I was asking which part of the reference backs up your claim, but you refused to provide the evidence. — Corvus

If you actually read the reference, you’d know. Which begs an obvious question…..why are you asking?

If you actually read the reference, you’d know. Which begs an obvious question…..why are you asking? — Mww

I actually did read the reference, but couldn't find the part backing your claim, hence asked you which part and also your argument for your point.

Dunno what to tell ya, bud. If you can’t find the connection, or you think there isn’t one, that’s all on you. But I’m not doing your thinking for you.

Dunno what to tell ya, bud. If you can’t find the connection, or you think there isn’t one, that’s all on you. But I’m not doing your thinking for you. — Mww

I never asked you do thinking for me. I was trying to find out how on earth you came to the claim. The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them.

The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them. — Corvus

Pretty much what I thought as well. There is no relation. The reference shows what god, freedom and immortality are, and from that, it is clear the thing-in-itself doesn’t relate to them. That’s the connection you missed. Which is sufficient refutation that the thing-in-itself was never used, as you claimed, “to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality”.

The thing-in-itself is a logically conditioned conception; the three others are transcendental ideas of pure reason which signify the unconditioned. They arise in different faculties, they preside over different domains, in short, they have nothing to do with each other.

It is a serious breach of comprehension, that an empirical existence derived from understanding using general logic, can be the ground for an idea derived from pure reason using transcendental logic. Obviously, there is an existent object for any thing-in-itself; there is never, and never was meant to be, an existent object belonging to freedom, morality or gods.

Pretty much what I thought as well. There is no relation. The reference shows what god, freedom and immortality are, and from that, it is clear the thing-in-itself doesn’t relate to them. That’s the connection you missed. Which is sufficient refutation that the thing-in-itself was never used, as you claimed, “to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality”. — Mww

What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims.
If you think about it, what is thing-in-itself, and God, Soul and Freedom in Kant? They are all transcendental objects.

My guess was Kant wouldn't have been simple and naive enough to introduce Thing-in-itself to bung all your daily physical objects into it, and tell the world, you don't know anything about your books, cups and trees ... etc.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building a logical path and residence for the transcendental objects viz. God, Souls and Freedom, and it was named "Thing-in-itself".

Time for round 2 of CPR, very soon. Well, technically round 3 and 4, cause the damn book has the A and B editions in it. Ugh.

But I must. If I don't get something much more solid this time, I suppose Kant himself, isn't for me, but his successors and predecessors are.

Bring it on. :cool:

I think you are profoundly mistaken and barking up a profoundly unhelpful tree.

"In Kant's philosophy, the term "ding-an-sich" refers to the thing-in-itself or the noumenon - an entity that exists independently of human perception and understanding. Kant argues that the human mind can only know and comprehend phenomena, or the way things appear to us through our senses, but we can never truly apprehend the noumenal realm.

When it comes to God, Kant did not make explicit references to this concept in relation to the divine. Instead, he primarily addressed the limitations of human reason and our ability to know and understand God through theoretical knowledge. Kant maintained that the existence of God could not be proven or disproven by reason alone.

(irrelevant paragraph removed)

While Kant did not directly link the concept of ding-an-sich to God, one could argue that in the noumenal realm, where things exist independently of human perception, a transcendent being like God could potentially reside. However, it is important to note that this interpretation goes beyond Kant's direct writings and is subject to individual interpretation."

source is DeepAI

What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims. — Corvus

Why do I have to repeat that I didn’t make a claim?

They are all transcendental objects. — Corvus

No, they are not. One is so-called, the others are merely transcendental ideas, the conception of an object adequate for representing them, is impossible.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects — Corvus

He did that, it was significant, but hardly his main interest.

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that we have been discussing God here, but God is not really a main topic in reading CPR. It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God and his Theology in this thread as far as I am aware.

No, they are not. One is so-called, the others are merely transcendental ideas, the conception of an object adequate for representing it, is impossible. — Mww

Aren't they all transcendentally deduced objects? Please elaborate.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects
— Corvus

He did that, it was significant, but hardly his main interest. — Mww

My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God — Corvus

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality. — Corvus

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Mww — AmadeusD

It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus

Just a word "God" doesn't mean that we are discussing Kant's Theology.

And this (current) thread is exactly about how your claim there is wrong. No idea where you've gotten to with it... But Mww is saying (and provided fairly clear reference for it) that Kant does not use ding-an-sich to posit the existence of God. Merely the possibility.

It is my point, and I am trying to prove it with my argument. Whereas you blatantly jump in with no arguments, demonstration or proofs, but shouting "Your claim is wrong." Why should anyone take your claim seriously?

1. Yet you just claimed this was not what you're talking about? Dude... ;
2. Mww's quoted passage, and my response from DeepAI show that your claim is exactly not true;
3. No idea why you're being so intensely defensive and personal.

You're wrong in your claim. That's not a bad thing. You can now update. What the heck is going on here...

It sounds like the whole purpose of your presence is to tell people they are wrong. I don't care who they are, if their points don't make sense, I would raise questions for the points to clarify.

You? Just butt in, and tell people they are wrong, and demand to accept whatever you say? Who do you think you are?

It sounds like you're having a bit of a moment.

I told you exactly what you are, and have done. Nothing less or more.

It is patently clear you are being irrationally defensive - and in this sense, I actually don't care what your proclamations are.

Your claim has been shown to be wrong, and since then you've only prevaricated. Take care mate

You don't seem to be aware the way you behave towards others. I just let you know about it.

@AmadeusD @Corvus

SEP has a good summation of whether Kant posited the existence of God as an entity "in" the noumenon. It does not seem he did so in any straightforward manner - look at the discussion about positing god as an Ideal. But your disagreement is also complicated by something the AI you cited wasn't aware of. There's both a positive and negative sense to the noumenon.

The positive sense of the noumenon would be an entity grasped by the intellect alone without mediation by the categories of experience. Prosaically, "unfiltered". The negative sense of the noumenon would be to construe the noumenon as a limitation on the sensibility, that all phenomena are conditioned by the categories.

The former is impossible for Kant. The latter doesn't allow you to posit the existence of any hypothetical "thing in itself" somehow beyond, or external to, our capabilities of judgement - but not because such things don't exist, but because the move to posit such an entity is unjustifiable.

Source GJ Mattery's (Kant scholar)'s Kant Lexicon.

I would suggest looking up a reputable source when trying to do exegesis.

No longer pertinent.

As noted, in light of this complete meltdown, I don't care.
The majority of my posts are seeking correction, and accepting correction. So the patent falseness of your ad hominem is just not a good way to comport yourself.

but not because such things don't exist — fdrake

Yes. I specifically said that for Kant, his position means God is possible in the noumenal realm but that he does not posit his existence - whcih seems to be exactly what you're getting at here.

Corvus' claim was that Kant posits God's existence.

ut the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God — Corvus

As shown here.

I'm unsure what the issue is? It's a quote from Corvus within my post. For some reason his Requote has you as the author. Not sure what that's about..

No longer pertinent.

I'm unsure what to say but: No it doesn't. this is the code with a couple of spaces:

[XXXquote= "Corvus;873461"]But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.[XX /quote]

his position means God is possible in the noumenal realm but that he does not posit his existence - whcih seems to be exactly what you're getting at here. — AmadeusD

I mean something a little different. What I'm saying is that the question of whether God exists might resemble: "Does wishmalawia amble the anglomogritive?", it looks like a question but in fact isn't. And on that basis it's not sensible to posit their existence, or inexistence, as an entity. Because the question's fundamentally "wrong" somehow, if it's related to God as an entity. (I'm treating this as Kant's position)

Especially if that God is somehow "in" a noumenon - which is conflating a noumenon with an "external" world, and also the positive and negative senses of the term. (This is my commentary on the current state of discussion with @Corvus).

I think i'm understanding the commentary, but i'm unsure how it's between Corvus' claim and the negation of his claim. It seems to support it... But, thank you - clarification is always appreciate.d

My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point. — Corvus

Then what is to be made of those dogmatic slumbers, and the awakening therefrom? The Dude Himself says he’s writing to justify synthetic a priori cognitions, and all that follows from them, by treating the established metaphysics of the day as a science.

That there is a place for transcendental objects….a synthetic a priori cognition if there ever was one…..is merely a happy consequence.