What is Really Real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are not understanding the problem of the "SEALED" container. You have to ask what else is in the jar with the water. It's not about simply accommodating the pressure changes - the pressure changes the ability of water to boil or to freeze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

Noted the above variations.

There is nothing other than 10 ml of pure H20.

And how big is the container?
You said 1000ml.
It would not be liquid.
What is the temperature?

It is liquid to start with at room temperature.
I started with 10 mil of liquid at the bottom of the container.

As I had implied, my earlier apparatus and temperature was merely estimated.
Your points taken, I can adjust the size of the container and the temperature to ensure all the changes within all the conditions are observable.
I refer to a sealed container to ensure there are no changes to the original contents.

My main purpose is to demonstrate, there is no really-real things but whatever is real is conditional upon the specific conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ice is essentially something different from water judged from the perspective of a stickler for mixed drinks who orders one "over rocks." Water will merely "water down" the drink.

Judged from the practices of the chemist the identity of the "element" on his table of particle compounds holds a unity through the phase changes.

Thus, it is a matter of the calculus of methodological dominions whether the "identity" holds or not.

Remember, when we go beyond the electron cloud, thus beyond chemistry, all energy is said to be identical in its conversation to matter. Everything is "one stuff" within the practice of some forms of physics.

Can you see your points which imply;

Whatever "is" is dependent on the perspective and judgement of the person.
or
dependent on the specific faculty of knowledge, i.e. Physic re 'energy'.

Thus reality, i.e. "is" is imperatively intertwined and dependent on humans' conditions, i.e. perspective, judgement and system of knowledge.

Show me one case where 'what is reality' is absolutely independent of humans' conditions, i.e. perspective, judgement and system of knowledge.

So my point stand;
There is nothing that is absolutely real independent of the human conditions.
Note Neitzche "perspectivism" and the views of the Philosophical anti-realist, especially Kant.

Kant is not any anti-realist. The claim is, rather, that he failed to prove the content, human morality, in inteligable (rather than sensible) perception. The reality past phenomena was unproven.

Your above is way off from what Kant represented.

I am a reasonable expert on Kant.

Note Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant is a Philosophical anti-Realist in relation to the above Philosophical Realism.

In Heidegger being is real. And "independant."

The prevailing talk of Independant' objects, scientific objectivity, is said in historical link to the claim the human can control nature for the sake of a better life. Political Liberalism. As a kind of unessisary speculative claim. The more tangible claim is that of a value "independent" reality. I.e., the same within human competent observation or measurement accessible to humans.

Just as being is said in many ways, so too reality. As on nominalism/realism, moralism (political idealism)/realism, German Idealism/ Marxism, and so on.

I have spent a lot of time [> 6 months full time] reading Heidegger, but that is insufficient.

In any case, for many readers, the initially strange and difficult language of Being and Time is fully vindicated by the realization that Heidegger is struggling to say things for which our conventional terms and linguistic constructions are ultimately inadequate.

Viewed from the perspective of Heidegger's own intentions, the work is incomplete. It was meant to have two parts, each of which was supposed to be divided into three divisions. What we have published under the title of Being and Time are the first two divisions of (the intended) part one. The reasons for this incompleteness will be explored later in this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim

Heidegger's work on 'what is being' is incomplete and it is because he did not have the full capacity to do so.
Kant on the other hand did a thorough job to expound reality & the self.

As for "independent reality" this is actually kindergarten stuff.
Any small child can sense the sweet on the table is out of his reach and is external to himself. Then the child grow up to understand there is a whole world and universe that is external to his personal and physical self. This is ABC.

The fact is all humans are 'programmed' to direct their attention to what is outside of them, i.e. the external world to look out for food and threat to ensure their survival.

As inherent, the majority of humans are enslaved by the primal instinct to insist on an independent external word and do not have a clue how they themselves are fully entangled [part and parcel] of the reality they are in.

This is why philosophy-proper commanded on to "Know Thyself" and investigate inward and how this inner-ness and entangled with the external_ness and in that sense, from a higher philosophical perspective, there is no absolutely independent external world.

Suggest you reflect more on the OP.

[Sculptor]

Noted the above variations.

There is nothing other than 10 ml of pure H20.

And how big is the container?
You said 1000ml.
It would not be liquid.
What is the temperature?

It is liquid to start with at room temperature.
I started with 10 mil of liquid at the bottom of the container.

I think you will find that it cannot be a liquid if there is nothing else in the container. The difference between 10ml and 1000ml would make the water boil due to low pressure. At least I think so. Anyone else reading this?

As I had implied, my earlier apparatus and temperature was merely estimated.
Your points taken, I can adjust the size of the container and the temperature to ensure all the changes within all the conditions are observable.
I refer to a sealed container to ensure there are no changes to the original contents.

My main purpose is to demonstrate, there is no really-real things but whatever is real is conditional upon the specific conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

You might want to do some science lessons first.

[TheVisionofEr]

Can you see your points which imply;

Whatever "is" is dependent on the perspective and judgement of the person.
or
dependent on the specific faculty of knowledge, i.e. Physic re 'energy'.

Thus reality, i.e. "is" is imperatively intertwined and dependent on humans' conditions, i.e. perspective, judgement and system of knowledge.

Show me one case where 'what is reality' is absolutely independent of humans' conditions, i.e. perspective, judgement and system of knowledge.

So my point stand;
There is nothing that is absolutely real independent of the human conditions.
Note Neitzche "perspectivism" and the views of the Philosophical anti-realist, especially Kant.

Kant is not any anti-realist. The claim is, rather, that he failed to prove the content, human morality, in inteligable (rather than sensible) perception. The reality past phenomena was unproven.

Your above is way off from what Kant represented.

I am a reasonable expert on Kant.

Note Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant is a Philosophical anti-Realist in relation to the above Philosophical Realism.

In Heidegger being is real. And "independant."

The prevailing talk of Independant' objects, scientific objectivity, is said in historical link to the claim the human can control nature for the sake of a better life. Political Liberalism. As a kind of unessisary speculative claim. The more tangible claim is that of a value "independent" reality. I.e., the same within human competent observation or measurement accessible to humans.

Just as being is said in many ways, so too reality. As on nominalism/realism, moralism (political idealism)/realism, German Idealism/ Marxism, and so on.

I have spent a lot of time [> 6 months full time] reading Heidegger, but that is insufficient.

In any case, for many readers, the initially strange and difficult language of Being and Time is fully vindicated by the realization that Heidegger is struggling to say things for which our conventional terms and linguistic constructions are ultimately inadequate.

Viewed from the perspective of Heidegger's own intentions, the work is incomplete. It was meant to have two parts, each of which was supposed to be divided into three divisions. What we have published under the title of Being and Time are the first two divisions of (the intended) part one. The reasons for this incompleteness will be explored later in this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim

Heidegger's work on 'what is being' is incomplete and it is because he did not have the full capacity to do so.
Kant on the other hand did a thorough job to expound reality & the self.

As for "independent reality" this is actually kindergarten stuff.
Any small child can sense the sweet on the table is out of his reach and is external to himself. Then the child grow up to understand there is a whole world and universe that is external to his personal and physical self. This is ABC.

The fact is all humans are 'programmed' to direct their attention to what is outside of them, i.e. the external world to look out for food and threat to ensure their survival.

As inherent, the majority of humans are enslaved by the primal instinct to insist on an independent external word and do not have a clue how they themselves are fully entangled [part and parcel] of the reality they are in.

This is why philosophy-proper commanded on to "Know Thyself" and investigate inward and how this inner-ness and entangled with the external_ness and in that sense, from a higher philosophical perspective, there is no absolutely independent external world.

Suggest you reflect more on the OP.

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences. On the rise of the fact/value distinction through Nietzsche and Simmel. The anglo-American account is flatly wrong, as in its more intelligent representatives such as Quine. Pointing to websights is like calling your mother. Of no interest in serious discussion.

The rest of what you say is flatly absurd and I eschew to engage it as it objectively deserves to be despised.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

[TheVisionofEr]

Delete

[Veritas Aequitas]

And how big is the container?
You said 1000ml.
It would not be liquid.
What is the temperature?

It is liquid to start with at room temperature.
I started with 10 mil of liquid at the bottom of the container.

I think you will find that it cannot be a liquid if there is nothing else in the container. The difference between 10ml and 1000ml would make the water boil due to low pressure. At least I think so. Anyone else reading this?

As I had implied, my earlier apparatus and temperature was merely estimated.
Your points taken, I can adjust the size of the container and the temperature to ensure all the changes within all the conditions are observable.
I refer to a sealed container to ensure there are no changes to the original contents.

My main purpose is to demonstrate, there is no really-real things but whatever is real is conditional upon the specific conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

You might want to do some science lessons first.

My point is to demonstrate in an experiment the following hypothesis;

• The reality of the "SAME" content X [water-H20] changes relative to various conditions.
  -Therefore there is no real absolute reality-in-itself independent of conditions.
  

The question is what sort of apparatus do we need, thus;

• 1. material = liquid - 10 ml of water
  2. the appropriate seal container in term of size and structure
  3. a heat source.

The sealed container is to ensure nothing is added during the changes.

The 10 ml of liquid [water] will is first introduced in a small hole and sealed.
So there is no question content X is liquid as water [as the experimenter knows it].

The liquid will be in a small tube like container [with measurement markers] at the funneled-shaped bottom of the container.
When the water condenses, it will drip slowly back into the container.

Frankly there is no need for me to justify the apparatus which we can assume to be sufficient for the experiment. [except if such an experiment is impossible].
In this case where the max heat is likely to be 200 degrees centigrade for all the liquid [water] to turn to steam.
My earlier indicated size of 1000 ml container may be questionable when I did not mention the thickness of the container. But if it is made to be >2 inches thick and that it will not crack when temperature is increased to 200 degrees inside and the pressure is up to a certain acceptable PSI, then 1000 ml is sufficient.

If the sealed container breaks then we keep constructing one until we get one that will not break when heat is introduced externally and can produce the intended results expected.
This is what most scientists and experimenter will do, they keep finding the suitable apparatus and conditions whenever such failed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences. On the rise of the fact/value distinction through Nietzsche and Simmel. The anglo-American account is flatly wrong, as in its more intelligent representatives such as Quine. Pointing to websights is like calling your mother. Of no interest in serious discussion.

The rest of what you say is flatly absurd and I eschew to engage it as it objectively deserves to be despised.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

Your above views which is merely noise without sound arguments only goes to expose your ignorance of philosophy [the subject of this site].

Pointing to websights is like calling your mother. Of no interest in serious discussion.

This is one of the most stupid statement I've come across within a philosophical forum.

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences.

Assuming both of us are average [unless you claimed you are a genius].
I have spent 3 years reading and reading Kant full time.
Surely I would understand Kant more than you who had not claimed to read Kant seriously at all.

Kant did not contribute to the General Sciences except the modern day Cognitive Science is some ways.
However, Kant contributed much to Philosophy, i.e. being proclaimed by many as one of the greatest Western Philosopher of all times.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

That is obvious.
The point of the OP is;
within reality, a supposedly same real thing 'P' can be another thing, 'not-P' under various conditions.
This seem to confront the Law of Non-Contradiction and at the same time opposes the claim by "realists" things out there are independent of conditions and human conditions.

Suggest you read the OP carefully and provide counter arguments if any.

[Sculptor]

It is liquid to start with at room temperature.
I started with 10 mil of liquid at the bottom of the container.

I think you will find that it cannot be a liquid if there is nothing else in the container. The difference between 10ml and 1000ml would make the water boil due to low pressure. At least I think so. Anyone else reading this?

As I had implied, my earlier apparatus and temperature was merely estimated.
Your points taken, I can adjust the size of the container and the temperature to ensure all the changes within all the conditions are observable.
I refer to a sealed container to ensure there are no changes to the original contents.

My main purpose is to demonstrate, there is no really-real things but whatever is real is conditional upon the specific conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

You might want to do some science lessons first.

My point is to demonstrate in an experiment the following hypothesis;

• The reality of the "SAME" content X [water-H20] changes relative to various conditions.
  -Therefore there is no real absolute reality-in-itself independent of conditions.
  

The question is what sort of apparatus do we need, thus;

• 1. material = liquid - 10 ml of water
  2. the appropriate seal container in term of size and structure
  3. a heat source.

The sealed container is to ensure nothing is added during the changes.

The 10 ml of liquid [water] will is first introduced in a small hole and sealed.
So there is no question content X is liquid as water [as the experimenter knows it].

The liquid will be in a small tube like container [with measurement markers] at the funneled-shaped bottom of the container.
When the water condenses, it will drip slowly back into the container.

Frankly there is no need for me to justify the apparatus which we can assume to be sufficient for the experiment. [except if such an experiment is impossible].
In this case where the max heat is likely to be 200 degrees centigrade for all the liquid [water] to turn to steam.
My earlier indicated size of 1000 ml container may be questionable when I did not mention the thickness of the container. But if it is made to be >2 inches thick and that it will not crack when temperature is increased to 200 degrees inside and the pressure is up to a certain acceptable PSI, then 1000 ml is sufficient.

If the sealed container breaks then we keep constructing one until we get one that will not break when heat is introduced externally and can produce the intended results expected.
This is what most scientists and experimenter will do, they keep finding the suitable apparatus and conditions whenever such failed.

FFS. You are either not reading what I write or are simply incapable of understanding the relationship between temperature, volume and pressure.

[TheVisionofEr]

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences. On the rise of the fact/value distinction through Nietzsche and Simmel. The anglo-American account is flatly wrong, as in its more intelligent representatives such as Quine. Pointing to websights is like calling your mother. Of no interest in serious discussion.

The rest of what you say is flatly absurd and I eschew to engage it as it objectively deserves to be despised.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

Your above views which is merely noise without sound arguments only goes to expose your ignorance of philosophy [the subject of this site].

Pointing to websights is like calling your mother. Of no interest in serious discussion.

This is one of the most stupid statement I've come across within a philosophical forum.

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences.

Assuming both of us are average [unless you claimed you are a genius].
I have spent 3 years reading and reading Kant full time.
Surely I would understand Kant more than you who had not claimed to read Kant seriously at all.

Kant did not contribute to the General Sciences except the modern day Cognitive Science is some ways.
However, Kant contributed much to Philosophy, i.e. being proclaimed by many as one of the greatest Western Philosopher of all times.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

That is obvious.
The point of the OP is;
within reality, a supposedly same real thing 'P' can be another thing, 'not-P' under various conditions.
This seem to confront the Law of Non-Contradiction and at the same time opposes the claim by "realists" things out there are independent of conditions and human conditions.

Suggest you read the OP carefully and provide counter arguments if any.

You studied wrong. The time you put in isn't wasted simpliciter. However, real knowledge in philosophy requiers training in the right approach. Kant must be understood in his influence on the formations of the modern mind. As manifested in the German university models that split humanities from sciences, or wissenschaft from natura wissenschaft in the nintenth century. Later, around the year 1900, the fact value distinction came in. It is still in power. Subjective humans, objective scientific data.

You aren't reading philosophy in the context of the world. Which is typical of anglo-American training.

Kant, as you know, tried to show we can access the nuomenal. He tried to raise the phenomena up to demonstrate the scientific availability of morals in the context of Newton's physics. Philosophy was understood as a science for two thousand years before Kant's project of Critical philosophy. His faliure prepaiered the intelectual climate of our time. The wertfrei, value free, conception of science.


Yes, of course that is only part of the story.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are mistaken and don't understand what Kant is about. Which means not only Kant's intentions, but his influence on the sciences.

Assuming both of us are average [unless you claimed you are a genius].
I have spent 3 years reading and reading Kant full time.
Surely I would understand Kant more than you who had not claimed to read Kant seriously at all.

Kant did not contribute to the General Sciences except the modern day Cognitive Science is some ways.
However, Kant contributed much to Philosophy, i.e. being proclaimed by many as one of the greatest Western Philosopher of all times.

Reality has many meaning and is said in many ways. If you don't respect that you set yourself bellow the level of serious discussion.

That is obvious.
The point of the OP is;
within reality, a supposedly same real thing 'P' can be another thing, 'not-P' under various conditions.
This seem to confront the Law of Non-Contradiction and at the same time opposes the claim by "realists" things out there are independent of conditions and human conditions.

Suggest you read the OP carefully and provide counter arguments if any.

You studied wrong. The time you put in isn't wasted simpliciter. However, real knowledge in philosophy requiers training in the right approach. Kant must be understood in his influence on the formations of the modern mind. As manifested in the German university models that split humanities from sciences, or wissenschaft from natura wissenschaft in the nintenth century. Later, around the year 1900, the fact value distinction came in. It is still in power. Subjective humans, objective scientific data.

You aren't reading philosophy in the context of the world. Which is typical of anglo-American training.

I am from the East and my background is Eastern Philosophy.

Kant, as you know, tried to show we can access the nuomenal. He tried to raise the phenomena up to demonstrate the scientific availability of morals in the context of Newton's physics. Philosophy was understood as a science for two thousand years before Kant's project of Critical philosophy. His faliure prepaiered the intelectual climate of our time. The wertfrei, value free, conception of science.

Yes, of course that is only part of the story.

Obviously your above expose your ignorant of what Kant is about.

Here is what Kant stated of the Noumenon;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
CPR pg B311

Do you understand what is meant by "limiting concept" and "negative employment?"

The question, therefore, is whether in addition to the Empirical employment of the Understanding to its employment even in the Newtonian account of the structure of the universe there is likewise Possible a Transcendental employment, which has to do with the Noumenon as an Object. This question we have answered in the negative.
B313

The noumenon is something that is to be accessed by merely raised as a limit in the negatives sense.

The noumenon is merely a concept, thus only of negative use.
We cannot use the noumenon to represent anything Positive beyond sensibility, i.e. a some kind of object.

Suggest you the whole chapter in relation to the above quote and the whole of the Critique of Pure Reason to grasp its perspective.

[TheVisionofEr]

"from the East and my background is Eastern Philosophy"

Wherever you are from, your traing is anglo-American. That is in control of the planet. The alternative way to approach Kant is the German from the period prior to the war when the strong residue of the 19th century was still living.

Other methods of the approach to Kant, like the Kyoto School, exsist, but are not wholly independant.


"Here is what Kant stated of the Noumenon;"
OK. Not everything can be said at once. And every detail will be understood within the whole of what we know.

Would you agree that we ought to approach this passage with Hume in mind? Since the point of Hume is that reason has to add something to the order of aperances present to the senses alone to come to posit causality.

I would also ask: Are we to understand das Sollen, the Ought, as present in the phenomena? Doesn't Kant somehow attempt to reach his thing in itself, that is the inner motive of reality?

In any case, the larger issue is the founding of science or philosophy. Causality is a foundational issue for the sciences, however understood, is it not?

Nuomeana will be better grasped if we start from Kant's purpose. So, from the dogmatic slumber he awoke from with the help of Rousseau. And the direction given by Hume.

Your way you may gain a complete technical grasp of Kant's system, but you get nothing of the point. You miss the whole point of the investigation.

It's safer to say, I would say, that here we deal not with a question of genius or non-genius, but of bounded rationality or what has not been learned. Your approach is too narrow, and remains blind. It all appears different in the light of the motive.

[commonsense]

My point is:
Which of the above 1 to 10 is the really-real thing?

The question is how can the "same" one-thing be so "many" different things.
Is this a contradiction?

What is the ultimate reality of the above content within that sealed glass?

Note there is an "IF" to all the above experiments thus also its conclusions. This imply reality can only be conditional upon the conditions of the observers, i.e. human conditions.
This contra the claims of Philosophical Realism, which is

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki

Note the above is not merely applicable to 'water' but to everything there is in the Universe and reality.

Views?

A more central question: can different manifestations of the same thing be different things in themselves?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is:
Which of the above 1 to 10 is the really-real thing?

The question is how can the "same" one-thing be so "many" different things.
Is this a contradiction?

What is the ultimate reality of the above content within that sealed glass?

Note there is an "IF" to all the above experiments thus also its conclusions. This imply reality can only be conditional upon the conditions of the observers, i.e. human conditions.
This contra the claims of Philosophical Realism, which is

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki

Note the above is not merely applicable to 'water' but to everything there is in the Universe and reality.

Views?

A more central question: can different manifestations of the same thing be different things in themselves?

The central theme of Kant is there is no thing-in-itself thus no things-in-themselves.
Things are by default things-with-conditions [humans and others].

One cannot just get away with "steam is steam" without the imperative conditions and relations, i.e. steam is represented by H20 molecules at certain temperature in certain conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

Note my thread on "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics"

[commonsense]

My point is:
Which of the above 1 to 10 is the really-real thing?

The question is how can the "same" one-thing be so "many" different things.
Is this a contradiction?

What is the ultimate reality of the above content within that sealed glass?

Note there is an "IF" to all the above experiments thus also its conclusions. This imply reality can only be conditional upon the conditions of the observers, i.e. human conditions.
This contra the claims of Philosophical Realism, which is



Note the above is not merely applicable to 'water' but to everything there is in the Universe and reality.

Views?

A more central question: can different manifestations of the same thing be different things in themselves?

The central theme of Kant is there is no thing-in-itself thus no things-in-themselves.
Things are by default things-with-conditions [humans and others].

One cannot just get away with "steam is steam" without the imperative conditions and relations, i.e. steam is represented by H20 molecules at certain temperature in certain conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

Note my thread on "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics"

Due respect, Kant is entitled to an opinion.

As for me, reality is what I perceive via my senses.

A chair is a thing in itself. I can see a chair. I can touch a chair. I can sit in a chair. I can pick up a chair. I can even lick a chair to find out what it tastes like. I suppose I can place my nose on a chair and sniff it, too.

As for conditions, a chair can be occupied, available, broken, leaning, on fire, dusty, dirty, wet, dry, heavy, light... but it is still a chair, a thing in itself. It doesn’t require any of its conditions in order to be a chair.

One can get away with “a chair is a chair”.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A more central question: can different manifestations of the same thing be different things in themselves?

The central theme of Kant is there is no thing-in-itself thus no things-in-themselves.
Things are by default things-with-conditions [humans and others].

One cannot just get away with "steam is steam" without the imperative conditions and relations, i.e. steam is represented by H20 molecules at certain temperature in certain conditions as intertwined with the human conditions.

Note my thread on "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics"

Due respect, Kant is entitled to an opinion.

As for me, reality is what I perceive via my senses.

A chair is a thing in itself. I can see a chair. I can touch a chair. I can sit in a chair. I can pick up a chair. I can even lick a chair to find out what it tastes like. I suppose I can place my nose on a chair and sniff it, too.

As for conditions, a chair can be occupied, available, broken, leaning, on fire, dusty, dirty, wet, dry, heavy, light... but it is still a chair, a thing in itself. It doesn’t require any of its conditions in order to be a chair.

One can get away with “a chair is a chair”.

One point with Kant is, he always support his conclusion with very sound arguments.
You have to read Kant and you will understand [not necessary agree] to the rigor and soundness of his argument.
(note Russell's point below]

What is a chair or 'chairness' is only conditioned by the human conceptual system.
Non-humans will not recognize what-is-chair' to humans, as a chair.
To what-is-chair to humans, a blind bat will merely sense a bundle of sonar dots and never a chair like humans do.

If one were to reflect deeply and philosophically on things like a chair or a table, there is no chair-in-itself.

Here is what Russell arrived at when he dug deeply into what-is-a-table;

In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong.

To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound. Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with this description, so that it might seem as if no difficulty would arise; but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

What Russell meant in the above is;
he knows there is an empirical table in front of him,
however to be very realistic philosophically, there may not be a table-in-itself other than an empirical table.

Kant argued and demonstrated why and how there cannot be an absolutely thing-in-itself, i.e. chair-in-itself or table-in-itself.

What is a thing ultimately and philosophically* must always and imperatively intertwined with human conditions collectively.
* i.e. not casually nor conventionally.

If one were to do Philosophy, one need to avoid being what Russell called 'Practical Man'

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.

The [practical] man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.