Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

[Dontaskme]

I suggested you get medicated.
If you want to post, at least deal with the points in the OP.

The world reality according to an illusion.

I am right and everyone else is wrong.

And those who are wrong need to get medicated until they see that I was right and they were wrong.

.

[Dontaskme]

I suggested you get medicated.
If you want to post, at least deal with the points in the OP.

I already have dealt with the OP here >

DAM: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:05 am

Kant is dead so the ''thoughts'' that are presupposed to be Kant's were not 'his thoughts'... If they were 'his thoughts' they would have died along with him...And yet these 'thought's' live on in transcript. In other words, 'thought's' belong to no one and every one.
A.K.A the same ONE

...Are you blind? or do you just prefer the sound of your own voice?
In other words, no one can speak of what is the absolute, they can only guess and speculate as a relative truth.

As long as VA thinks VA has truth. Truth will remain hidden from VA. Truth will only reveal when the claimer of truth lets that truth go.
All KNOWN truths are relative and relative truths about the absolute are absurd.

So be it VA, just be another idiot, you are not alone. Idiots are everywhere just like you.

I AM the last idiot. Before ''idiot'' I AM

.

[Eodnhoj7]

I cannot put into words how disgusting and repulsive I find Kant's work......why? Cookie cutter labels upon cookie cutter labels with no rhythm or rhyme trying to talk about rhythm and rhyme...like a white wannabe black guy.

I bet you did not understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

I bet you did not understand it either...I also bet the translator also had to out his personal spin on it as well.

"Strive towards the ideal"... you mean transcendental illusion?

Yes!

We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

You do understand, that even trying to strive towards a simple cup of coffee requires some ideal? Everything becomes a transcendental illusion under this term...as ideas do not match up with empirical phenomenon and empirical phenomenon lead to different ideals.


For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.

If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

But this variation is still, as repeated, circular. The perfect circle would have a center point everywhere and circumference no where....you would only be able to assume it as assumptions are everywhere with no end...even this sentence you are assuming your senses, meanings of words, etc.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

Really, I was more of "aim for the moon, if you miss the moon, then you will hit the stars, if you miss the stars you will end up leaving this universe altogether....its a triple win no matter what you do....

[Veritas Aequitas]

I cannot put into words how disgusting and repulsive I find Kant's work......why? Cookie cutter labels upon cookie cutter labels with no rhythm or rhyme trying to talk about rhythm and rhyme...like a white wannabe black guy.

I bet you did not understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

I bet you did not understand it either...I also bet the translator also had to out his personal spin on it as well.

Note I have 7 English translations of Kant's CPR from which I can get closer to the original meaning. What is critical is we need to align Kant's theories with the rest of philosophical theories and principles [East, West, etc.].

"Strive towards the ideal"... you mean transcendental illusion?

Yes!

We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

You do understand, that even trying to strive towards a simple cup of coffee requires some ideal? Everything becomes a transcendental illusion under this term...as ideas do not match up with empirical phenomenon and empirical phenomenon lead to different ideals.

As long as one understand 'ideals' are ideal and do not reify them and end up as illusions, there is no issue.

For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.

If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

But this variation is still, as repeated, circular. The perfect circle would have a center point everywhere and circumference no where....you would only be able to assume it as assumptions are everywhere with no end...even this sentence you are assuming your senses, meanings of words, etc.

You are off point.
I am saying we should use the standard of perfection [circle or otherwise] in practice where high precision is require in matters of life and death. Relying on rough estimates without reference to a standard of perfection could endanger life.

For example in building a rocket to send astronauts to outer space.
If there are separate circular parts - to be manufactured by different contractors - that require to be matched and fixed together, then the circular parts must be as close as possible to circular perfection to ensure there are no leakages to avoid catastrophic disasters.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

They are illusions and can be useful as the rocket example I gave above.
What is critical is not to reify illusions as real things which is an oxymoron.

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

Really, I was more of "aim for the moon, if you miss the moon, then you will hit the stars, if you miss the stars you will end up leaving this universe altogether....its a triple win no matter what you do....

Your usual off tangent again.
In my rocket example, if NASA aim for an imperfect rocket, do you think they will end up with an ideal perfect rocket? Don't be that stupid.

That is why I suspect you are autistic with a limited "theory of mind" that talk 'oranges' when the actual intent is with 'apples'.

[Dontaskme]

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

I concur, yes agreed. Reality is nothing more than a simulation, for there is nothing to make anything of this nothing, and nothing sure does look like something, and that's the whole point. Only a God can make something out of nothing. God is everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 - Age -Dontaskme.. have all been declared Autistic or Mentally ill. So no matter what opinion we have about stuff, it's going to come off as nonsense and babble. It's a waste of time pleading for your sanity on such matters.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

I concur, yes agreed. Reality is nothing more than a simulation, for there is nothing to make anything of this nothing, and nothing sure does look like something, and that's the whole point. Only a God can make something out of nothing. God is everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 - Age -Dontaskme.. have all been declared Autistic or Mentally ill. So no matter what opinion we have about stuff, it's going to come off as nonsense and babble. It's a waste of time pleading for your sanity on such matters.

As I had stated many times, what count in this philosophical forum are properly justified arguments.
Unfortunately you are stuck in a world where you are unable to produce justified proper arguments.
You can continue to try and if I see anything rational, I will respond to it accordingly.

[Dontaskme]

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

I concur, yes agreed. Reality is nothing more than a simulation, for there is nothing to make anything of this nothing, and nothing sure does look like something, and that's the whole point. Only a God can make something out of nothing. God is everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 - Age -Dontaskme.. have all been declared Autistic or Mentally ill. So no matter what opinion we have about stuff, it's going to come off as nonsense and babble. It's a waste of time pleading for your sanity on such matters.

As I had stated many times, what count in this philosophical forum are properly justified arguments.
Unfortunately you are stuck in a world where you are unable to produce justified proper arguments.
You can continue to try and if I see anything rational, I will respond to it accordingly.

Arguments belong in the realm of separation and opposition. Notice there are some philosphers on this forum who have shifted away from the lies that are old school normally accepted paradigms to a more advanced knowledge. These philosophers are here to dispel the illusion of separation and opposition that you apparently are not in favor of since you are so up to your neck in your own self righteous justified belief structures that you accuse others of having, that you strongly believe is your right to have while denying others their right to have their beliefs. It's quite shocking that you cannot see your hypocrisy ..and who said reality has to be rational?
What in your eyes is rational about the fact that there is absolutely nothing looking out of your eyes at what you believe to be an empirical world?

.

[Eodnhoj7]

I bet you did not understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's work thoroughly.

I bet you did not understand it either...I also bet the translator also had to out his personal spin on it as well.

Note I have 7 English translations of Kant's CPR from which I can get closer to the original meaning. What is critical is we need to align Kant's theories with the rest of philosophical theories and principles [East, West, etc.].

Closer is another way of saying "not original thus degrees of falsity".

"Strive towards the ideal"... you mean transcendental illusion?

Yes!

We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

But ideals are transcendental illusions, it is circular...we use the TI as an impossible TI to strive toward...but all of this is an ideal; hence a TI.

You do understand, that even trying to strive towards a simple cup of coffee requires some ideal? Everything becomes a transcendental illusion under this term...as ideas do not match up with empirical phenomenon and empirical phenomenon lead to different ideals.

As long as one understand 'ideals' are ideal and do not reify them and end up as illusions, there is no issue.

But this is an idea as well. All our conceptions of reality, beyond "now", are images and experiences as memories...thus ideals and TIs.

For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.

If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

But there is no perfect circle according to you, as it is an illusion and cannot be observed, thus any circle is perfect and improvement is not necessary.

But this variation is still, as repeated, circular. The perfect circle would have a center point everywhere and circumference no where....you would only be able to assume it as assumptions are everywhere with no end...even this sentence you are assuming your senses, meanings of words, etc.

You are off point.
I am saying we should use the standard of perfection [circle or otherwise] in practice where high precision is require in matters of life and death. Relying on rough estimates without reference to a standard of perfection could endanger life.

High precision results in matters of life and death, low precision matters in life and death as well, and life and death occur anyhow with or without precession.

You want to turn to pragmatic usefulness, when you fail to realize that usefulness is grounded on uselessness. A rock is useless. It becomes useful when it is inverted into some form projected by the observer.

Thus usefulness is not only subjective...but random.

For example in building a rocket to send astronauts to outer space.
If there are separate circular parts - to be manufactured by different contractors - that require to be matched and fixed together, then the circular parts must be as close as possible to circular perfection to ensure there are no leakages to avoid catastrophic disasters.

All machines are composed of static and dynamic loops...same with organism (which is what machines are replicated from), as well as the elements...even up and down thoughts...all loops.

All variations of one cycle.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

They are illusions and can be useful as the rocket example I gave above.
What is critical is not to reify illusions as real things which is an oxymoron.

So God is real if God is useful?

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

Really, I was more of "aim for the moon, if you miss the moon, then you will hit the stars, if you miss the stars you will end up leaving this universe altogether....its a triple win no matter what you do....

Your usual off tangent again.
In my rocket example, if NASA aim for an imperfect rocket, do you think they will end up with an ideal perfect rocket? Don't be that stupid.

That is why I suspect you are autistic with a limited "theory of mind" that talk 'oranges' when the actual intent is with 'apples'.

And I suspect you are angry because Islamic is raping your weak culture and you are just grabbing thin air looking for answers.

[Eodnhoj7]

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

I concur, yes agreed. Reality is nothing more than a simulation, for there is nothing to make anything of this nothing, and nothing sure does look like something, and that's the whole point. Only a God can make something out of nothing. God is everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 - Age -Dontaskme.. have all been declared Autistic or Mentally ill. So no matter what opinion we have about stuff, it's going to come off as nonsense and babble. It's a waste of time pleading for your sanity on such matters.

As I had stated many times, what count in this philosophical forum are properly justified arguments.
Unfortunately you are stuck in a world where you are unable to produce justified proper arguments.
You can continue to try and if I see anything rational, I will respond to it accordingly.

Point to me where "justified argument" is in the "rules of the forum" and where "justified" and "argument" are presented as defined...do this to "justify" your "argument" without making assumptions.

"If I see anything rational"...what an irrational statement as you are subject to agrippa's trillema.

You speak fallacies and hide behind fallacies to ignore your empty argument.

[Eodnhoj7]

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

I concur, yes agreed. Reality is nothing more than a simulation, for there is nothing to make anything of this nothing, and nothing sure does look like something, and that's the whole point. Only a God can make something out of nothing. God is everything and nothing.

Eodnhoj7 - Age -Dontaskme.. have all been declared Autistic or Mentally ill. So no matter what opinion we have about stuff, it's going to come off as nonsense and babble. It's a waste of time pleading for your sanity on such matters.

.

Mental illness is continually redefined obsessive compulsively until even what illness is appears schizophrenic. The mental health community is strictly an institution of behavior replication.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I have 7 English translations of Kant's CPR from which I can get closer to the original meaning. What is critical is we need to align Kant's theories with the rest of philosophical theories and principles [East, West, etc.].

Closer is another way of saying "not original thus degrees of falsity".

Point is we should always do the best and optimal we can subject to existing constraints.
ALL humans has generic attributes from the generic DNA, thus we can get as close as possible to the original.
Since humans emerged, they have been very successful even communicating without language and words.
I have done my best in the above circumstances.
As I had stated what count are proper arguments which you have not provided.

Yes!
We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

But ideals are transcendental illusions, it is circular...we use the TI as an impossible TI to strive toward...but all of this is an ideal; hence a TI.

You are very stupid in the practical and has no ability to strive for excellence.
In the practical world, it is always more productive to strive for the impossible ideals than accepting a lower and easily achievable standards.
Say, the one who strive hard to achieve 100% or even 150% score is likely to score 95% than one who set an achievable standard of 90% just because in the past no one has score > 90%.

You do understand, that even trying to strive towards a simple cup of coffee requires some ideal? Everything becomes a transcendental illusion under this term...as ideas do not match up with empirical phenomenon and empirical phenomenon lead to different ideals.

As long as one understand 'ideals' are ideal and do not reify them and end up as illusions, there is no issue.

But this is an idea as well. All our conceptions of reality, beyond "now", are images and experiences as memories...thus ideals and TIs.

Ideals are impossibility but they are useful as a guide for greater improvements.
Note the example in getting an obese donkey to exercise to reduce weight by typing an impossible to be eaten carrot in strap in from of the donkey with a stick. The result is the donkey to go into action and exercise. This is how we reconcile 'ought' to 'is'.

For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.

If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

But there is no perfect circle according to you, as it is an illusion and cannot be observed, thus any circle is perfect and improvement is not necessary.

What is wrong with you.
We are not improving any 'perfect' circle as it is non-existent.
We are only using the measurements of what is a perfect circle to ensure every circle we draw is as close as possible to the perfect standard.

But this variation is still, as repeated, circular. The perfect circle would have a center point everywhere and circumference no where....you would only be able to assume it as assumptions are everywhere with no end...even this sentence you are assuming your senses, meanings of words, etc.

You are off point.
I am saying we should use the standard of perfection [circle or otherwise] in practice where high precision is require in matters of life and death. Relying on rough estimates without reference to a standard of perfection could endanger life.

High precision results in matters of life and death, low precision matters in life and death as well, and life and death occur anyhow with or without precession.

You want to turn to pragmatic usefulness, when you fail to realize that usefulness is grounded on uselessness. A rock is useless. It becomes useful when it is inverted into some form projected by the observer.

Thus usefulness is not only subjective...but random.

For example in building a rocket to send astronauts to outer space.
If there are separate circular parts - to be manufactured by different contractors - that require to be matched and fixed together, then the circular parts must be as close as possible to circular perfection to ensure there are no leakages to avoid catastrophic disasters.

All machines are composed of static and dynamic loops...same with organism (which is what machines are replicated from), as well as the elements...even up and down thoughts...all loops.

All variations of one cycle.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

They are illusions and can be useful as the rocket example I gave above.
What is critical is not to reify illusions as real things which is an oxymoron.

So God is real if God is useful?

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

Really, I was more of "aim for the moon, if you miss the moon, then you will hit the stars, if you miss the stars you will end up leaving this universe altogether....its a triple win no matter what you do....

Your usual off tangent again.
In my rocket example, if NASA aim for an imperfect rocket, do you think they will end up with an ideal perfect rocket? Don't be that stupid.

That is why I suspect you are autistic with a limited "theory of mind" that talk 'oranges' when the actual intent is with 'apples'.

And I suspect you are angry because Islamic is raping your weak culture and you are just grabbing thin air looking for answers.

The above points are all off tangent.
You are forever talking 'oranges' when the point is about 'apples'.

I suggest before you spew your "off-tangents" take note of what is the argument, i.e. the syllogism [provided in the OP]. Then attack the relevant premises if you think they are false.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note I have 7 English translations of Kant's CPR from which I can get closer to the original meaning. What is critical is we need to align Kant's theories with the rest of philosophical theories and principles [East, West, etc.].

Closer is another way of saying "not original thus degrees of falsity".

Point is we should always do the best and optimal we can subject to existing constraints.
ALL humans has generic attributes from the generic DNA, thus we can get as close as possible to the original.
Since humans emerged, they have been very successful even communicating without language and words.
I have done my best in the above circumstances.
As I had stated what count are proper arguments which you have not provided.

Yes!
We used the transcendental illusion as an impossible-to-achieve-ideal to strive toward.

But ideals are transcendental illusions, it is circular...we use the TI as an impossible TI to strive toward...but all of this is an ideal; hence a TI.

You are very stupid in the practical and has no ability to strive for excellence.
In the practical world, it is always more productive to strive for the impossible ideals than accepting a lower and easily achievable standards.
Say, the one who strive hard to achieve 100% or even 150% score is likely to score 95% than one who set an achievable standard of 90% just because in the past no one has score > 90%.

You do understand, that even trying to strive towards a simple cup of coffee requires some ideal? Everything becomes a transcendental illusion under this term...as ideas do not match up with empirical phenomenon and empirical phenomenon lead to different ideals.

As long as one understand 'ideals' are ideal and do not reify them and end up as illusions, there is no issue.

But this is an idea as well. All our conceptions of reality, beyond "now", are images and experiences as memories...thus ideals and TIs.

Ideals are impossibility but they are useful as a guide for greater improvements.
Note the example in getting an obese donkey to exercise to reduce weight by typing an impossible to be eaten carrot in strap in from of the donkey with a stick. The result is the donkey to go into action and exercise. This is how we reconcile 'ought' to 'is'.

For example, what wrong with striving to ensure every circle we draw and circular objects we make are as close as to the impossible ideal of a perfect circle.

If one do not refer to the impossible ideal perfect circle as a guide, the circles produced will vary greatly and with no guide for improvement.

But there is no perfect circle according to you, as it is an illusion and cannot be observed, thus any circle is perfect and improvement is not necessary.

What is wrong with you.
We are not improving any 'perfect' circle as it is non-existent.
We are only using the measurements of what is a perfect circle to ensure every circle we draw is as close as possible to the perfect standard.

But this variation is still, as repeated, circular. The perfect circle would have a center point everywhere and circumference no where....you would only be able to assume it as assumptions are everywhere with no end...even this sentence you are assuming your senses, meanings of words, etc.

You are off point.
I am saying we should use the standard of perfection [circle or otherwise] in practice where high precision is require in matters of life and death. Relying on rough estimates without reference to a standard of perfection could endanger life.

High precision results in matters of life and death, low precision matters in life and death as well, and life and death occur anyhow with or without precession.

You want to turn to pragmatic usefulness, when you fail to realize that usefulness is grounded on uselessness. A rock is useless. It becomes useful when it is inverted into some form projected by the observer.

Thus usefulness is not only subjective...but random.

For example in building a rocket to send astronauts to outer space.
If there are separate circular parts - to be manufactured by different contractors - that require to be matched and fixed together, then the circular parts must be as close as possible to circular perfection to ensure there are no leakages to avoid catastrophic disasters.

All machines are composed of static and dynamic loops...same with organism (which is what machines are replicated from), as well as the elements...even up and down thoughts...all loops.

All variations of one cycle.

Thus absolute perfection [transcendental illusion] is impossible to be real but absolute perfection is a good guide to ensure the real is as close as possible to the impossible ideal and providing a standard for progressive improvement.

But the perfect transcendental illusion is just another transcendental illusion.

They are illusions and can be useful as the rocket example I gave above.
What is critical is not to reify illusions as real things which is an oxymoron.

So God is real if God is useful?

Note the usefulness and advantages of the saying'
"Aim for the stars" if you missed you could land on the moon.
even that is a near impossibility.

Really, I was more of "aim for the moon, if you miss the moon, then you will hit the stars, if you miss the stars you will end up leaving this universe altogether....its a triple win no matter what you do....

Your usual off tangent again.
In my rocket example, if NASA aim for an imperfect rocket, do you think they will end up with an ideal perfect rocket? Don't be that stupid.

That is why I suspect you are autistic with a limited "theory of mind" that talk 'oranges' when the actual intent is with 'apples'.

And I suspect you are angry because Islamic is raping your weak culture and you are just grabbing thin air looking for answers.

The above points are all off tangent.
You are forever talking 'oranges' when the point is about 'apples'.

I suggest before you spew your "off-tangents" take note of what is the argument, i.e. the syllogism [provided in the OP]. Then attack the relevant premises if you think they are false.

Word salads, I think you are suffering from a transcendental illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suggest before you spew your "off-tangents" take note of what is the argument, i.e. the syllogism [provided in the OP]. Then attack the relevant premises if you think they are false.

Word salads, I think you are suffering from a transcendental illusion.

What I stated is culminated in the above point.
That is "word salad" ??

It just show you are incapable to participate in philosophy with proper arguments.

[Eodnhoj7]

I suggest before you spew your "off-tangents" take note of what is the argument, i.e. the syllogism [provided in the OP]. Then attack the relevant premises if you think they are false.

Word salads, I think you are suffering from a transcendental illusion.

What I stated is culminated in the above point.
That is "word salad" ??

It just show you are incapable to participate in philosophy with proper arguments.

How can one make a proper argument against something that connects a bunch of assumed words that mean nothing?


You keep trying to negate a positive without defining the positive, and when you give a definition of the positive it your definition and not the definition others are observing.

You hinge point of God is an empty term your whole argument revolves around in various circles trying to hide the fact the term is undefined and even the term God by definition is "undefined".

A transcendental illusion is still, as an illusion, an image...hence defined.

But God can't be an illusion because by nature God is undefined....

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salads, I think you are suffering from a transcendental illusion.

What I stated is culminated in the above point.
That is "word salad" ??

It just show you are incapable to participate in philosophy with proper arguments.

How can one make a proper argument against something that connects a bunch of assumed words that mean nothing?


You keep trying to negate a positive without defining the positive, and when you give a definition of the positive it your definition and not the definition others are observing.

You hinge point of God is an empty term your whole argument revolves around in various circles trying to hide the fact the term is undefined and even the term God by definition is "undefined".

A transcendental illusion is still, as an illusion, an image...hence defined.

But God can't be an illusion because by nature God is undefined....

How come you are so ignorant?
A transcendental illusion can be defined,
'Can be defined' do not mean it is real.
What I am proving is the defined God [transcendental illusion] cannot be real.

To theists God is defined as a real being that listens and answers prayers.
see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Why do you insist God is undefined?

Thus my argument is to counter the theists' argument that their defined God [ontological] is an illusion thus it is impossible to be real.