Why did Nietzsche renounce Kant?
— Corvus

Because Kant was too subtle? — Wayfarer

In what way, was he so?

However, perception, world, internal, external and sense-data should all be thought of as figures of speech rather than literally existing, and as figures of speech only exist in the mind as concepts. — RussellA

Would you not agree that figures of speech can be confusing, and is illogical?

If we weren’t perceiving in our sleep we wouldn’t wake up when our alarm went off. Our senses have evolved to wake us even in the deepest sleep. At any rate, I see no coherent reason why any of it should be doubted. — NOS4A2

If you were perceiving the world while you were asleep, then you wouldn't need the alarm clock to be awakened by it. The fact that you set the alarm clock to be awakened by it proves that you don't perceive the world while asleep.

Think of the cup in your OP, the one you cannot be sure exists when you are not perceiving it. If you and someone else were sitting around the cup, and you look away, but the other person sees the cup has not moved or vanished or blinked out of existence, are you right to doubt the existence of the cup? — NOS4A2

While I look away, I wouldn't know if the cup exist, and I wouldn't know what the person would be doing either. The person could have looked away too, fell asleep, or walked out the room. Anyway, how can I believe in the existence of the cup when I am not seeing it, and base my belief in the existence of the invisible cup relying on the other person's perception, which is totally inaccessible to me?

As there is no information within an effect as to its cause, it is therefore logically impossible to know the cause of an effect just from the effect itself. — RussellA

But could you not say that your perception is caused by your sense-data? i.e. the sense perception of the external world?

I mentioned a few reasons why we’d keep believing in the existence of the world. For one, we never stop perceiving it. But also, there is no reason to do otherwise. — NOS4A2

But do you keep perceiving the world while you are asleep? Are what you perceive always what you think you perceive? Was there any room for doubts, illusions or mistakes in the contents of your perception?

It’s why I ask the question. If you never stop perceiving the world, what are the grounds for doubting the existence of the world? — NOS4A2

For the above reasons.

Don't mistake that for not doing "Gods" work. I too am an Atheist, and understand that Nietzsche, in a sense, is much like Nebuchadnezzar, although not a believer still carried out a similar mission to give people a purpose. — Vaskane

Existence of God and proof is another interesting topic which is related to the topic of this thread.
Why do you believe in the existence of God? Or why not? How the existence of God differ from the existence of the world? or unperceived world?

Nietzsche found that "God is dead," to be highly problematic in the rise of nihilism. — Vaskane

Did Nietzsche thought God had been alive and existing before? But died suddenly or gradually?
Or did Nietzsche think that God had never existed at all?
Some say Zarathustra was the new God whom Nietzsche tried to depict as in "Thus spake Zarathustra", but not sure if it was.

Yeah, you said so yesterday, I think it was.

Probably my fault for branching off, in that I think your “I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper”, doesn’t hold true.

Or I just misunderstood. Dunno. — Mww

No probs. I don't have perfect memories. I am sure no one does :D
This thread is for any topic or issues which one feels related to the concepts "the world", "existence", "belief" or "reasons / grounds / justifications for knowledge" from their own ideas, or any of the historical philosophers' perspectives. It is not a declarative or presumptuous, but exploratory thread, to which, hopefully, some form of conclusion would be heuristically emerging from the discussions.

Because Kant allowed the illusion of God to continue for another 100 years or so. He was essentially just a Christian with his metaphysics. — Vaskane

Understandable. Nietzsche was an atheist.

So the question ought to be inverted. What are the grounds for believing that we are perceiving nothing, perceiving the extraterrestrial, or perceiving nothing at all? — NOS4A2

The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?

Or when we are not perceiving the objects we have been perceiving, due to not being present in front of the objects, what are the grounds for us keep believing the unperceived existence?

The idea that we can stop perceiving the world is a troubling one, but remains at the core of anti-realism. — NOS4A2

Not exactly anti-realism, but more to do with Academic Scepticism?

We’ve diverted from transcendental ideas, to distinctions in judgement. Was there a point in doing that? Did we just move on? Get lost? Lose interest? — Mww

No no, I was just responding to your points. :)

You say reading in English got comfortable for you. I am not really sure how the philosophical scene is in East Asia or in languages like Japanese or Korean. Thinking that your native language is Korean, don't you think you would benefit from reading in it, even with less material published in it? And for that I will quote Nietzsche like Vaskane did: — Lionino

I tried reading Philosophy in Korean which is my native language, but it was actually more difficult to understand. I think problem is the translation.

Likewise, how could the English language, alien, communicate to you in the same way that Korean, transporting concepts to you since a child, does? — Lionino

I have been using English since middle school times in the American High school in Indonesia, and have been reading in English for many years, and worked with English native speaking people, so it became like my main language now. It is not still perfect, but I would say it is par with my Korean.

Otherwise, I, like everyone else, also read philosophy articles written in English, as many important scholars of philosophy today write in English on peer-reviewed journals. But when it comes to classics, I believe that Korean has translated more in philosophy (Kant, Plato, Leibniz) than you could ever consume. — Lionino

Yes, almost every book in English has translated copy in Korean, and Philosophical academic interest in Korea is very high. There are people who are interested in the Western Philosophy, also Eastern Philosophies and Religious studies such as Buddhism. There are many seminars and study groups in the country with ardent passion and enthusiasm. There are internationally well known scholars such as the late JG Kim (USA), and a few working and teaching in Europe (UK and Germany). Here is the Korean Prof. H. Chang (Cambridge University UK ) presenting his paper on Realism.


There are many Youtube channels run by Koreans with Philosophical topics, which I watch sometimes.

This is a youtube channel run by a New Zealander working in Korea. He seems specialising in the continental philosophy. He has many Korean followers.

Intuitions (Kantian). — I like sushi

As you have suggested, intuition implies connection to knowledge, and indeed it is faculty for knowledge. Not imagination. Imagination is a faculty of its own. The nature of imagination is its freedom from the other mental faculties.

Note: I suppose we may have some other faculty yet to be unearthed. — I like sushi

What does Kant say about it?

Einflusse, den Kant auf die deutsche Philosophie ausgeübt hat, den Blick abzulenken und namentlich über den Werth, den er sich selbst zugestand, klüglich hinwegzuschlüpfen. Kant war vor Allem und zuerst stolz auf seine Kategorientafel, er sagte mit dieser Tafel in den Händen: "das ist das Schwerste, was jemals zum Behufe der Metaphysik unternommen werden konnte". - — Vaskane

Why did Nietzsche renounce Kant?

The propositions are always a priori constructs; the proofs for them, on the other hand, are always empirical. — Mww

Propositions have bivalent values either true of false. 5+7 itself is not a proposition until you add "="
and come up with 12. 5+7=12 is a proposition.

Peruse the section in CPR on pure/impure a priori knowledge, A2/B3. — Mww

Sure, here is B3 from CPR.

"By the term “knowledge à priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is possible only à posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge à priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge à priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience." - CPR B3

If we look at, "5+7", it is not a knowledge, proposition or anything on its' own. It is just a sense data. To the tribe man who never saw numbers, 5+7 would appear some mysterious symbols. And what was too heavy basket for him would be too light for his friend who trained in the gym for weight lifting.

It is only when you see the sense data and applied A priori and synthesise, you get the answer 12, which is a synthetic a priori knowledge. Would you not agree?
"5+7" is the simplest example for the demonstration. The logic will be more obvious if we look at the complex Calculus, Trigonometry or Geometry proof examples.

Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will know a priori, that there’s too much in it. And you’re right, in that he won’t care about the math, until he wants to know how much is too much. — Mww

Wouldn't he only know there are too much fishes in the basket, when he tries to lift it first? :) Just by looking at the basket, he would only be able to guess. But most importantly before all that, he must see the basket with his eyes to know, it is the basket which belongs to him.

We can imagine only what we are capable of imagining. Beyond that … well … you get the idea (or rather not!) which is the entire - obvious - point. — I like sushi

So what is the boundary of our imagination? How do you define the line between possibility and impossibility of imagination? Do we all have the same capability for imagination?

One shouldn’t mistake rote classroom instruction, for innate human intelligence. — Mww

I know what you are trying to say, and it is all over in the textbooks too. But that is the part I don't agree with. There are the tribe people who live in the jungle all their lives hunting and foraging for food, and never come across mathematics in their whole lives. They don't know what numbers mean, never mind math. Experience and education must synthesise with A priori to yield knowledge.

Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. But that depends on the nature of the judgement. A simple judgement, re: “the world exists”, is illicit on the one hand because existence adds nothing to the conception of world, and on the other, it is false insofar as world is not even a thing that exists. — Mww

:cool: :up:

We know of of nothing prior to experience. — I like sushi

I agree with this. There is no blind mathematician from birth unless he has been taught by someone.

So there are no blind mathematicians? — Wayfarer

No, unless he was taught by non-blind teacher.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course. — Corvus

It was a logical conclusion from the premises.

That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww

So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course.

Solipsism has a varied history, so…best be careful with the concept generally employed.
———— — Mww

OK, I am not denying, but trying clarify your points. It is interesting to see different points from the traditional commentary book opinions.

The reconciliation of the illusion, is don’t say a thing exists when it is impossible to know what it is. — Mww

So, it was illusions on their part, when the vulgars were shouting jumping up and down saying why on earth you doubt and ask for proof of the world existence. According to you, the world doesn't exist. It has never existed. There was no reason to believe in existence of the world. Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct?

How so? ‘Sensible’ objects are those perceived by sense. Numbers are not perceived by sense. — Wayfarer

Yeah, most people think that way, but I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper, or ears hear the sounds asking by someone, or see some external objects such as 5x apples and 7x oranges, you don't carry out the math. Just to emphasise the sense input is important in all mental process.

If you care to say what languages you speak/understand, I may be able to give some suggestions. If you don't want to for privacy reasons or any other reason, that is fine. — Lionino

Thanks, yes no problem. I have picked up a few different languages in the schools when my father worked in different countries such as Japanese, Indonesian, English. German was my 2nd foreign language in the high school. My the other main language is Korean, but now English is my main language because all the people around me are English speakers, and I am most comfortable communicating with them in English. Reading Philosophy in English got quite comfortable too.
Philosophy is a tricky subject even with my 2x primary languages (English and Korean) due to the abstract concepts the subject employs. Do you speak other languages than English yourself? What are they?

I don’t. I apply the concept of “world” as the representation of the totality of possible existences. I, as most regular folk, use the word conventionally as a matter of linguistic convenience. Which is fine, insofar as most regular folk aren’t doing philosophy when we speak conventionally.

Real physical objects, irrespective of how they are represented, when predicated with the pure category “existence”, or one of its derivatives, is a separate and entirely distinct problem, having its relation, not with pure reason, but with understanding and the logic of judgements. — Mww

Ok, fair enough. Will think on it, and get back to you if there are any points to add or ask. Thanks. :cool: :up:

Correct, according to the very specific tenets of a very specific metaphysical philosophy. The world doesn’t exist; things which can be phenomena for us necessarily do exist, and those things are conceived as belonging to the manifold of all possibly existing things, the totality of which is conceived as represented by the word “world”.

Beauty doesn’t exist, yet there are beautiful things. Justice doesn’t exist, yet there are instances of that which is just. Morality doesn’t exist, yet there are instances of moral agency. You get the picture. — Mww

Yes, we seem to agree at this point. :cool: :up:

‘The world’ is just shorthand for ‘everything that is’. Although I think the question ‘does the world exist?’ is a nonsense question. — Wayfarer

Yes, this seems what Kant had been trying to say in CPR.

A priori truths are those you know by dint of reason alone, 'prior to' or not requiring validation by experience (e.g. mathematical proofs). — Wayfarer

But doesn't math still need empirical sensibility to work? The need work together to produce knowledge i.e. synthetic apriori. e.g. 5+7=12, "5+7" itself doesn't contain 12, but comes from sensibility.

“world” is a valid concept, but does not lend itself to a synthesis with phenomenal representations, hence can never be an experience, becomes an object of reason, or, a transcendental idea. — Mww

Doesn't it imply that then you don't know what the world is? How could you logically say "the world exist." when you don't know what it is?
But before that, how can the world be a concept, when it renders no meaning, or definition?

By what measure? By whose standard? I’d never be so bold as to call him, or deny to him, anything he wasn’t on record as calling himself, re: a dualist, at least with regards to empirical determinations. He called himself other things in regards to other considerations, which don’t concern us here. — Mww

I have not come across any of Kant commentary books describing Kant as a solipsist. But from my own view he was anything but a solipsist. What is the proof Kant's solipsism?

Will be back with the other points :)

but then I realised English is better language
— Corvus

That is a great mistake. English must be among the worst languages to read philosophy in, especially compared to German with its wonderful accuracy. — Lionino

I meant in terms of popularity ( number of the speakers in the world) and the availability and price of the books on the subject. For accuracy, you are correct.

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

I am quoting your message again where you made the claim. I have been asking you to clarify and explain what that meant. :nerd: :pray:

As for Noumenon. It is pretty bloody obvious you know how this relates to ideas of existence so why are you asking me to explain? — I like sushi

Did you not claim that Noumenon is important with the concept of 'existing' in your previous messages? I did a few quotes from your message for that.
Noumenon is the objects of the intuition, not perception. So it doesn't exist and is inconceivable.
I was wondering why you were keep bringing up Noumenon in relation to 'existing'. I was expecting your explanations on that point, because it was you who made the claim.

We can talk of what we know not of what we do not.
We can never talk of what we can never know. — I like sushi

But we can guess, infer and imagine.

The task Kant set himself was to ask ‘What can we know before experience?’ — I like sushi

Can we know something without experience? What was his verdict?

how dark can it be? Besides, given the overwhelming commonality in human thought that we’re all fundamentally the same between the ears gains credence. So if we all happen to be solipsists, big deal, right? — Mww

Was Kant a solipsists? No. he said the world is not a concept. The world is a subject of cosmology i.e. physics, and a part of the universe. So he was not a solipsist. Some says he was a transcendental idealist, and some says he was a transcendental realist, but not a solipsist. Neither was Hume.

Hell, that guy can say anything he wants about me. If he said that, I’d say, imitating my ol’ buddy Col Jessup….you damn right I am!!!!! Seriously though, I should hope he’d call me a transcendental idealist, insofar as I have not drank the real for merely logical predicate Kool-Aid. — Mww

The problem is, that if you say the world is a concept, then you cannot say the world exists. Because concepts don't exist as the physical objects do. All existing objects have properties and essence. What are the properties and essence of your world as a concept? And one applies concept to the perceived objects for experiencing. How do you apply the concept of the world to the world, when your world in physical form doesn't exist?

Regarding solipsistic mentality though, it is foolish of me to deny to any cogent rationality a mind as functional as my own, just as it is foolish of that mind to think to know me as well as I know myself. It never should be a matter of capacity, which is granted, but of accessibility, which is denied. — Mww

Yes, solipsistic mind is anti-scientific, because it lacks objectivity.

A logical predicate may be what you please, even the subject may be predicated of itself; for logic pays no regard to the content of a judgement. But the determination of a conception is a predicate, which adds to and enlarges the conception. It must not, therefore, be contained in the conception….” — Mww

But in that case, are you not committing yourself into the dark chamber of solipsism? If you say, the world is not an object, but a concept, and the predicate 'exist' is logical rather than real, then wouldn't Kant say you are an idealist with extreme solipsism? If the world is a concept, and it resides in your mind only, then it suddenly transforms into a mental dildo, rather than presenting into you from outside as a physical existence, where all the livings and objects co-exist struggling and enduring.

One man’s mental masturbations, re: Leibniz, et al, ca1712-14, is another’s epiphanic paradigm shift. — Mww

Didn't Kant revolt against the rationalist crowds such as Leibniz, Wolf, Spinoza opposing to their innate ideas only knowledge, trying to establish a new system of Metaphysics adopting Hume's empiricism thanking him for awakening Kant from dogmatic slumber?

If we are fully conscious and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., I cannot call an illusion my view of the world in that state. — Alkis Piskas

Could you tell us what is your criterion for being conscious and unconscious? What do you mean by you are conscious? and unconscious?

This is my reality. I live with it. (Well, most of the time.) Otherwise, we have to call everything that exists for us an illusion. — Alkis Piskas

Isn't the point of philosophy to get you out from the illusions by adopting and applying the rational sceptical methodology in perceiving truths?

This is basically true. But it's you who have insisted to go on! :smile:
And I don't complain. I enjoyed the trip. — Alkis Piskas

Thank you for your opinions and interactions. But our journey for the truths is never over. Because according to Heidegger, we are all "auf dem weg sein." - existence on the road.