You sounded blatantly irrational just demanding me to accept I am wrong. You had no arguments for your points, and also appeared to be not knowing exactly what has been discussed as well. God was only mentioned to add clarification to Thing-in-Itself.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. — AmadeusD
I felt that your point of telling me wrong was based solely on your blind trust of the other people (authority, or someone you respect etc) or source of the info (the internet), rather than the arguments or the truth itself, and for some reason having strong emotional urge to put my points down for no particular reason. Not fair was it? — Corvus
I understand this. And i understand it to be an emotive defense of a patently incorrect assertion, based on an irrational response to a perceived slight.
Which is why I am not amendable to taking it too seriously. — AmadeusD
You cannot prove the existence of the objects in space outside of you by simply saying you are conscious of your own existence. — Corvus
Not contradictory, but not making sense either. — Corvus
Do you have the CPR reference for backing that points up? No Wiki or SEP, but CPR. — Corvus
Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of Summer 2023, has nearly 1800 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. — https://plato.stanford.edu/about.html
"as determined in time" sounds like it needs awareness of time, which can only be achieved by the outer sense perception such as perceiving the movement of the sun around the earth. How does one know one's own existence "determined in time" without yet being sure of the external world?In B276, Kant starts his proof with "I am conscious of my existence as determined in time."
He doesn't start his proof with "I am conscious of my existence". — RussellA
Should the indirect realist not check the argument of the Refutation for the Idealism for any logical obscurity before accepting it?Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Refutation of Idealism B276 make sense to an Indirect Realist but perhaps not to a Direct Realist. — RussellA
It would be likely to be a biased opinion. It is better to look at the original work first, and then various other commentaries rather than just relying on one 3rd party commentary source.For posts on the Forum, the SEP as source information is more than adequate. — RussellA
How does one know one's own existence "determined in time" without yet being sure of the external world? — Corvus
===============================================================================I don't see it anywhere. Even with binoculars, telescope and magnifying glasses and microscopes, there is no such a thing as a Mind-independent world. There is just the empirical world with the daily objects I see, and interact with. That is the only world I see around me. Nothing else. — Corvus
Should the indirect realist not check the argument of the Refutation for the Idealism for any logical obscurity before accepting it? — Corvus
It would be likely to be a biased opinion. It is better to look at the original work first, and then various other commentaries rather than just relying on one 3rd party commentary source. — Corvus
Please don't misunderstand again. I do believe in only one world i.e. the physical world. I was asking about the external world in the Refutation for the Idealist you quoted.I assume you know your own existence within time, yet you don't seem to believe in an external world. — RussellA
It didn't appear to be quite the case.I'm sure they do. I know I have. — RussellA
CPR is not a bible. You don't accept the whole lot in CPR as if it is some religious text like some other folks do. One thing for sure is, it is a great classic with lots of great ideas in it, but also there are some contentious, inconsistent parts and contradictions too.As Kant's philosophy is extremely complex and notoriously difficult to understand, I think the sensible approach is first to read various commentaries and then look at the original material. — RussellA
I do believe in only one world i.e. the physical world. I was asking about the external world in the Refutation for the Idealist you quoted. — Corvus
There seems to be some logical flaws in the refutation, but it is good to know that Kant believes in the existence of the external world outside him.n B276 Kant refers to objects existing outside any human observer: "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me."
You say that you see only one world, it is empirical, it is physical, it is external, it is not internal and it is not Mind-Dependent. — RussellA
I don't know what ism I am following. None actually. As you pointed out very well this time, I believe in one empirical (physical) world outside of me. I am not sure if it is a mind dependent or mind independent world. My perception says that without my mind, the world doesn't exist, but my inference says, without my mind, the world will keep existing. :(Are you:
An Indirect Realist who believes that the objects they see are only a representation of different objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world?
A Direct Realist who believes that the objects they see are the same objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world? — RussellA
Now the question goes back to Thing-in-itself. Is the Thing-in-itself something in the mind or does it exist outside of the mind? If outside, then would it be in the external world, or some other world totally separate from the external world? — Corvus
"The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me."
"And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something."
How many external worlds do you have, and which one is the real world? Why do you need more than one world?It depends what you mean by "external world". There is the external world that I perceive as Appearance, and there is the external world outside me that I cannot perceive that is causing these Appearances. — RussellA
What is the unknowable Things in themselves that exist outside you exactly mean? What are they?To my understanding of Kant, Appearances are affected by unknowable Things in Themselves that exist outside me. — RussellA
So Things-in-themselves exist outside you, but it also exists in your mind? Are they the same Things-in-themselves? Or are they different entities? Are they visible or audible to you? Can you touch them? If they are not perceptible, then how do you know they actually even exist?However, as we can also think in general terms about Things in Themselves using Transcendental Reasoning on Appearances, thoughts about Things in Themselves exist in the mind. — RussellA
It depends what you mean by "external world". There is the external world that I perceive as Appearance, and there is the external world outside me that I cannot perceive that is causing these Appearances. — RussellA
How many external worlds do you have, and which one is the real world? Why do you need more than one world? — Corvus
What is the unknowable Things in themselves that exist outside you exactly mean? What are they? — Corvus
"And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something."
So Things-in-themselves exist outside you, but it also exists in your mind? Are they the same Things-in-themselves? Or are they different entities? Are they visible or audible to you? Can you touch them? If they are not perceptible, then how do you know they actually even exist? — Corvus
Isn't it fairly simple that our perceptual abilities, and also our intellectual abilities, are limited in some ways, so that what the world is outside of those bounds can't be known by us? — Wayfarer
So the indirect realist believes that what we can't see is what is real? — Wayfarer
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
Direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence.
I am not going to say you are wrong, because you can interpret Kant as you think right for you. But some arguments are more valid or invalid, more plausible or less plausible from the objective perspective.There are many uses for the word "world". There is the world of dance, the world of science, the world of literature, the world inside our minds, the world outside our minds, etc.
One word having several uses is in the nature of language.
What is real? Is the thought of a mountain any less real than the mountain itself? — RussellA
This is a completely different interpretation from what I think, and I am afraid to say that it doesn't make sense. In Kant, our daily perception is via appearance and phenomena from the empirical world. And we know the contents in phenomena very well. The whole science is based on the appearance from the empirical world. Denying that would be denying the whole scientific knowledge, then you are degrading yourself to the Pyrrhonian scepticism, and must stop all your judgement on the world.We perceive appearances, phenomena, in our senses. We may see the colour red, feel a sharp pain, taste something sweet, smell something acrid or hear a grating noise.
We have the fundamental belief that something caused these phenomena. But we don't perceive what caused these phenomena, we only perceive the phenomena. — RussellA
But he is not denying the outside empirical world where you see all the daily objects and interact with them. — Corvus
Kant responded to his predecessors by arguing against the Empiricists that the mind is not a blank slate that is written upon by the empirical world, and by rejecting the Rationalists’ notion that pure, a priori knowledge of a mind-independent world was possible. Reason itself is structured with forms of experience and categories that give a phenomenal and logical structure to any possible object of empirical experience. These categories cannot be circumvented to get at a mind-independent world, but they are necessary for experience of spatio-temporal objects with their causal behaviour and logical properties. These two theses constitute Kant’s famous transcendental idealism and empirical realism.
What do you mean by "mind-independent world"? Did Kant say anything about it?The IEP article Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics differentiates between an "empirical world" in the mind and a "mind-independent world" outside the mind — RussellA
You are free to disagree as long as you back up with your arguments and evidence for your disagreement. At the end of the day, no one is wrong or right in philosophical discussions, but the points they are making could be.There are several things in your posts that I don't agree with, but as I am off on holiday, I won't be able to tackle 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.