I claim that skeptical doubt is already rooted in a decision or an assumption I.E. the clear distinction of the subject and the world. — JuanZu

:ok:

I think I made it pretty clear what I was asking for.

The World meaning what?

‘Exist’ meaning what? — I like sushi

I stated this in the previous messages to Mww, but will say again.  Kant says that the world is not a legitimate object of perception, because the totality of appearances in the world is incomprehensible by reason.  The world is a subject of cosmology, and he lists 4 antinomies regarding the world in CPR.

Due to this view, Kant believes that the proposition "The world exists." is a form of subreption caused by hypostatisation.

Present what you mean by ‘world’ and ‘exist’ in some kind of context to your position/s.

Until then nothing I have said has any relevance because I have literally no idea what the OP is saying.

Last time I am asking.

Give an account of PRECISELY what you are asking for. — I like sushi

So, it sounds like you have asked something that you have no idea what you were asking for.
If you read the OP, and some discussions in the thread, I would imagine that you would know what it is about.

Doesn't it necessarily fall into the liar's paradox? Doubting the world would be like cutting the branch on which I am sitting, waiting for the tree to fall and not the branch. — JuanZu

Doubting is not thoughtless action. Doubting starts with observation and investigation, then reasoning, and then conclusion for either action or non-action.
If you have adopted a proper scepticism as your methodology for knowledge, you would have inspected the tree and turned away looking for a tree with the solid sound branches to sit on that needn't cut and is concrete enough to support your weight, before you climbed up onto the unstable tree, and sat on the rotten branch.

The skepticism that questions the "external" world (as if we were not already world) would be, in a certain sense, the closure feigned by the subject in the absolutely immanent monad. A subject who believes he can distinguish himself absolutely from something else that he calls the "external world." — JuanZu

If we accept the definition that every knowledge is justified belief, then scepticism is a methodology to obtain the justifications. If one rejects scepticism, then one is rejecting the methodology for justification allowing possibility for mistaking groundless beliefs, superstitions and dogmas for knowledge.

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

As promised I thought over your points on the belief in the existence of the brain compared to a cup.

Brain is a biological organ, just like the other organs the human body has. Its main function is not just having mental events, but keeping the body alive. Brain controls all the biological functions happening in the body. When it comes to mental events, all we know is that the relationship between the brain and mental events are causality. Nothing else.

If you look into the brain, then you won't see anything that resembles or makes sense about any mental events. Because it is just a lump of tissue, blood vessels and neural cells.
We have no idea why and how the brain works in terms of any mental events. But neurologists have mapped out which part of the brain is linked to what type of mental events. And the injuries or problems of certain parts of the brain cause certain types of problems in the mental events or operations.

Because of this fact, it would not be meaningful to say, because we believe in the existence without seeing it, that explains our belief in the existence of an unperceived object or world.

The belief in the existence of the brain is purely based on the educated information or guess.
But belief in the existence of unperceived objects is based on, according to Hume, our imagination and memory of the perception. They are totally different types of beliefs.

Depending on the situation, the belief in the existence of a cup or barbecue rack in the garden can change i.e. if you threw out the rusty barbecue rack in the garden in the bin, and saw the bin getting emptied into the collection truck, then you have a reason / ground to believe why the barbecue rack doesn't exist anymore in your garden.

But there is no way, reason or ground to believe that one's brain doesn't exist as long as the person is alive, and the belief is based on purely educational information.

This is the limitation of Materialism. They can tell us what mental events are caused by the brain activities, but that is all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing else. It is too obvious mental events are caused by the brain, because upon the removal of the brain, there are no mental events. On the injuries to certain parts of the brain, there are always certain types of mental events problems are noticed. Nothing more.

Idealists have their problems too. They are imprisoned in their own mental space locked up, and think that whatever is projected into the wall of the mind is the objects themselves or the content of the world. This view has its points too, but it falls into solipsism. There are definitely material objects out there, and the world exists separate from the mind. But to show that it is objective knowledge rather than dogmatism, we need more arguments, evidence and proofs.

I might start some discussion threads about some common misconceptions about his philosophy and psychology. — Vaskane

:up: :cool:

In fact this aphorism was in part how I knew English wasn't your primary language, which I commend you with great admiration that you're capable of diversifying your mind to the point it can pull from many different languages. It provides an interesting scope in perspective, a certain overcoming of objectivity in a sense. — Vaskane

Thanks :) I was reading Philosophy with German initially, but then I realised English is better language in that there are more translated and originally authored books in English in all subjects under the sun, than in any other language. Plus English is easier language to learn than German.

I am still wondering on the aphorism, whether it was "blind faith" or "it" is telling you that you are thinking. I am also not sure what "it" means. "It" usually denotes some object.

And yes, I think translation of any original text into another language will render loss of some original meaning inevitably. But then all reading is inevitably interpretation in some sense.

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.