Kant

[Atla]

..

Well I think we can conclude this discussion with: you lack the minimum to participate on a philosophy forum.

Just one more thing, not even your 'transcendental reified God' is completely impossible to be real. You can't be sure that the world isn't magical/supernatural, whatever that means.

The "currency" of this forum are justified arguments with evidence.
Most of your points are bankrupt of arguments and evidences.

So far it is me who has been providing proper arguments and direct reference from Kant and elsewhere.
Thus to me this activity of discussion is of personal benefit in enriching my own knowledge base.

So far you have only provided flimsy supporting points from Wiki [ ] with no reference to the CPR or any of Kant's work. [note OP = Kant].

One critical point for you - why you are so driven to be God's apologist is due your being duped by your faculty of pure reason in reifying an illusion as real. It would be beneficial to you if you are to 'smack' this deceptive kid in your mind and educate it higher knowledge.

No, you are simply a Dunning-Kruger. You don't know what a proper argument is because you lack mountains of context and scientific knowledge.

[Atla]

Kant did not state that specifically but my inference..

Yeah this about sums up almost everything you say about him.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well I think we can conclude this discussion with: you lack the minimum to participate on a philosophy forum.

Just one more thing, not even your 'transcendental reified God' is completely impossible to be real. You can't be sure that the world isn't magical/supernatural, whatever that means.

The "currency" of this forum are justified arguments with evidence.
Most of your points are bankrupt of arguments and evidences.

So far it is me who has been providing proper arguments and direct reference from Kant and elsewhere.
Thus to me this activity of discussion is of personal benefit in enriching my own knowledge base.

So far you have only provided flimsy supporting points from Wiki [ ] with no reference to the CPR or any of Kant's work. [note OP = Kant].

One critical point for you - why you are so driven to be God's apologist is due your being duped by your faculty of pure reason in reifying an illusion as real. It would be beneficial to you if you are to 'smack' this deceptive kid in your mind and educate it higher knowledge.

No, you are simply a Dunning-Kruger. You don't know what a proper argument is because you lack mountains of context and scientific knowledge.

I have always assumed I am the average guy.
Surely the average person who had read and researched Kant for 3 years full time would be more familiar with Kant than the average person who had not read Kant directly at all or merely a few pages of Kant. This is so common sense and objective.

[Atla]

The "currency" of this forum are justified arguments with evidence.
Most of your points are bankrupt of arguments and evidences.

So far it is me who has been providing proper arguments and direct reference from Kant and elsewhere.
Thus to me this activity of discussion is of personal benefit in enriching my own knowledge base.

So far you have only provided flimsy supporting points from Wiki [ ] with no reference to the CPR or any of Kant's work. [note OP = Kant].

One critical point for you - why you are so driven to be God's apologist is due your being duped by your faculty of pure reason in reifying an illusion as real. It would be beneficial to you if you are to 'smack' this deceptive kid in your mind and educate it higher knowledge.

No, you are simply a Dunning-Kruger. You don't know what a proper argument is because you lack mountains of context and scientific knowledge.

I have always assumed I am the average guy.
Surely the average person who had read and researched Kant for 3 years full time would be more familiar with Kant than the average person who had not read Kant directly at all or merely a few pages of Kant. This is so common sense and objective.

I'm not an average person (bet you didn't take that into consideration), and remember that unlike you I live in a culture which was shaped for 200+ years by Kant's ideas (bet you didn't take that into consideration). I also know a lot about how modern science and psychology have explored both the "directly unknowable" and the "appearances". (I already figured out this whole Platonic form / appearance / stuff-out-there business long ago on my own.)

And the quotes you showed, did NOT support your specific interpretation of Kant. Nor do at least the majority of those who studied Kant, agree with your specific interpretations.

Plus you are assuming that Kant was consistent, which may not be entirely true either. He has always been criticized for being inconsistent.
But most of all you use most English words in a non-standard sense, which is not how you make proper arguments. Plus I never said that I'm strictly using Kant's usage of the words either, like at all.

In fact I suspect that you are the one using concepts like noumenon in a Platonic sense, something that Kant changed. That's even more off.

[Atla]

As for my OP, it's about the nondual resolution of the nature of the appearance and the thing-out-there (while maintaining that they are 'two different things' in spacetime), something that Western philosophy has failed to do in the last 200 years. Thus leading to a dualistic dead end. The question is, why the failure? And Kant is seen to still 'reign supreme' in Western philosophy as someone put it.

He made it far, but where is this myth of Kantian infallibility coming from anyway? But most likely he was merely misinterpreted as having claimed more than he actually did.

My OP already assumes that Platonic forms and ideas are only abstract concepts, that taking them at face value is a cognitive illusion. The issue of Pure Reason was already resolved, I wasn't even trying to touch on that. If someone doesn't even get this, and even sees me as God's apologist who is clinging to childish illusions because of some psychological existential terror, then why are they doing philosophy?

[seeds]

I stated clearly, the idea of God cannot arise within Sensibility at all.
The idea of God arise out of an illusion and is a trick of the mind.

In a way you are correct, Veritas, human “ideas” (visualizations, concepts) of God are most certainly illusions.

You got the wrong sense of the term 'idea' in this case.
Note Kant's "ideas" are not related to the common terms "idea" related to visualizations, concepts, imaginations and do not have anything to do with sensibility and the empirical.
For Kant, a philosophical transcendental 'idea' is something like a fundamental ontological category of being.

• Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.
  
  Plato in Ancient Greece was one of the earliest philosophers to provide a detailed discussion of ideas and of the thinking process (in Plato's Greek the word idea carries a rather different sense from our modern English term).
  Plato argued in dialogues such as the Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, and Timaeus that there is a realm of ideas or forms (eidei), which exist independently of anyone who may have thoughts on these ideas, and it is the ideas which distinguish mere opinion from knowledge, for unlike material things which are transient and liable to contrary properties, ideas are unchanging and nothing but just what they are.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea#Plato

My, my, my, isn’t it interesting that it is okay for you to reference Wikipedia to support your point, but when I do it, you respond with this:

When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?

And please (for your own sake), don’t reply with some kind of lame justification as to how your use of Wiki is different than my use of Wiki, for it will only make your little display of hypocrisy all the more noticeable.

However, as I pointed out in your thread where you initiated this “God is impossible to be real” campaign,...

...I suggest that the main psychological impetus that drives humans to believe in the existence of a God (and thus, create those illusions) is based on the absolute absurdity in thinking that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

Therefore, the ultimate source of the fundamental belief in something extremely intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe, is nothing more than a simple default to plain old common sense.

Furthermore, if we consider the possibility that a Berkeleyan form of idealism or, perhaps, Panentheism might be true, then the entire universe (which includes our bodies and brains) is formed from the living fabric of God’s very being.

In which case, it is conceivable that many humans can intuitively sense the presence of the divine within everything – hence another possible form of impetus that could drive humans toward the God hypothesis.

You can hypothesize God as above, but such a God is not possible to be real at all. Note the argument;

• 1. What is real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
  2. God is an transcendental idea [from Reason] that is beyond sensibility + understanding.
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real.

The only thing that is more foolish than your obsessive clinging to (or acceptance of) such an extremely narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word “real”,...

...is me, as I continue to argue with someone who operates with the type of reasoning power and logic that one would expect to encounter when dealing with, for example, a “flat-earther.”

It’s good that you have a hobby (Kantian philosophy); however, your obvious emotional investment in your interpretation of Kant’s ideas has not only caused you to worship Kant as some kind of infallible personal guru,...

...but has also caused you to hermetically seal yourself within a “belief bubble” that is completely impenetrable to any logical criticisms or alternative possibilities.

You seem to be a good person, Veritas, as in someone who is driven by the best of intentions (e.g., to steer humanity away from mythological nonsense in order to help eliminate religion-based violence - a goal of which I am completely on-board with).

However, your severe (to the point of seeming pathological) fanaticism with respect to Kant, is off-putting and a detriment to your cause.

And lastly (and ironically), it is you who seems to be affected by an “existential crisis.”

It is a crisis that is brought-on by your own personal choice of becoming a hardcore atheist, of which you are now required to use intellectualism (and especially Kantian intellectualism) as a “psychological crutch” to support and defend that decision.

Indeed, Kantian intellectualism...

(regardless of it being an accurate reflection of the truth of reality or not)

...is not only something that you rely on as a crutch to help support your atheism, but also as a bullying bludgeon to beat away any and all challenges that might disrupt the psychological comfort and safety of the interior of, again, your personal little “bubble” of anti-theistic beliefs.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you are simply a Dunning-Kruger. You don't know what a proper argument is because you lack mountains of context and scientific knowledge.

I have always assumed I am the average guy.
Surely the average person who had read and researched Kant for 3 years full time would be more familiar with Kant than the average person who had not read Kant directly at all or merely a few pages of Kant. This is so common sense and objective.

I'm not an average person (bet you didn't take that into consideration), and remember that unlike you I live in a culture which was shaped for 200+ years by Kant's ideas (bet you didn't take that into consideration). I also know a lot about how modern science and psychology have explored both the "directly unknowable" and the "appearances". (I already figured out this whole Platonic form / appearance / stuff-out-there business long ago on my own.)

And the quotes you showed, did NOT support your specific interpretation of Kant. Nor do at least the majority of those who studied Kant, agree with your specific interpretations.

Plus you are assuming that Kant was consistent, which may not be entirely true either. He has always been criticized for being inconsistent.
But most of all you use most English words in a non-standard sense, which is not how you make proper arguments. Plus I never said that I'm strictly using Kant's usage of the words either, like at all.

In fact I suspect that you are the one using concepts like noumenon in a Platonic sense, something that Kant changed. That's even more off.

Note I stated I have 'assumed' I am an average guy, i.e. at least having average intelligence.
Thus assuming you are also an average person, as far as reading Kant is concern, it is objectively I am more well versed with Kant [3 years full time] than you [? reading Kant].

In the above I have merely made an assumption.
As far as my actual acomplishments in terms of knowledge and average I am far more than average.

Suspect?
The point is you have not supported what you have stated above with any proper reference from Kant's work or other sources where necessary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My, my, my, isn’t it interesting that it is okay for you to reference Wikipedia to support your point, but when I do it, you respond with this:

When the hell is Wikipedia a final authority? Where is your intellectual integrity on this. Do you even know how Wikipedia works?

And please (for your own sake), don’t reply with some kind of lame justification as to how your use of Wiki is different than my use of Wiki, for it will only make your little display of hypocrisy all the more noticeable.

I did not refer to Wiki as final authority merely a lead or guide but never as a final authority. If you insist then we will go into Plato's work directly or at least to those with greater authority on Plato agreed by both of us.

That you use large font in bold is indication you are using wiki as some sort of high authority or final authority.
Otherwise you should have referred to Kant's Critique of Reason directly rather than from secondary sources without the consensus of both of us.

However, as I pointed out in your thread where you initiated this “God is impossible to be real” campaign,...

...I suggest that the main psychological impetus that drives humans to believe in the existence of a God (and thus, create those illusions) is based on the absolute absurdity in thinking that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

Therefore, the ultimate source of the fundamental belief in something extremely intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe, is nothing more than a simple default to plain old common sense.

Furthermore, if we consider the possibility that a Berkeleyan form of idealism or, perhaps, Panentheism might be true, then the entire universe (which includes our bodies and brains) is formed from the living fabric of God’s very being.

In which case, it is conceivable that many humans can intuitively sense the presence of the divine within everything – hence another possible form of impetus that could drive humans toward the God hypothesis.

You can hypothesize God as above, but such a God is not possible to be real at all. Note the argument;

• 1. What is real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
  2. God is an transcendental idea [from Reason] that is beyond sensibility + understanding.
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real.

The only thing that is more foolish than your obsessive clinging to (or acceptance of) such an extremely narrow interpretation of the meaning of the word “real”,...

...is me, as I continue to argue with someone who operates with the type of reasoning power and logic that one would expect to encounter when dealing with, for example, a “flat-earther.”

I have defined what is meant by the meaning 'real.'
You tell me what more real than what I have defined as real.

It’s good that you have a hobby (Kantian philosophy); however, your obvious emotional investment in your interpretation of Kant’s ideas has not only caused you to worship Kant as some kind of infallible personal guru,...

...but has also caused you to hermetically seal yourself within a “belief bubble” that is completely impenetrable to any logical criticisms or alternative possibilities.

I am a veteran to philosophy forums. When I first started I was bashed left, right and center by those who were very rigorous and sound in knowledge and argument. I have learned my mistake and had taken steps to cover them to ensure there are no holes in my argument. I am not perfect so there is still room for improvements.

As I had stated the only 'currency' in this forum is justified arguments with evidences.
So far I have done that.
If you think I am wrong, then provided justified counters.

You seem to be a good person, Veritas, as in someone who is driven by the best of intentions (e.g., to steer humanity away from mythological nonsense in order to help eliminate religion-based violence - a goal of which I am completely on-board with).

However, your severe (to the point of seeming pathological) fanaticism with respect to Kant, is off-putting and a detriment to your cause.

Hey! this OP is about Kant, thus I should and obligated to approach Kant in the most professional and philosophical manner.
I am a great fan of Kant on the basis of his argument but I am not dogmatic with Kant and I do not agree with Kant totally.

Whatever the OP and subject I will always try to put my best foot forward, in this case which happen to be Kant which I had researched deeply.
I would do the same with Islam and others which I had specialized in.

And lastly (and ironically), it is you who seems to be affected by an “existential crisis.”

I agree, I as with all humans are DNA-wise infected with an inherent and unavoidable 'existential crisis.' The existential crisis drive is more primal than the sex, hunger, security, and other basic instincts. The instinct to exist, i.e. survive is the most primordial and fundamental.

The nature of the existential crisis [its full neural algorithm] is to direct the human attention to mainly external threats [& others] thus it has no provision to learn to know about itself or direct attention to itself. In fact, the existential crisis domain put up a very strong barrier to prevent humans from knowing about its truths.
The existential crisis faculty is like a zombie-parasite that control the self for its programmed 'purpose'.

But I am not that affected by the 'existential crisis/dilemma' as the majority because I have taken the trouble to develop skills of impulse control to modulate it. However being human, I cannot be certain my impulse control on the existential crisis will hold when I grow older, but I am doing my best to maintain the necessary skills to modulate the impulses of the very subliminal existential crisis.

I suggest you do more research on this existential crisis instead of dismissing what is really going inside your brain/mind.

It is a crisis that is brought-on by your own personal choice of becoming a hardcore atheist, of which you are now required to use intellectualism (and especially Kantian intellectualism) as a “psychological crutch” to support and defend that decision.

Indeed, Kantian intellectualism...

(regardless of it being an accurate reflection of the truth of reality or not)

...is not only something that you rely on as a crutch to help support your atheism, but also as a bullying bludgeon to beat away any and all challenges that might disrupt the psychological comfort and safety of the interior of, again, your personal little “bubble” of anti-theistic beliefs.
_______

I disagree with tying me with the label [a]theism.
I am not-a-theist.

Note scientific knowledge starts with experiences & observations and with abduction form hypothesis to be tested for confirmation of its truth [qualified].
This is what I have been doing with the glaring and evident acts of terrible evil and violence committed by humans since man first appear and now happening all over the world.

These terrible evil and violent acts comprise of a range of categories which can be divided into secular and religious-based.
As limited person I cannot deal with all types of evil and violence, so I specialize on the one category, i.e. religious-based evil and violent acts.
From research I noted the majority of religious-based evil are from the theistic-religions.
Theistic religions are grounded on God as real who commanded theists to war against and kill non-believers.

Thus the most effective solution is to deal the ground of theistic religions, i.e. God.
Theists insist their God is real and give real commands to them to act where the consequences is evil and violence on humanity.
If God is proven to be an impossibility to be real, then we have nullify the ground for all theistic based evil and violence.
Thus I have ventured to prove God is an impossibility to be real.

My proof is not solely based on Kant's philosophy but include a whole range of knowledge. Kant alluded to some sort of existential crisis but was totally ignorant of its details given the depth of knowledge-base then in the 1700s.

Why you are so uncomfortable [without sound justification] with my presentation is due to the subliminal manifestation of the existential crisis that trigger some sort of subliminal defense mechanisms. You'll have to do research on these bolded elements.

Here are some leads, not final authority;
https://www.simplypsychology.org/defens ... nisms.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

[Atla]

I have always assumed I am the average guy.
Surely the average person who had read and researched Kant for 3 years full time would be more familiar with Kant than the average person who had not read Kant directly at all or merely a few pages of Kant. This is so common sense and objective.

I'm not an average person (bet you didn't take that into consideration), and remember that unlike you I live in a culture which was shaped for 200+ years by Kant's ideas (bet you didn't take that into consideration). I also know a lot about how modern science and psychology have explored both the "directly unknowable" and the "appearances". (I already figured out this whole Platonic form / appearance / stuff-out-there business long ago on my own.)

And the quotes you showed, did NOT support your specific interpretation of Kant. Nor do at least the majority of those who studied Kant, agree with your specific interpretations.

Plus you are assuming that Kant was consistent, which may not be entirely true either. He has always been criticized for being inconsistent.
But most of all you use most English words in a non-standard sense, which is not how you make proper arguments. Plus I never said that I'm strictly using Kant's usage of the words either, like at all.

In fact I suspect that you are the one using concepts like noumenon in a Platonic sense, something that Kant changed. That's even more off.

Note I stated I have 'assumed' I am an average guy, i.e. at least having average intelligence.
Thus assuming you are also an average person, as far as reading Kant is concern, it is objectively I am more well versed with Kant [3 years full time] than you [? reading Kant].

In the above I have merely made an assumption.
As far as my actual acomplishments in terms of knowledge and average I am far more than average.

Suspect?
The point is you have not supported what you have stated above with any proper reference from Kant's work or other sources where necessary.

I wonder: is this level of all-encompassing existential crysis, that still grips you and makes you so irrational, the norm in your country? Cause it's not where I live.

You must be terrified by the possibility that no God can ever be fully disproven. What if your impulses will go wild again, what will hold them back?

[Eodnhoj7]

And what is the origin of language without ending in a loop as to what language is? Or the "I" without ending in a loop? Can you give any definition to origin without requiring a focal point of observation or an inherent loop?

That which assumes. That which we label as the "I".

If the "I" is labeled through the "I" and the "I" is assumed, then are labels strictly variations of one "assumption"?

All assumptions are fundamentally empty, even the word "assumption" is assumed.

That which assumes is not.

"That which assumes" is still an assumed definition.

What is self-esteem? Self Praise? Over what? Self Denigration? Over What? The self is fundamentally "assumed" as the beginning point of any assumptive act. It is undefined and dynamic.

If you keep asking ontological "What is X?" questions. You will keep getting empty answers.

The symbol-grounding problem is well understood.

Actually the symbol grounding problem is not well understood, if it was well understood it would not be a problem. The symbol is assumed as a variation of that which assumes observing the "I" existing through "many" "I" within the course of any dialogue as each symbol is a degree of the same "I", it is recipricol in nature...an object as the extension of a subject (and vice versa), the subjectification of subjectivity as objective, and the objectification of the objective as requiring subjectivity... thus it is inherently grounded in a basic fallacy of circularity according to standard logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder: is this level of all-encompassing existential crysis, that still grips you and makes you so irrational, the norm in your country? Cause it's not where I live.

You must be terrified by the possibility that no God can ever be fully disproven. What if your impulses will go wild again, what will hold them back?

As I had stated DNA-wise all humans [incl. me] are infected with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis which can be managed and modulated.

Since the existential crisis in me is inherent and unavoidable, yes it is triggered with internal fear upon various stimuli I perceived. But I am not terrified by "the possibility that no God can ever be fully disproven."

What I am "terrified" [subliminally] are the real glaringly evident terrible evil and violent acts committed by humans that could affect me personally, others [via empathy] and the future of humanity.
Thus my resolve is to understand why humans are committing terrible evil and violent acts.

Upon research, one of the main category of terrible evil and violent acts is related to theism where a supposedly real God [which answers prayers] sanction the warring and killing on non-believers.
But my rationally tells me, that 'supposedly real God' is an illusion and based on research and argument, I have proven that 'supposedly real' God is an impossibility to be real.

Therefore, if it is proven there is no real God sanctioning the warring and killing on non-believers, then theists will not have any real grounds to kill non-believers, then, there will be ZERO evil and violent acts driven by theists. QED!

Are you so cold that you don't have awareness of the real glaringly evident terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists which could potentially affect you personally, others [lack of empathy] and the future of humanity?

[Atla]

I wonder: is this level of all-encompassing existential crysis, that still grips you and makes you so irrational, the norm in your country? Cause it's not where I live.

You must be terrified by the possibility that no God can ever be fully disproven. What if your impulses will go wild again, what will hold them back?

As I had stated DNA-wise all humans [incl. me] are infected with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis which can be managed and modulated.

Since the existential crisis in me is inherent and unavoidable, yes it is triggered with internal fear upon various stimuli I perceived. But I am not terrified by "the possibility that no God can ever be fully disproven."

What I am "terrified" [subliminally] are the real glaringly evident terrible evil and violent acts committed by humans that could affect me personally, others [via empathy] and the future of humanity.
Thus my resolve is to understand why humans are committing terrible evil and violent acts.

Upon research, one of the main category of terrible evil and violent acts is related to theism where a supposedly real God [which answers prayers] sanction the warring and killing on non-believers.
But my rationally tells me, that 'supposedly real God' is an illusion and based on research and argument, I have proven that 'supposedly real' God is an impossibility to be real.

Therefore, if it is proven there is no real God sanctioning the warring and killing on non-believers, then theists will not have any real grounds to kill non-believers, then, there will be ZERO evil and violent acts driven by theists. QED!

Are you so cold that you don't have awareness of the real glaringly evident terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists which could potentially affect you personally, others [lack of empathy] and the future of humanity?

No, you have not proven it, you are simply lying. It's what 'evil' does.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you have not proven it, you are simply lying. It's what 'evil' does.

Mere waving of opinions with no justified arguments.

My justified argument is within this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Supported by this;

Re the impossibility of perfection in reality;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513

[Skepdick]

If the "I" is labeled through the "I" and the "I" is assumed, then are labels strictly variations of one "assumption"?

Whether the assumption is assumed or not - you are still reading these very words.

The assumption caused them.

"That which assumes" is still an assumed definition.

Who says it's a definition? That's just how I use words.

Actually the symbol grounding problem is not well understood, if it was well understood it would not be a problem. The symbol is assumed as a variation of that which assumes observing the "I" existing through "many" "I" within the course of any dialogue as each symbol is a degree of the same "I", it is recipricol in nature...an object as the extension of a subject (and vice versa), the subjectification of subjectivity as objective, and the objectification of the objective as requiring subjectivity... thus it is inherently grounded in a basic fallacy of circularity according to standard logic.

Do you understand what a "problem" is? Or is that also just an "assumption".

Of course, you have hit rock bottom now. This is Philosophy for you. You can carry on writing pointless posts. Or write a book.

At the very least you understand why a degree in philosophy is worth fuckall in 2019.

[Atla]

Mere waving of opinions with no justified arguments.

My justified argument is within this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

Supported by this;

Re the impossibility of perfection in reality;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27513

Like this?

Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

It only shows that you don't know what a justified argument is.

Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.

And here you claim to be omniscient. You are not.
And even children can understand that nothing can be proven to be 100% impossible.

If you didn't lack basic rationationale you would know that to combat the idea of 'God', you would need to use proper arguments. Not everyone can be deceived easily.

Well anyway, you can't follow anything I say, like you were from another planet or I don't know.