin:3) But this something that persists in time cannot be inside me, as this something cannot be conscious of itself — RussellA
A priori means that it is universally true under all circumstances. — Corvus
How / Why do you justify your belief in something that you cannot prove it exists? — Corvus
what is the relation between the colour you perceive (red), and the WL700nm? — Corvus
How does he know for certain what he is conscious of is not an illusion? — Corvus
Does this mean, if something was conscious of itself, then it could be inside him? — Corvus
Not sure what the IEP article was about, but it doesn't sound right. If A priori is just innate to you, and all different from person to person, then what is the point of A priori? Would it not better just as well call it as Relative concept rather than A priori? There must be some universality and necessity in truth on A priori, and that was what Kant was after in CPR.The IEP article on A Priori and A Posteriori writes: An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience.
A Priori does not mean universally true for all people at all times. A priori means in a sense innate within a particular person. My private subjective experience of colour when seeing a wavelength of 700nm is innate to me. — RussellA
I can't know what your perception of WL700nm would be like, and that was the point. Your claim on "A priori imposition of colour Red for the perceived WL700nm" doesn't sound valid, does it? If it were A priori imposition as claimed, then we must all have the same colour of Red in the visual perception. But we don't. Therefore, it cannot be A priori imposition.How can you know that when you are look at a wavelength of 700nm, your private subjective experience of colour is the same as mine? — RussellA
How / Why do you justify your belief in something that you cannot prove it exists?
— Corvus
I cannot prove that electrons exist, yet I believe they exist. I justify my belief from the numerous scientific articles that I have read that say that electrons do exist.
Do you believe that the Andromeda Galaxy exists? Can you prove that it exists? — RussellA
Yes, but my question was how do you know it is real or illusion? How can you be sure?How does he know for certain what he is conscious of is not an illusion?
— Corvus
Isn't this the argument against Direct Realism, in that if Direct Realism was true, the external world would be exactly as we perceive it. However, in the case of illusions, there is an obvious difference between our perception and reality. For example, when a pencil is placed in a glass of water, it can look crooked. But it isn't really crooked. — RussellA
Definitely not.Kant was definitely not a Direct Realist. — RussellA
Not sure. I am not a DRist either. Maybe they perceive illusions as real too? Yes, real illusions? :)How does the Direct Realist know when looking at something in the world, such as a tree, that what they think they are looking at is just an illusion? — RussellA
A Priori does not mean universally true for all people at all times. — RussellA
If A priori is just innate to you, and all different from person to person, then what is the point of A priori? — Corvus
I cannot prove that electrons exist, yet I believe they exist. I justify my belief from the numerous scientific articles that I have read that say that electrons do exist. — RussellA
Schopenhauer, who builds his own metaphysics from Kant's, is also a great read. — Bob Ross
Indeed. Of all the great philosophers, he is the most clearly-spoken and incisive. — Wayfarer
If A priori is just innate to you, and all different from person to person, then what is the point of A priori? Would it not better just as well call it as Relative concept rather than A priori? There must be some universality and necessity in truth on A priori, and that was what Kant was after in CPR.........................I can't know what your perception of WL700nm would be like, and that was the point. — Corvus
I know the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't believe it exists. — Corvus
Yes, but my question was how do you know it is real or illusion? — Corvus
I don't think your depiction of a priori as subjective is correct — Wayfarer
The problem with that view is that the manner in which electrons can be said to exist is not at all straightforward.........................We have to get our head around the role of the mind-brain in constructing/creating what we perceive as reality. — Wayfarer
My answer would be that yes, "apples" and "electrons" do exist, and they exist as concepts in the mind.
My answer would also be that "apples" and "electrons" are real in that they have an objective independent existence within language. — RussellA
Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. That, however, is impossible. —WERNER HEISENBERG — Kripal, Jeffrey J.. The Flip: Who You Really Are and Why It Matters (p. 89). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
But that is an oxymoron — Wayfarer
Werner Heisenberg, who aside from being one of the architects of quantum theory, also wrote on its philosophical implications, said that electrons 'do not exist in the same way that flowers or stones do' — Wayfarer
I too am an empirical realist - there really are apples - but I also recognise the sense in which they exist for a subject. Another kind of being might not see them at all, or might see them in a completely different way. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, but that they don't have inherent existence — Wayfarer
When you say "Innatism", it denotes psychological or biological nature rather than epistemic, conceptual nature, and it has nothing to do what Kant was meaning for A priori. A priori knowledge is for universally and necessarily true knowledge, and there is no room for difference in the truth value.The point of the a priori is that it distinguishes two very different approaches to the relationship between the mind and the world.
It distinguishes between Innatism, the philosophical belief that one is born with certain ideas and knowledge, and Locke's idea that the mind at birth is a blank sheet, a tabula rasa, devoid of all ideas or knowledge, where all our ideas and knowledge arrive from experience. — RussellA
Justified true belief has stronger ground than a knowledge via heard through the grapevine. I really don't believe the electrons, atoms and Andromeda galaxies exist, because I have never seen them, or been there. Without me personally justifying and verifying the facts, there is no ground for me in believing in them.I know the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't believe it exists.
— Corvus
I think that this should be the other way round: "I believe the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't know it exists"
The SEP article on The Analysis of Knowledge discusses knowledge as justified true belief. First one has a belief, and then one tries to justify this belief, and if one's belief is true, then one has knowledge
IE, belief comes before knowledge. — RussellA
When you say "Innatism", it denotes psychological or biological nature rather than epistemic, conceptual nature, and it has nothing to do what Kant was meaning for A priori. — Corvus
For example 2+2=4 is A priori knowledge, which is universally and necessarily true in the whole universe. — Corvus
Justified true belief has stronger ground than a knowledge via heard through the grapevine. I really don't believe the electrons, atoms and Andromeda galaxies exist, because I have never seen them, or been there. But I know they exist, because I read about them. — Corvus
Kant was saying that pure intuitions and concepts are the the properties of our minds which work with pure reason in CPR. He is not interested in where they came from as if, they have walked into a pub, or inherited down into your mind by your ancestors. No no. :)If not from Innatism, where do you think our pure intuitions and pure concepts came from? — RussellA
That sounds like extreme idealism. We are talking about the universally and necessarily true knowledge, and it exists. Again it is nothing to do with the physical universe. Knowledge exists in our understanding. Universally doesn't mean the physical universe. It means "under all conditions".but this universe only exists in the mind of the perceiver, not in any world that exists outside the mind of the perceiver. — RussellA
You just committed a self-contradiction here. You shouldn't even be able to write about it, if above were true.They cannot refer to the world of Things-in-Themselves, as these are unknowable, — RussellA
I have demonstrated how even the most [t]rusted and accepted official definitions could be false, but you have gone back to the false official definition ignoring the real life demonstration and evidence.Knowledge is justified true belief, so knowledge has a stronger ground than belief.
If from the grapevine one hears the belief that atoms exist, and the grapevine justifies the claim, and in fact atoms do exist, then, and only then, is this knowledge. — RussellA
Kant was saying that pure intuitions and concepts are the the properties of our minds which work with pure reason in CPR. He is not interested in where they came from — Corvus
For example 2+2=4 is A priori knowledge, which is universally and necessarily true in the whole universe.----------------That sounds like extreme idealism. We are talking about the universally and necessarily true knowledge, and it exists. Again it is nothing to do with the physical universe. Knowledge exists in our understanding. Universally doesn't mean the physical universe. It means "under all conditions". — Corvus
You just committed a self-contradiction here. You shouldn't even be able to write about it, if above were true. — Corvus
But I know they exist, because I read about them. Just because I know something doesn't mean that I must believe in it too.-----------------I have demonstrated how the official definitions could be false, but you have gone back to the false official definition ignoring the real life demonstration and evidence. — Corvus
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.