Have you read one of Hegel's books? — Gregory

I did read some commentary books on Hegel. I did not read any of his original works.

I've Phenomenology of the Mind about 7 times, and his "encyclopaedia' a few times. Sometimes there can be synchronisity in life — Gregory

Cool. You must be very much familiar with Hegel's system. :up:

No.

There's a lot of lingo there that can be interpreted in various ways. But "No", I think, is the true answer to all of your questions above. — Moliere

Ok, fair enough. I was wondering if reason and logic are the same or separate faculties in Kant. If they are the separate faculties, then they might create possible contradictory situations in their operations. That was my point to Mww. For the word "faculties", Kant uses the word often in his Lecture on "LOGIC" for meaning divisions.

"Faculty" is a fun word from the early modern period. It doesn't specify much other than thought-furniture/functions in the imaginations of the early moderns. — Moliere

We can see the word "faculty" often in the Logic Lecture book of Kant. For example "Reason is the faculty of the derivation of the particular from the universal or cognition a priori." - pp.442

No reason to believe otherwise, unless willing to believe in the impossible. — Fire Ologist

Believing in certainty and high possibility would be trust. Isn't believing in impossibility faith?

Eternal oblivion is a poetic way of simply saying “not here anymore.” — Fire Ologist

Where is the place for the religious belief or faith in life after death?

Where does purpose come from? We don't know but it's there. — Gregory

Purpose for what? Isn't purpose from your psychology?

And yes, Hedeigger was a finitist Hegelian lol, imo — Gregory

Under what evidence is it the case? Gadamer was into Hegel stuff for mainly on hermeneutics, but not sure if Heidegger was.

First of all, nowhere in the statement that made no sense to me was the concept of reality to be found, — Mww

The second statement, in response, in the form of a secondary conditional query, the conception of reality is found, so that statement makes sense to me. — Mww

Now I can say, reality does not hold contradiction, that being the purview of pure a priori logic manifest in critical thought, so even though the statement makes sense, it is theoretically invalid. — Mww

Your writings are ambiguous in what it is trying to say. My point was clear. If reason is based on logic, then they are likely to conflict on their judgements. Moreover it sounds a redundant statement to say that reason is based on logic.

Which is why I said “commonly, but loosely, called”, insofar as the human intellectual faculties do not use symbols or language; — Mww

When there are the official definition of formal logic, describing logic in commonly and loosely was a bit odd. We do use symbols extensively in all sciences, mathematics, arts, and communications too. Ignoring the symbols would be ignoring intelligence.

….reason says true on X, but the logic says false on X at the same time…..
— Corvus

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. — Mww

How could a case of contradiction which is possible in the reality and also in logical thinking not make sense to you?

All this is too obvious. Beneath the surface of things there is a paralogical bi-reality. — Gregory

What do you mean by a paralogical bi-reality? Could you elaborate on that please?

We have matter first. We are matter, we are extended so we are extension. — Gregory

We are not just matter.

People think saying matter is extension is too Cartesian but look: that car there is extended that way, pushes off to the side there, ect. It's extended. It's not the principle of extension maybe, but what does that even mean? — Gregory

Isn't extended or extension a property of matter? That is obvious. If not, indeed what do you mean?

Great summary :up: however a few points ...

Logic employed by the understanding is commonly, albeit loosely, called formal, — Mww

Formal logic means the type of logic which uses symbols and formal languages for analysing the statements and propositions for validity i.e. propositional logic, predicate logic and modal logic.
In mathematical logic it also means the logic which can be computable via the intelligent machines.

Reason, on the other hand, employs transcendental logic, which has congruent subject/predicate form, but different origin of conceptions contained therein. — Mww

Reason itself is a faculty which analyses and finds truths, but if it is to employ transcendental logic for its operation, then does it not duplicate itself with another faculty of truth telling system? Does it imply that reason says true on X, but the logic says false on X at the same time? If both of them says true, then why does reason need the logic, and why logic needs reason?

Are they not rather actually the same faculty expressed in different terms?

On the other hand we have Descartes arguments for soul. There is nothing about pure abstraction that speaks of an entended organ. This feels strange to write because i feel my own brain and know i am just a body on a material, dangerous planet. However, he has a point that spiritual experiences are perceived as going beyond matter. — Gregory

Cartesian idea of body and soul is rejected by many contemporaries as an outdated and invalid theory for the fact, that body and mind dualism cannot be proven and makes no sense.

Do you believe in the dualism? Do we have souls? Could you prove the existence of souls? Do souls supposed to survive the bodily deaths? If they are separate substances, souls suppose to survive bodily deaths. If not, then where do they go, or what happen to the souls after death?

Could it be said that Kant was not Hegelian, but was he an absurdist? — Gregory

Kant lived in the earlier times than Hegel. How could Kant have had been a Hegelian? Could Plato have had been Heideggerian? :D

Dialetheism is associated usually with Hegel, — Gregory

For Hegel contradiction is the essential element in the changes and progress of the world.

Kant, who was very interested in formal logic, — Gregory

Kant's logic was not formal logic. It was transcendental logic i.e. he thought transcendental idealism works under the principle of the logic.

has his mental "antimonies" in his system. So my question is: was contradiction a necessary part of logic and/or reality in the worldview of Kant? If we can only see two sides of an idea, how do we know they unite at a highet level? — Gregory

Antinomies were what our reasons face when dealing with God, world, freedom and souls. Reason was supposed to know truth on everything. But when it comes to these objects, reason doesn't know what they are. For Kant, that was antinomy of reason, which is also the limitation of reason.

Memories, for instance -- where might they fall on the "willful" spectrum? — J

Memories seem to play a part in dreams, but they are not exactly correct memories of the past. You might just see something you have had experience with in real life, but in a totally different context. There would be no thoughts or reasonings happening in dreams. You get what is unfolding in your dreaming without your choice in totally unpredictable manner.

Even if you get to see the images and in some cases the situations happening albeit without any context, reason or history, you still have feelings and willful motivations which make you angry, sad, or joyous, and you might even act to defend yourself if you feel you were in danger even in your dreams. It tells us even when we are asleep, some part of our mind is semi conscious, and a lot might be happening in there.

I don't believe it is a causal relationship between dreaming and actions while in sleep, but more likely contingent or random reactions due to the mental activities happening during sleep, because there is no constant regularity or necessity between the contents of dreaming and the reactions during dreaming. And it doesn't affect the majority of folks in the same way, but looks to be some random and contingent reactions to the dreams in some folks.

Ok, good point. Another reason that it is not causal reaction is that, when you say X is caused by Y. Y must cause on all instances of X i.e. if the dream caused your kicking, it must cause kicking to all other folks who has the same dream or similar dream kicking. But it doesn't. Maybe it does to some folks, but definitely not to all the folks. Hence it is not causal event. It is random or contingent event or reaction during the sleep.

You mentioned also on supervenience i.e. Kicking was based on dreaming. It seems also not convincing, because when an action is based on something i.e. the dreaming, there must be also thought processes or willful motivations which must accompany the action Kicking. During sleep, your thought and willful motivations wouldn't be present for your Kicking to be based on the thoughts process or willful motivation on the dreaming.

As is now apparent, this is a little microcosm of the whole mental-causation problem. But I offer it because it’s curiously amenable to analysis, and makes me wonder whether any sleep researchers have actually used brain scans to look into this. — J

Isn't it just contingent or random events or responses? To say X is caused by Y, Y must be possible to repeat for more observations to see if X will happen.

In human dreams, possibility of exactly same dream can happen is very low, if not impossible. And the contents of dreams are not something which can be controlled by external conditioning or by the dreamer himself.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. This means that knowledge about an objective reality cannot be separated from our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Are you not confounding knowledge about an objective reality with mind-independent world here?

Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world. — RussellA

There seem to be two options.
1) Mind-independent world doesn't exist. It is a figment of our imagination like flying horse or golden mountain or mermaid.

2) It could be the countries or places which are known to exist, but we have never been in it such as Australia (for me, I have never been in the country). I read about it, watched youtube videos about it, and heard about it, so I imagine it is a vast land with great weather, and lots of wild bush land and many kangurus jumping around all over the place.

I believe it exists, but I have no idea who are living in there, and what is happening in there. I have no direct perception on the country at all. In that sense, it is a mind-independent world for me.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be?

But if X was originally a statue of X, then a statue of X is X. No?
— Corvus
No. The Trojan Horse was arguably a mythological statue. Pegasus was never a mythological statue. — noAxioms

X is a free variable. It can take any value in it. X could have been a statue of Pegasus for its original value. Your inability to understand even what a variable has been the cause of muddle and confusion

, if I wanted to refer to the concept of 14, I would have explicitly said something like 'the concept of 14' or 'the perception of X' — noAxioms

It is not matter of if you wanted. We have had this discussion many times before, and it had been concluded that number is concept. Your ignorance on the fact has been contributing to beating around the bush in circles instead of seeing any progress in the discussion.

In exactly the same way, any pain a person experiences cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible. — RussellA

Seeing a colour and feeling a pain are both subjective experiences that are unknowable to any one other than a mind reader. — RussellA

They are subjective mental states, nothing to do with knowledge. If you have knowledge of something, then you must be able to verify, demonstrate and prove on what you know objectively to other minds in linguistic forms, when asked.

If you knew something about a mind-independent world then it couldn't be a mind-independent world.

That would be like knowing something that is unknown. — RussellA

The world or reality means that you live in it, interact with other minds and objects in the world. If you cannot do that, then it is not a world, and it is not the world either. In that sense mind-independent world is a fiction.

But persons A and B are interchangeable,

Therefore, it is possible that a person may see a colour that in fact doesn't exist in reality in the world — RussellA

When there are discrepancies in the claims of knowledge on the same situation or object between different folks, you always have chance to carry out testimonies on the knowledge via repeated observations, experiments, or testing on the claims, and update your false beliefs, or correct the other folks false claim on his knowledge. You also have option of mutual agreements on knowledge with the other folks who had different account of the knowledge from you via clarification process.

Therefore Direct Realism is not a valid philosophy. The reality of a mind-independent world is inaccessible to the mind. — RussellA

What we see is the only world there is. There is no other world. Mind-independent world is meaningless if you cannot see or know what it is.

But we know the world as we perceive and reason on it. Where reason cannot stretch further due to its own limits, inference can begin. This is what ideal realism saying, and I think it makes sense.

It's a statue of X, not X. There's a difference, kind of the same difference between the concept of 14 and 14. — noAxioms

But if X was originally a statue of X, then a statue of X is X. No?
The concept of 14 is 14.

Your seeing the colour red is knowledge about what is in the mind, but is not knowledge about what is in the world. — RussellA

You need to check and find out what the red coloured object is you are seeing. Just claiming you are seeing red coloured object doesn't mean much and not very useful to you as knowledge.

You must find out, if it is a traffic red light shining at you, or an apple hanging on the apple tree, or fire burning in your garden, so you must be able to stop the car, or go and get the apple for your supper if it were in your own garden, or get a bucket of water, and pour over the fire in the garden, for your perception worthwhile serving you as knowledge for your survival.

Just saying you are seeing something red, but it might be green is not knowledge, and it doesn't mean much at all. Even a bird can tell it is red object she is seeing, and she wouldn't do anything or care what the red object is about. That's no knowledge. We don't say birds have knowledge, even if they can see objects like we do.

You could look at the green object from all directions and all times of the day and will always see this green object as red. — RussellA

You need to check if you were wearing red coloured eye glasses, or perhaps you might have developed problems with your sights? Or indeed there is an object which is green, but appears red. The important thing here is that, you are thinking and reasoning that you are seeing red, but it could be green.
You are not just seeing the object like antique CCTV camera.

How is it possible for the human mind to analyse the fact that they always see a red object to discover the truth of reality that the object in the world is actually green? — RussellA

Because human mind thinks, imagines, reasons and infers on what they perceive.

As regards the world, you may believe the colour of the object is red. You may be able to justify that the colour of the object is red. But if the object is in reality actually green, then you have no knowledge about the truth of reality. — RussellA

That sounds an extreme scepticism. We do have knowledge about the truth of reality, because we have perception and reasoning and inferring on the perception. Not just perception.

What was his view on it?

Is that desk there an idea. A large, wooden idea and if i push it over, am i pushing an idea? Is my soul an idea? — Gregory

If you think, imagine, remember or believe in the existence of the large desk, then it is idea of the desk in your mind. If you stand in front of the desk, touch it, push it or work on it, then it is a matter, or a physical desk you are dealing with.

How does my sole know matter as matter? Is there something that connects all philosophical ideas within my soul? — Gregory

Soul is a tricky concept. Does your soul exist? Where is it? In what form does your soul exist?

I knew what you meant. No misunderstanding there at all.
At the point where experience is limited, inference takes place.

You seem to have misunderstood the inference as a declaration, hence pointed it out.

No. It is not a declaration.

It is only an inference from what we see from the dead, and we also reason and infer the same situation to the ultimate fate of the living including us.

That is the kind of oblivion that I fear. — Paine

There is no such thing as eternal oblivion. Even when you fall asleep at night, you don't notice time while you were sleeping. You close and open the eyes, momentarily it is next morning.

If you were spending a whole night without sleeping and fully being awake, a night would be very a long time till next morning. Without mind, there is no time i.e. no past, no present, no future and definitely no eternity.

And when one dies, the mind will be totally cut off from the rest of the world, and other minds too in any relation it has made with them due to nonexistence of the mind.

Why should our perceptions necessarily give us knowledge about the world? — RussellA

For empirical cases like seeing colour red, you must go out and investigate further and verify for the truth, if needed. Seeing the colour red is just like CCTV monitoring a street, and recording the scene. There is no intelligence or coherence in the images. Human mind must analyse, and tell the image what it is by matching the images to his intelligence for true knowledge.

AI implemented cameras can tell the what the object of the colour red is, when detecting the object. But it needs the image recognition programming in the implementation.

But in order to reason about my perceptions, I must first know that I am perceiving the colour red, for example. I don't think that I am seeing the colour red. I don't believe that I am seeing the colour red. I don't need to reason that I am seeing the colour red. I know that I am seeing the colour red. — RussellA

Your seeing colour red is not knowledge. You are just making a statement on your seeing colour red, and that is all. That colour red could be anything. You must further reason or infer whether the colour red is an apple or a red lamp, if the shape was not clear to you.

Knowledge is verified belief or fact which carries truth. If something is not truth, or unclear, it is not knowledge.

So IRists were confused seeing the colour red as having knowledge on the ultimate reality, it seems.

The Indirect Realist
Not entirely. The Indirect Realist has knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red. But they argue that we can only have beliefs about what exists in the world that may be causing these perceptions in the mind. — RussellA

However, as I see it, Direct Realist is an invalid philosophy. IE, they are wrong. — RussellA

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong.

Indirect knowledge signifies a belief.

I believe that the Space Needle in Seattle was originally sketched on a napkin, but I don't know it for a fact as I wasn't there at the time. — RussellA

Does it mean that Indirect Realist can only have beliefs? No knowledge at all?
And likewise, Direct Relists can only have knowledge? No beliefs at all?

In relation to something in the world. The relation between what exists in the mind and what exists in the world. — RussellA

That seems to imply that they are back to the dualism.

the Indirect Realist argues that their reasoning can only give them indirect knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception. — RussellA

1) What is the significance of direct and indirect knowledge?
2) Indirect or direct on relation to what?
3) What are the differences in direct and indirect knowledge compared to knowledge?

As I wrote on page 2 — RussellA

Thanks for the clarification.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

That sounds confusing. Is it not the other way around? Are you sure you haven't put them wrong way around in the definition? What significance the word "indirect" have in the name? Why indirect?

I am trying to show that this is a misrepresentation of Indirect Realism. For Indirect Realism, there is only "1x copy of every object in your perception." — RussellA

You seem to be confusing the point that I was trying to point out the fact that transcendental idealism has problem of having dualistic view of the world i.e. phenomenon and noumenon. I was trying to clarify that ideal realism is not transcendental realism. Banno seems to be confusing himself on this point in his post above, which I tried to correct his confusion.

There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

I only mentioned on indirect realism, because you brought it up. I don't actually know what it is claiming officially, because just by reading your posts about it, it sounded like a tautological statement as I mentioned before.

So what is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? From what you are saying, they sound exactly the same claims.

What is an object, for you? — Banno

An object can be both mental and physical. If you imagined a winged horse, that winged horse is your mental object. If you saw one made of physical matter in Disney, it is a physical object of a winged horse. It is not the real Pegasus, but it is still a winged horse, and one can name it as Pegasus. No?

This again is the problem of confounding what you believe with what is true. That you will not know that you are oblivious does not mean you are not oblivious... Rather the opposite. — Banno

Does it mean you are oblivious, even if you will not know you are oblivious?

So Pegasus is a word without its object? Are there objects without their words / names?