The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.

Present what you mean by the terms you use. I can wait.

Until then bye bye :) — I like sushi

It was "you" who raised the question with the claim that the point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term 'existing'. So I have a justified belief that you have the definition of Noumenon and the concept 'existing' in order for you to come to the conclusion / proposition you raised.

I can see what you mean roughly by your claim, but the claim has no premises, arguments or the points on why and how you came with such a claim. If you elaborate your claim with the missing elements and information, then I could come back with my ideas on the points.

15. To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist on the fact that the sense-organs are not phenomena in the sense of the idealistic philosophy; as such they certainly could not be causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as regulative hypothesis, if not as heuristic principle. What? And others say even that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, if the conception CAUSA SUI is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, the external world is NOT the work of our organs—? — Vaskane

All of these are from Beyond Good and Evil, and he has many more Aphorisms about the world and existence. — Vaskane

Nietzsche is an interesting thinker and a great writer for sure. If you open a new thread for Nietzsche reading group, or any Nietzschean topics you feel interesting, then I would start reading Nietzsche again, and join the discussions.

BoT was about the Greek arts. The Apollonian and Dionysian elements in the ancient Greek arts analysed in critical methodology, I recall.

Nietzsche makes several arguments, if you need help transforming written text into arguments I suggest the book "Mind Your Logic," by Donald Gregory. — Vaskane

What does Nietzsche say about "the world"? What are his concepts for "the world", and "existence"? Any definitions or comments from him on that? Or interpretations?

It's the fox and the sour grapes. — Vaskane

The sour grapes needs some logic and reason to tell the world that it tastes nice and worthwhile eaten.
The world will not accept the sour grapes' points or conclusions unless it is offered with evidence and logic in well formed form of argumental dish.

Even you yourself claimed philosophy takes a long while to digest. And yet you wrote off one of the greatest minds to ever exist from Pindar to Present, simply because you didnt spend enough time to digest him. — Vaskane

In case of sour grapes, it doesn't take long to tell the sourness suppose :)

That something is hard for you to understand and thus you shunt it to literature, or blustering, or something else is literally a sort of weakness that is akin to the powerless (as in humans with no power) projecting hate and resentment because they're not significant enough themselves. — Vaskane

I never said it was hard to understand. I meant that it read like Literature (like a Shakespear or Stephen King), rather than Hume or Kant.

"You know nothing Jon Snow." And that thought came to me without even trying to think about it. It just popped into my head. The wilder woman whose name is lost to me, came out of the abyss and whispered it to me.

Why does she say that to a man who knows much? — Vaskane

She forgot to tell him that the binman has taken away the rusty barbecue rack?

You have Blind Faith in yourself, perhaps one of the most dangerous errors Nietzsche talks about in that "Will to Truth," which shall still lead us to many daring exploits. — Vaskane

If I were a blind, then I would try to see the light. Blind sounds boring, bland and pointless, and blind. According to Plato, maybe we are all blind, but that is the whole point of philosophy - to see the light.

You've not read Nietzsche much at all if ever. — Vaskane

That is a wrong assumption. I did read "The Birth of Tragedy", and some other books. I felt they are more literature than philosophy, so packed them in.

Blind faith is a badly worded concept unfortunately. It sounds anti reason and intelligence and anti understanding which is against the reason, logic and evidence, which are what the traditional philosophy is all about. I cannot accept, blind faith or blind anything can give me any knowledge or concept.

I haven't read Nietzsche for many years, so I would find him alien even to read the titles of his books these days. Nietzsche was a good writer, but his writings don't have logical arguments for what he asserts, hence I am not sure if he qualifies as a rational philosopher.

hmmm I am not sure what freewill of Nietzsche has got to do with what we were talking about. I would have been lost for the relevance rather than translation.

Philosophy is the shaping and creation of human all too human concepts, in which we have a certain blind faith. For example that "I" comes from "It" specifically that a thought comes when it wishes and not when "I" wish, so that it's a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It is merely an assumption, an assertion, in no way an "immediate certainty." — Vaskane

It seems to me that you are asserting that your "I" is coming from "It", and it is not from your "thought", but from the "certain blind faith."
Isn't it what you meant?

I don't have a primary language as such because I do speak a several different languages, and English is just one of them. Are you sure you have written down the sentence clearly?

Who or what makes the certain blind faith that thought wishes to think, but not "you"?

From the pimple of wealth that grew from the Apollonian sprang Dionysian post modernism. — Vaskane

It takes at least 100 years for the schools of philosophy to be formally understood and accepted as the true philosophy.

The new age trends keep get forgotten, and abandoned by the interlocutors and followers, but the true philosophical issues get discussed, and rise repeatedly after the centuries and centuries of time.

If one is into blind faith for something, then there is no point in trying to persuade him to be analytic, rational and objective, because it is not going to be easily accepted or agreed. Blind faith is for religious beliefs, but not for philosophical beliefs or arguments.

Just to explain how our belief works and arises by nature. OK, you can believe in something without reason or ground, but we call it "blind faith", which can be dangerous thing to have.

If not certain or unsure about anything, then don't hesitate to doubt until obtaining the evidence for ye or ne - that is what Hume would say. I think it makes sense, and Hume is a genius.

the skeptic's doubt is the way toward truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :100:

Still curious why anyone needs a reason to believe? Beliefs can be built on faith and thus you don't even have to have any evidence. Simply believe and go from there. — Vaskane

This is a real life example on why I don't believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack which has been sitting in the corner of the garden for months anymore.

I put it in the bin, and the bin was emptied by the collection truck a few days ago. Although I have not seen the bin being emptied (because the collection truck comes at 6am in the morning, when I am asleep), I know that's what they do.  And someone brought the bin into the place where it usually sits in the garden.

So, my belief that the rusty barbecue rack doesn't exist anymore is grounded by my imagination and my inductive reasoning that the binman must have emptied the contents of the bin into their truck as they normally do, and took it away to the recycle centre as they normatively do.

Without the ground for the belief, I would still believe, or be unsure about in the existence of the rack, which is not there anymore in reality.

So why would anyone believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack or anything in existence blindly or by faith? That doesn't sound right or reasonable at all, and his belief is definitely is groundless and wrong too.

Elon Musk looks he will make a good presidency. He should pack in all the rockets, electric car and twitter X business crap, and run for the next president. Not doing so, would be stupidity.

I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

What Hume meant by that would be, do that to the silly comments and words. :nerd:

But the world is not an object; it is merely a euphemism for the totality of possible appearances, from which follows there’s no reason to believe in the existence of it, DUH!!!! because it doesn’t, — Mww

It sounds a signifikant admission. :)

But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge?
— Corvus
I missed that clue, for which there is no excuse. — Mww

Yeah, I was wondering, if the world is not an object, but just a mere concept, then could it be A priori? Because all the livings seem to know their environments pretty well, or get used to it fast for finding food and necessities for their survival as soon as they are born. No one really teach them saying - this is the world for you.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

You claimed that the point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term "existing". I think this is a substantial and interesting statement. If you could explain why and how it is, and from what evidences and premises that claim has originated, then that would help.
At the present moment, we don't have any of your premises or arguments on your claim. We just have a statement.

Was the answer to your question clearly stated in those quotes? If not, if not, then what's the point of qouting the question? Why answer like that? Normally when one quotes a question, they offer an answer. — creativesoul

I added some explanations for the quotes, because different people might interpret the original quotes differently. You asked the question, and I offered the answers with the quotes and added explanations. If you read any academic papers or commentaries, that's what the authors do. They don't simply copy and past the quotes, and assert the quotes says it all. They always add their interpretations. You could have agreed or disagreed with the interpretations.

I certainly know that the universe existed long before me. I also know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will no longer be one after I cease to exist. If there are some words written by someone that - after reading them - cause you to doubt any of that, I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

Hume didn't just doubt, but offered the arguments on why people believe in the existence of unperceived objects or worlds. If you certainly know the universe existed long before you and, and also you know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will be no longer after you cease to exist, then Hume was explaining how your beliefs arise in your mind. I think Hume is one of the greatest Philosophers in history.

How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy. — Lionino

:clap: :100:

So, you've said a lot since I last posted. I wonder if you saw Hume's answer to the question you've posed? — creativesoul

I posted 2x quotes from Treatise of Hume, and also added some explanations to them on how the belief arises on the existence of the External Word / Bodies.

According to Hume, either our perception of fact and/or our memory thereof are reason to believe that the world exists even when we're not perceiving it. — creativesoul

I agree with you points, although personally I feel also our memory and inductive reasonings in some degree play part working with imagination for invoking beliefs in the existence of unperceived existence.

Paul Russell seems to suggest the above part of Hume's Scepticism links to Hume's theory of Religion i.e. The proof in existence of God later in Treatise. (The Riddle of Hume's Treatise, 2008 OUP, pp.168, Paul Russell)

It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael

Great points :up: I will think it over, and will get back to you for any points or questions. Thanks. :pray:

it’s defined well enough as a concept, but I’d agree it’s not well-defined as an object. — Mww

How do you define objects separate from concepts?

but there is reason to believe in the totality of possible appearances the conception “world” represents. — Mww

What is the reason? :)

My belief on the existence and working of the brain, which I have never seen is based on the information I have read from the books and Biology classes in the school.
This is a belief in different type, nature and form on its foundation.

The cup that I am not seeing, but believing in its existence or not, is based purely on the visual perception, when seeing. When not seeing, it is based on the other beliefs and reasonings.

They are different type of cases.

Yes, I do accept the brain is the biological organ where all the mental events happens. But at the same time, brain is the blackbox i.e. we don't know how it is connected to our perceiving the cup, or the details of its workings for the perception.

Yes, I do agree we are seeing the cup, when there is a cup in front of us.
But the question was what is your belief in the existence of the cup when not seeing it i.e. if you have gone away for a few hours or even days, but you think about the cup (maybe the cup was gold plated on the handle with some messages from your friend which was a present), do you have reasons to believe the cup is still existing as it was when not seeing it? If you do, what makes that belief justifiable?

Do you actually mean that there is no reason or do you just mean that the reasons given are inadequate? — Michael

The latter was the answer. But there would be the cases where the extreme inadequacy is similar or identical to nothing.

Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking. — Alkis Piskas

What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world, but the world is actually including all the celestial objects, microbiological molecules as well as all the countries on the earths, the planets .... etc etc, then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world is, perhaps your rooms, kitchen, a patch of sky outside your house, some roads and streets, which are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world?

This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly and absolutely ! Hence I asked you the previous question, which you appeared to have answered with confidence i.e. when you are conscious, you obviously perceive the world. Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world?

Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive? — Alkis Piskas

I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. Being conscious could mean simply being awake without particularly perceiving, feeling or thinking about anything. For perceiving something, of course you must be conscious, but you also need to apply your intentionality to the object you perceive.

At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy. — Alkis Piskas

You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief.

This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable. — Alkis Piskas

If you are totally open minded about all the possibilities that can happen to the unperceived existence, be it a tree, or a cup you have seen before, then you don't have reason (or you have less reason - depending on the situations) to believe it is still existing while not perceiving it.

Think of a case that a long time (a few years) has passed since you perceived the object, then you might not even be sure if you actually saw the cup or tree or not. Your memory will fade away, and you have every reason to doubt the credibility of your own memory too. So it would be rational to have the doubt on the existence of the unperceived object or world.

Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

But you have not answered any of the questions from the agreed point of view. Most of your answers seem to have been based on the subjective concept of the world. Therefore we have not moved much forward from where we started. :)

Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea?

I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, under two conditions. First, iff perception is taken as Hume intended, and second, iff the world is taken as a transcendental idea.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks along those lines these days. Doesn’t make you any less correct, or the dialectic any less interesting, but perhaps does question the relevance. — Mww

I only came across the video a day or so ago. I thought it was an interesting video, because the presenter has Phd in Philosophy of Science, but rejects the existence of the actual world, and he talks about why there is no actual world. The argument is reasonable, which is similar to one I had.

This thread has become not just Hume or Kant's views and arguments on the topic i.e. the world, existence and beliefs, but also general survey of these concepts. So, yes we were discussing Kant and Hume when someone raised the issue with them, I was responding to them while exploring the concepts and also the title "What are your reasons and grounds for believing in the existence of the unperceived world / object?"

There is a clear difference between "the world" and "the external objects" too such as cups or trees. The world is still undefined concept. And trying to have some sort of agreed object concept of the world would be ideal for the discussions too. Some folks seem to think they are all the same, but I feel they are all different, but I have been trying interact with the same level of perspectives rather than rejecting their points on the basis of being irrelevant.

What do you think of this video? Any thoughts?

"The world" is simply every direct experience of what appears to be any physical sensation from any sense organ. This is opposed to and contrast with purely analytical knowledge held within the mind. — PL Olcott

But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world?

Isn't objectivity one of the properties of the world? There is no point talking about someone's closed private world as the actual objective world, is there?

How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?
And, if you are not conscious (sleeping or unconscious in any way), then no question can be is raised as to whether you believe anything or not. — Alkis Piskas

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? What is the world?
The point is not to do with being conscious or not. The point is, what is your ground / reason for believing in the existence of unperceived world / object.

The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? It may have been stolen in the meantime, but why would that be more probable than still existing? But even if it is stolen, wouldn't it still exist? — Alkis Piskas

For not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore, if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. But here the point is that, you are not given that reason. The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it.

So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists. — Alkis Piskas

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore?

Of every category that can possibly be there are no categories where the world does not exist. — PL Olcott

Can you define your concept of the world? For instance, what colour is the world?

He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations. — I like sushi

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points?

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation.

In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. — I like sushi

No one claimed that existing objects are non experienceable. But a suggestion was that experience alone is not enough ground for belief in the existence of the unperceived world. Would you agree?

The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …). — I like sushi

Could you please clarify this statement with elaboration? Thanks.