If I come to you with a piece of paper that does not exist in a spatiotemporal sense I am empty handed because there is no ‘piece of paper’.

I think someone on this forum mentioned some time ago that they chose to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘exist’ in terms that a unicorn can ‘exist’ but it cannot be ‘real’. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is neither of these as it is just an empty term that can neither be conjured by imagination nor experienced in reality.

If you could explicate in more detail it would be nice :)

If you do not wish to that is fine.

Note: do not ask which part because none of it said anything to me.

No idea what you mean?

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. — Corvus

I was not using Kantian terminology for ‘imagination’.

What does Kant say about it? — Corvus

Nothing I can recall?

My only point was that this says nothing about the existence of whatever it is we cannot know. — Janus

That would be impossible.

You seem to be talking about the possible existence of something due to sensible evidence.

If I come to you with a piece of paper with evidence saying that what is written on the paper outlines some ‘object’ beyond of sensory appreciation, and this paper has nothing written only it, would you accept this as evidence of some object wholly beyond our ken. You would not I expect.

The proposition of ‘a-thing-in-itself’ needs greater context. Without context there is nothing to talk about. We may as well argue for the existence of God - therein lies the very same issue. The ‘definition/labelling of’ some object does not render it real.

If we are talking about ‘existence’ as something separate to ‘real’ then we need to demarcate.

I am more in favour of absconding from the whole mess tbh and much prefer the phenomenological approach (Bracketing Out).

If you agree that we cannot know what we cannot know then that is pretty much all there is to what I have been trying to articulate.

If you disagree then I simply do not use language in the same manner you do.

So what is the boundary of our imagination? — Corvus

Intuitions (Kantian).

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

It is a question of semantics. It is useful to talk about existence in some circumstances and not in others.

I do not see any importance in speculating how we can point at something we cannot point at.

They exist in time and space. I was not suggesting that the universe ceases to exist when humans are gone.

It seems rather it is you that misunderstood what I was saying; It should be obvious that I was not claiming that we can imagine the unimaginable, but we can certainly imagine that something unimaginable may exist — Janus

And there is the key word! If it does not exist for us then in what capacity are you actually using that term. Think about it.

apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus

This is an assumption. I am unaware of our ability to think in an atemporal way and with complete disregard to space.

It doesn't follow that because something is "nothing to us" that it is non-existent. In any case the in itself is not nothing to us except sensorially; we do generally tend to think that things have their own existences independently of us. The fact that we (obviously) cannot determine the total or absolute nature of that existence does not entail that it is "nothing".

You say we cannot refer to such things in a meaningful way, but that is just your opinion; it seems obvious to me that we can refer to such things apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus

No no no. You misunderstand, I promise!

We know the world via space and time (a roughshod paraphrasing of Kantian Intuitions). We can only speculate on the canvas of these intuitions. ‘Beyond’ is meaningless/nought.

You cannot imagine something you cannot imagine - by definition. This follows the same principles. The ‘existence of’ some otherly, wholly incomprehensible item is the very same manner of word play. Just to be clear this is not as stating something currently beyond our ken, that may always remain beyond our ken BUT it a possibility of perception directly or indirect via instrumentation (microscopes, telescopes, etc.,.).

I understand the term to signify the sheer existence of a thing as distinct from its existence for us. — Janus

Which is necessarily nothing to us. Hence it is non-existent.

We talking about something existing based on human experience because, frankly, that is all we have and therefore all there ever is for us. It is a subtle obviousness easily missed.

It is not that we do not know what we cannot know - which is contrary! We cannot even refer to what we cannot know in any meaningful way.

I would say The Intuitions. Although ‘know’ is not exactly the correct way to put it. Otherwise, no. We know of of nothing prior to experience.

I think he more or less found something more interesting to look at. The journey was more important. The question was kind of futile in the same sense that asking ‘Does the world exist?’.

But we can guess, infer and imagine. — Corvus

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.

Noumenon is the objects of the intuition, not perception. — Corvus

Well, no, not really. That makes it sound like it is comprehended. The ‘thing-in-itself’ is an illusionary term just like talk of ‘square circles’ or ‘upside down trouser memories’. You know this though I believe so baffled why you are asking?

What is the quote? “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”

It relates to what exists in the sense that we can convince ourselves, or fool ourselves, about the knowledge we possess. This in turn frames what we mean by ‘existence’. Kant clearly demarcates between Rational and Empirical.

For myself, I find the entire idea of ‘existing’ fruitless if one expects a conclusive answer. We are limited. We are able due to limits. What is directly in the mind’s eye is up for scrutiny and we are able to ask questions of it. What is not in the mind’s eye (conscious focus) is accepted.

We are ‘roused from our slumber’ by existence when focus is shifted - and it is constantly shifting to some degree or another.

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?

We can talk of what we know not of what we do not.
We can never talk of what we can never know.

Those are not the same. The first does not say we cannot in the future. The second ‘points at’ (for want of some non-existent term) some inexplicable limitation that is not even possible to outline as a shadow on the wall.

I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

I can now outline an answer to this.

I experience. ‘Objects’ of experience vary. When I am not experiencing any ‘object’ (ie. Unconscious and not dreaming) I do not seem to cease to exist as I am existing again upon waking.

If I am able to hold a belief in anything I necessarily must attach said belief to some form of existence. I cannot believe in something that I am unable to have any inkling of - such is beyond me (non-existent).

There is no ‘thing-in-itself’. Such is a limit of human understanding (the ONLY understanding we have or can ever have). The horizon is an ever shifting item that will forever remind us of our limitations.

In more day-to-day terms people do not question existence of most things because they are too busy interacting with said things.

In terms of knowledge, what is known remains known with set limits too. A clearly set out abstract realm possesses Truths but non-abstract (day-to-day things) are always subject to some level of scrutiny as our certainty within experience had limits.

I can question this or that World because I cannot hold it all at once. I can question gravity but in day-to-day life I simply pay it no direct attention, just like I pay no heed to my legs moving when I walk.

There are countless perspectives to look at. What remains pretty clear overall is that to ‘believe’ is the existing world is a rather bizarre way of putting things. The answer (just like the no one around to hear a tree question) depends on the approach and meaning of ‘hear’ within the context given. The ‘sound waves’ exist but with no ear to hear it can be argued that there is no sound quite reasonably. To extend this to the totality of existence just leads me to ask why anyone would bother to do so?

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

Empty intentions and such might be worth going into here maybe. Could help progress the discussion?

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

The World meaning what?

‘Exist’ meaning what?

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.

Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.

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

Until then bye bye :)

Words are words. You may not perceive the fist coming towards your face but you will sure as hell feel its impact.

The relevance of the ‘reality’ of the existence of such a fist does naught to reduce sensation of pain.

We undoubtedly tweak how we view the world through an intricate web of cultural indoctrination that it necessary to operate in said world. Solipsism is a very poor position to start from if you have no intention of bringing scepticism into play.

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points? — Corvus

B310-B312 | A254-A256

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation. — Corvus

I will wait for you to address the terms you use

Maybe then I can address whatever it is you wish to discuss.

There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations. — Corvus

On the particular point I was making it is quite clear in his own words. 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.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’.

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. 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 …).

Look forward to seeing what you mean by the words you use.

Are you that ‘creationism’ guy by any chance? If so will be interesting to see if you have anything new to say :)

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. — Corvus

Why? How?

Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. — Corvus

They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’.

Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already.[/]

I have. Hence the point about people using and interpreting data.
— Corvus

This is another interesting concept I am going to explore. — Corvus

I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of a planet if certain pieces of data point to its existence. That some believed ‘observed’ such phenomenon needs verification … that failed and the idea was dismissed.

You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology. — Corvus

Husserl ian phenomenology is not at all concerned with what does or doesn’t exist.

Kant basically laid out a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Phenomenon are and noumenon are of negative use only, not positive.

None of this has anything much to do with scientists speculating on actual perceived data. A discrepancy in our understanding leads to conjecture and some are better/luckier than others when it comes to getting more accurate interpretations of said data.

It is likely an obsession with the idea of pure knowledge that has led you down this cul-de-sac. Finite abstractions (such as in mathematics) are items of such pure knowledge. Do they map onto the world we perceive 1 to 1? Impossible to say. Does that mean the world does not exist.

Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’?

So we are now talking about the ‘existence’ of fictional and hypothetical worlds?

No thanks. I am out.

Only so many liberties we can take with words before gibberish takes over.

Can I ask if it would make any sense to believe otherwise? Then if it matters at all if we believe in such an ‘existence’ extraneous to our general sensory interaction as part-of the world (rather than as some disembodied entity).

The fabled ‘collateral damage’ argument. Bombing factories to cripple an nation that is a legitimate strategy, so replying in kind could be argued to avoid outright defeat and the further slaughter of a nations citizens.

The stretch is taking the ‘defend our citizens’ to ‘defend at all costs’.

To say this is somehow a Western philosophy is a bit of a stretch too. It is a human condition with multiple examples throughout history - across the globe. Ghengis Khan springs immediately to mind. For a modern day example there are unfortunately too many examples of this on the African continent too.

Where there is patriotism people will die for an imaginary force; just as you do for religion. Nothing I have seen makes such an idea specific to any particular continental trend. I am guessing maybe it could be also be tied to judeo-christian commonalities as opposed to more eastern mindsets? Even then … many questions.

I am still not entirely sure what Western means and/or whether anyone is referring to the same item when they say ‘Western’.

In term of tribalism/patriotism there is a vague case here maybe. Vague though.

The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral. — Hanover

I have not seen any evidence for this? Immoral to protect innocent people?

A mediating body could be helpful too. Although once a world war breaks out anything goes and the so-called ‘rules of war’ go out the window.

Ok. Ignore me then.

It is logical to have an unattainable goal.

I have been in such a state a few times (prolonged periods). It will end in a crash if did not begin with one.

What goes up must come down.

There is no such thing as constant ‘joy and happiness’ and if this is an unreachable goal you have then maybe ask why this is so?

With all that in mind, some philosophers have exaggerated the importance of suffering and restless agitation, as a characteristic of life. They have turned it into a neccesary evil that should be embraced with open arms to improve ourselves. When in fact, it is almost always destructive. Sustained suffering leaves your body searching for death, as it consumes your soul without destroying it. — Sirius

I have seen this kind of thing a few times. I feel the issue is more or less about equating ‘struggles’ in life with ‘suffering’. To have something in life to tackle is what makes life what it is. To refuse the trails and tribulations in life because they are tough is to not live at all.

Hedonistic views will culminate in an understanding that peak pleasure is attached by prolonged pain. Water is the best drink in the world if you are parched, yet if you are a little thirsty it will not give the same pleasures.

Note: Pleasures are all about ‘relief’ in some form. Generally we all need variety (relief from monotony).

‘Goals’ that can be reached are not our true guiding stars. You will lie and deceive yourself everyday, so just guard against this as best you can and accept that the struggle will continue - enjoy :)