No Thing in Itself

[Eodnhoj7]

1. There is no thing in itself.

2. This is a principle thus a thing.

3. A contradiction occurs thus necessitating "no thing in itself" as non existent as it is empty.

4. "There is no thing in itself" however exists as a principle thus no thing in itself simultaneously exists.

5. There is both "no thing in itself" and "a thing in itself".

6. Reality is thus empty forms conducive to a loop within a loop where the loop is empty and thus contains further loops or empty forms within empty forms.

6. The form within the form necessitates empty forms as a perpetual middle thus an underlying substance occurs, reality thus has an essense as a thing in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This was what I posted earlier which is relevant to the OP;

Unless you can show otherwise, the "thing-in-itself" [Ding an sich] is a term introduced by Kant and thus should be confined and interpreted as what Kant intended it to be;

.........................
I believe based on what you [Scott Mayer] quoted from the Wiki article, you believe the thing-in-itself exists as something unknown. That is the wrong interpretation of Kant's intended meaning of the thing-in-itself.

The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

*To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
[..Bxxvi]

* know - the above is a note from Kant, not mine.
Thus to Kant the noumenon aka thing-in-itself can only be used as a limit only [like a false ceiling], never as as a possible real object.

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.
B311

Therefore the Wiki article [by many as well] is wrong in interpreting the thing-in-itself exists as some thing with possibility of reality.
...................

There are no thing-in-itself which can be verified nor justified as real.
'Thing-in-itself' is not a principle in any way, it is just a thought that one can think-of that cannot be a possible positive thing of reality in any way.

Thing-in-itself is just a thought, e.g. one can think of a square-circle in one's mind, but the idea [thought] of a "square-circle" is an impossibility to be verified and justified to be real within reality.

To Kant, one of the ultimate and the utmost 'thing-in-itself' people do think of is God - a thing-in-itself than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.
Since a thing-in-itself is impossible to be real, the idea of a God is merely that of an illusion, but albeit of the greatest utility psychologically to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

[Eodnhoj7]

This was what I posted earlier which is relevant to the OP;

Unless you can show otherwise, the "thing-in-itself" [Ding an sich] is a term introduced by Kant and thus should be confined and interpreted as what Kant intended it to be;

.........................
I believe based on what you [Scott Mayer] quoted from the Wiki article, you believe the thing-in-itself exists as something unknown. That is the wrong interpretation of Kant's intended meaning of the thing-in-itself.

The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

*To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
[..Bxxvi]

* know - the above is a note from Kant, not mine.
Thus to Kant the noumenon aka thing-in-itself can only be used as a limit only [like a false ceiling], never as as a possible real object.

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.
B311

Therefore the Wiki article [by many as well] is wrong in interpreting the thing-in-itself exists as some thing with possibility of reality.
...................

There are no thing-in-itself which can be verified nor justified as real.
'Thing-in-itself' is not a principle in any way, it is just a thought that one can think-of that cannot be a possible positive thing of reality in any way.

Thing-in-itself is just a thought, e.g. one can think of a square-circle in one's mind, but the idea [thought] of a "square-circle" is an impossibility to be verified and justified to be real within reality.

To Kant, one of the ultimate and the utmost 'thing-in-itself' people do think of is God - a thing-in-itself than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.
Since a thing-in-itself is impossible to be real, the idea of a God is merely that of an illusion, but albeit of the greatest utility psychologically to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

No a thing in itself is that which is not dependent upon another phenomenon. It may exist through another phenomenon but is not limited by or to that phenemenon.

All of reality is reducible to thought given the empirical senses are interpretted mentally and reduced to thought through memory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This was what I posted earlier which is relevant to the OP;

Unless you can show otherwise, the "thing-in-itself" [Ding an sich] is a term introduced by Kant and thus should be confined and interpreted as what Kant intended it to be;

.........................
I believe based on what you [Scott Mayer] quoted from the Wiki article, you believe the thing-in-itself exists as something unknown. That is the wrong interpretation of Kant's intended meaning of the thing-in-itself.

The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

*To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
[..Bxxvi]

* know - the above is a note from Kant, not mine.
Thus to Kant the noumenon aka thing-in-itself can only be used as a limit only [like a false ceiling], never as as a possible real object.

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.
B311

Therefore the Wiki article [by many as well] is wrong in interpreting the thing-in-itself exists as some thing with possibility of reality.
...................

There are no thing-in-itself which can be verified nor justified as real.
'Thing-in-itself' is not a principle in any way, it is just a thought that one can think-of that cannot be a possible positive thing of reality in any way.

Thing-in-itself is just a thought, e.g. one can think of a square-circle in one's mind, but the idea [thought] of a "square-circle" is an impossibility to be verified and justified to be real within reality.

To Kant, one of the ultimate and the utmost 'thing-in-itself' people do think of is God - a thing-in-itself than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.
Since a thing-in-itself is impossible to be real, the idea of a God is merely that of an illusion, but albeit of the greatest utility psychologically to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

No a thing in itself is that which is not dependent upon another phenomenon. It may exist through another phenomenon but is not limited by or to that phenemenon.

As long as a thing is related to another phenomenon, it is not a thing-in-itself.
What is a thing-in-itself is a thing that is absolutely independent of any other things in whatever the sense.

All of reality is reducible to thought given the empirical senses are interpretted mentally and reduced to thought through memory.

1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

Thus,
Man is the measure of all-of-reality [things].

[Eodnhoj7]

This was what I posted earlier which is relevant to the OP;

Unless you can show otherwise, the "thing-in-itself" [Ding an sich] is a term introduced by Kant and thus should be confined and interpreted as what Kant intended it to be;

.........................
I believe based on what you [Scott Mayer] quoted from the Wiki article, you believe the thing-in-itself exists as something unknown. That is the wrong interpretation of Kant's intended meaning of the thing-in-itself.

The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].



* know - the above is a note from Kant, not mine.
Thus to Kant the noumenon aka thing-in-itself can only be used as a limit only [like a false ceiling], never as as a possible real object.



Therefore the Wiki article [by many as well] is wrong in interpreting the thing-in-itself exists as some thing with possibility of reality.
...................

There are no thing-in-itself which can be verified nor justified as real.
'Thing-in-itself' is not a principle in any way, it is just a thought that one can think-of that cannot be a possible positive thing of reality in any way.

Thing-in-itself is just a thought, e.g. one can think of a square-circle in one's mind, but the idea [thought] of a "square-circle" is an impossibility to be verified and justified to be real within reality.

To Kant, one of the ultimate and the utmost 'thing-in-itself' people do think of is God - a thing-in-itself than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.
Since a thing-in-itself is impossible to be real, the idea of a God is merely that of an illusion, but albeit of the greatest utility psychologically to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

No a thing in itself is that which is not dependent upon another phenomenon. It may exist through another phenomenon but is not limited by or to that phenemenon.

As long as a thing is related to another phenomenon, it is not a thing-in-itself.
What is a thing-in-itself is a thing that is absolutely independent of any other things in whatever the sense.

False it may relate to a phenomenon yet its existence is not dependent upon further phenomena. An example of this would be a simple point. The point exists through itself as itself by self referencing itself through further phenomenon but it is not limited to these further phenomena given it self references itself through itself as it self. The point may self reference itself through the multiple points which compose the horse but it is not limited to the horse and may well exist without the horse.

All of reality is reducible to thought given the empirical senses are interpretted mentally and reduced to thought through memory.

1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

Thus,
Man is the measure of all-of-reality [things].

/color]


1. All of reality is reducible to thought.
2. Thought thus acts as a thing in itself, but there is no thing in itself.
3. Reality is reducible to thought but is simultaneously reducible to something beyond thought. The fact that reality is reducible to thought does not limit it to thought.

Dually

1. Man is the measure of all things.
2. There is no thing in itself.
3. Thus man is the measure of nothing.

[seeds]

...The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

Based on prior interactions with you on this very subject, I realize that what I am about to do is an exercise in futility, nevertheless, here goes...

You put a period (.) at the end of that Kant quote when you should have used a semi-colon (;) which, in the context of the full quote, is followed by an extremely crucial aspect of what Kant was actually saying.

The full quote is as follows (emphasis mine):

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

You are demonstrating the devious method that one employs when - by omission of some essential and clarifying feature of a quote - one tries to make the quote appear to support one’s own flawed position when, in fact, it does not.

I don’t know how many different ways I need to point this out to you, but according to Wiki (again, emphasis mine):

“...Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing...”

...And...

Kant introduces the thing-in-itself as follows:

“And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.”

— Prolegomena, § 32

And the point is that not only does Kant insist that it is “absurd to conclude” that there could be appearances without anything that appears...

(i.e., objects that appear before our senses without the existence of some sort of underlying “something” that the “appearance” of an object is based upon)

...but also that the “unknown something” (the “thing-in-itself”) is what’s affecting our senses in such a way as to produce the “appearance” of an object.

So, clearly, Kant does not consider the ‘thing-in-itself” as being non-existent – (just unknowable from our present perspective).

Again,...

(and based on the following [slightly paraphrased] proverb: “there are none more blind than those who refuse to see”)

...I realize that this is an exercise in futility.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

Thus,
Man is the measure of all-of-reality [things].

1. All of reality is reducible to thought.
2. Thought thus acts as a thing in itself, but there is no thing in itself.
3. Reality is reducible to thought but is simultaneously reducible to something beyond thought. The fact that reality is reducible to thought does not limit it to thought.

Dually

1. Man is the measure of all things.
2. There is no thing in itself.
3. Thus man is the measure of nothing.

I maintain [A];

• 1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
  2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
  3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

1. All of reality is reducible to thought.
2. Thought thus acts as a thing in itself, but there is no thing in itself.
3. Reality is reducible to thought but is simultaneously reducible to something beyond thought. The fact that reality is reducible to thought does not limit it to thought.

Note;
Where all of reality is reducible to thought,
then, that is only a thought-of-reality,
a though-of-reality is not the real reality.
What is really real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

You got your 3 wrong.
When reality is reducible to a thought-of-reality, that thought-of-reality is reducible to man [see A above] and not to anything beyond-thought or la la land.
A thought-of-reality is limited to a thought-within-man and nothing more.

What is really real or whatever you want to claim as real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
You want to claim some thing as real, but you are running away from considering it within the empirical and the philosophical.

What you are really entangled with is merely your psychology within to jump to the conclusion there is some thing real beyond thought.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

Based on prior interactions with you on this very subject, I realize that what I am about to do is an exercise in futility, nevertheless, here goes...

You put a period (.) at the end of that Kant quote when you should have used a semi-colon (;) which, in the context of the full quote, is followed by an extremely crucial aspect of what Kant was actually saying.

The full quote is as follows (emphasis mine):

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

You are demonstrating the devious method that one employs when - by omission of some essential and clarifying feature of a quote - one tries to make the quote appear to support one’s own flawed position when, in fact, it does not.

I don’t know how many different ways I need to point this out to you, but according to Wiki (again, emphasis mine):

“...Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing...”

...And...

Kant introduces the thing-in-itself as follows:

“And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.”

— Prolegomena, § 32

And the point is that not only does Kant insist that it is “absurd to conclude” that there could be appearances without anything that appears...

(i.e., objects that appear before our senses without the existence of some sort of underlying “something” that the “appearance” of an object is based upon)

...but also that the “unknown something” (the “thing-in-itself”) is what’s affecting our senses in such a way as to produce the “appearance” of an object.

So, clearly, Kant does not consider the ‘thing-in-itself” as being non-existent – (just unknowable from our present perspective).

Again,...

(and based on the following [slightly paraphrased] proverb: “there are none more blind than those who refuse to see”)

...I realize that this is an exercise in futility.
_______

Yes it is an exercise in futility because you are not making reference to Kant from the WHOLE context of Kant's CPR and his other works.

My emphasis in that quote was on the term 'think' [earlier highlighted in red], i.e. the idea of 'things-in-themselves' is confined merely to thinking and thoughts not as real things.

That I put a period was a convenience and oversight but not intended to deceive since I listed the reference and anyone can check.
What that follows;

• "otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears." [.B xxvi]

is not relevant in my case, since Kant already stated the things-in-themselves cannot be known in that para, but can only be at least thought-of.
So he agreed whatever that are Appearances has corresponding referents i.e. 'things-that-appear' to satisfy the conventional standard, as things-in-themselves. I repeat he emphasized the things-in-themselves cannot be known and has no objective reality.

The above is in the Preface, in the CPR proper, Appearances are treated as phenomenon and the corresponding appearance-in-itself is labelled the noumenon aka thing-in-itself.
But note Kant warned;

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.
B311

"Positive" means taking it as an objective reality i.e. something real.
The noumenon aka thing-in-itself is merely a limiting concept of negative employment, it is like a 'false-ceiling' to ensure the discussion do not get too carried away from the world of sensibility.

Kant deliberated on the noumenon as thing-in-itself in the later part of the CPR [focus on the Understanding-intellect] and demonstrate what is the thing-in-itself is merely an illusion, the father-of-All the thing-in-itself is GOD.
This is where the understanding [intellect] goes crazy and come up with thoughts [things-in-themselves] that are ungrounded in anything sensible when driven by desperate psychology.

Here is where Kant critiqued Plato for inventing illusory forms and universals without solid empirical and philosophical groundings.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding [intellect], and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
[A5] [B9]

If you read or quote from somewhere 'things-in-themselves' are "known to exist" or exists, but done without reference to its surrounding context or the whole of the CPR, then you are wrong in your interpretation. There are loads of nuances to deal with when reading Kant.

If you come across or believe Kant stated the thing-in-itself is a real something, give me the precise reference to Kant's work and I will show you otherwise.
Preferably you should read the surrounding context and Kant's work before you blindly accept what is written by third parties.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

Thus,
Man is the measure of all-of-reality [things].


I maintain [A];

• 1. All-of-reality is reducible to thought.
  2. All thoughts are reducible to man [human].
  3. All-of-reality is reducible to man.

1. All of reality is reducible to thought.
2. Thought thus acts as a thing in itself, but there is no thing in itself.
3. Reality is reducible to thought but is simultaneously reducible to something beyond thought. The fact that reality is reducible to thought does not limit it to thought.

Note;
Where all of reality is reducible to thought,
then, that is only a thought-of-reality,
a though-of-reality is not the real reality.
What is really real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Verify the number itself which is used to verify all scientific explanations.
You cannot do it empirically without resorting to some other abstraction which is no scientifically unverifiable. In verification you are using unverified elements to produce a result, thus you contradict yourself,

You got your 3 wrong.
When reality is reducible to a thought-of-reality, that thought-of-reality is reducible to man [see A above] and not to anything beyond-thought or la la land.
A thought-of-reality is limited to a thought-within-man and nothing more.

False, thought is the act of mirroring some phenomenon and inverting it into another phenomenon. All physical reality does this thus shares some degree of consciousness.

What is really real or whatever you want to claim as real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
You want to claim some thing as real, but you are running away from considering it within the empirical and the philosophical.

You cannot prove empiricism exists without using circular reasoning.

What you are really entangled with is merely your psychology within to jump to the conclusion there is some thing real beyond thought.

Psychology is grounded in what composes it materially, according to your stance. As such the illusion is a by product of matter and is empirical. If it is empirical, then according to empiricism it is true,

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is really real or whatever you want to claim as real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
You want to claim some thing as real, but you are running away from considering it within the empirical and the philosophical.

You cannot prove empiricism exists without using circular reasoning.

Btw, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is really real or whatever you want to claim as real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
You want to claim some thing as real, but you are running away from considering it within the empirical and the philosophical.

You cannot prove empiricism exists without using circular reasoning.

Btw, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

Yet you are relying on empiricism as an absolute, a thing in itself coupled with reason.

The point is beyond man, I observed this prior. It is beyond man as it is the absolute limit of man's observation. Observation cannot go beyond a point without reverting to further points. The point as composed of other points, through continual observation, limits man to seeing not only the point as the limits of observation but never fully observed in its totality. The one point is observed through grades as man points yet we know the single point is absolute given reality is broken down to points.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot prove empiricism exists without using circular reasoning.

Btw, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

Yet you are relying on empiricism as an absolute, a thing in itself coupled with reason.

Nope.
As with science, an empirical object is verified and justified empirically and philosophically conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.
Whatever is conditioned cannot be an absolute-absolute or thing-in-itself.

The point is beyond man, I observed this prior. It is beyond man as it is the absolute limit of man's observation. Observation cannot go beyond a point without reverting to further points. The point as composed of other points, through continual observation, limits man to seeing not only the point as the limits of observation but never fully observed in its totality. The one point is observed through grades as man points yet we know the single point is absolute given reality is broken down to points.

There is a physical limit that you can observe any point empirically.
To go further you can speculate but it has to be empirically possible.

However, when you speculate on a point-in-itself i.e. totally unconditional of anything including the empirical, you are claiming for something that is empirically impossible.

What is empirically impossible cannot be verified and justified to be real empirically and philosophically.

The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.
You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
Can you counter this point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Btw, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

Yet you are relying on empiricism as an absolute, a thing in itself coupled with reason.

Nope.
As with science, an empirical object is verified and justified empirically and philosophically conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.
Whatever is conditioned cannot be an absolute-absolute or thing-in-itself.

Thus scientific truth is non absolute, as it is conditioned upon matter, therefore there is no absolute proof for anything. Empiricism requires matter but matter is untestable except through the application of further matter and a loop occurs. One is testing using the very same phenomenon to test what they are testing.

The point is beyond man, I observed this prior. It is beyond man as it is the absolute limit of man's observation. Observation cannot go beyond a point without reverting to further points. The point as composed of other points, through continual observation, limits man to seeing not only the point as the limits of observation but never fully observed in its totality. The one point is observed through grades as man points yet we know the single point is absolute given reality is broken down to points.

There is a physical limit that you can observe any point empirically.
To go further you can speculate but it has to be empirically possible.

False, the divergence of one point to another is constantly empirical. Dually the nature of physical limits observes that there is a limit to what can be observed empirically thus necessitating knowledge as being beyond which is empirical.

However, when you speculate on a point-in-itself i.e. totally unconditional of anything including the empirical, you are claiming for something that is empirically impossible.

The totality of matter is incomprehensible thus necessitating empiricism being grounded in assuming matter as the appropriate standard. Matter cannot be proven except through further matter thus a logical loop occurs.

What is empirically impossible cannot be verified and justified to be real empirically and philosophically.

It is empirically impossible to observe the totality of matter, yet matter is used as a standard.

The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.

You have no proof that it is an internal existential psychology. Dually to prove it is psychological is a contradiction considering psychology is unprovable without going through a self referential loop as to what proof is thus relegating proof to a psychology of proof. If matter is responsible for psychology then matter is responsible for the so called existential crisis you claim, thus matter is contradicting itself.

You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
Can you counter this point?

To argue it is reduced to psychological impulses is to argue empiricism is a psychological impulse as well considering proof is subject to interpretation and God is an interpretation. Research is a facet of psychology as research is an interpretation, you are using psychology to argue psychology yet fail to provide any empirical proof as to what constitutes proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yet you are relying on empiricism as an absolute, a thing in itself coupled with reason.

Nope.
As with science, an empirical object is verified and justified empirically and philosophically conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.
Whatever is conditioned cannot be an absolute-absolute or thing-in-itself.

Thus scientific truth is non absolute, as it is conditioned upon matter, therefore there is no absolute proof for anything. Empiricism requires matter but matter is untestable except through the application of further matter and a loop occurs. One is testing using the very same phenomenon to test what they are testing.

The point is beyond man, I observed this prior. It is beyond man as it is the absolute limit of man's observation. Observation cannot go beyond a point without reverting to further points. The point as composed of other points, through continual observation, limits man to seeing not only the point as the limits of observation but never fully observed in its totality. The one point is observed through grades as man points yet we know the single point is absolute given reality is broken down to points.

There is a physical limit that you can observe any point empirically.
To go further you can speculate but it has to be empirically possible.

False, the divergence of one point to another is constantly empirical. Dually the nature of physical limits observes that there is a limit to what can be observed empirically thus necessitating knowledge as being beyond which is empirical.

However, when you speculate on a point-in-itself i.e. totally unconditional of anything including the empirical, you are claiming for something that is empirically impossible.

The totality of matter is incomprehensible thus necessitating empiricism being grounded in assuming matter as the appropriate standard. Matter cannot be proven except through further matter thus a logical loop occurs.

What is empirically impossible cannot be verified and justified to be real empirically and philosophically.

It is empirically impossible to observe the totality of matter, yet matter is used as a standard.

The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.

You have no proof that it is an internal existential psychology. Dually to prove it is psychological is a contradiction considering psychology is unprovable without going through a self referential loop as to what proof is thus relegating proof to a psychology of proof. If matter is responsible for psychology then matter is responsible for the so called existential crisis you claim, thus matter is contradicting itself.

You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
Can you counter this point?

To argue it is reduced to psychological impulses is to argue empiricism is a psychological impulse as well considering proof is subject to interpretation and God is an interpretation. Research is a facet of psychology as research is an interpretation, you are using psychology to argue psychology yet fail to provide any empirical proof as to what constitutes proof.

Yes it is impossible to have empirical evidence of the totality of matter.
Not sure what you meant, but I know 'matter' is not used as a standard to establish scientific truths.
Scientific truths are based on empirical evidences.
Yes, empiricism and the scientific methods has their limitations and are not absolutely-absolute.

But are you that ignorant, despite the limitations of empiricism and the scientific method, scientific theories [taking into its limitations] has benefited* humanity greatly leverage on the assurance of repeatability, thus consistency. (* while being mindful of its potential negatives].

Thus what is critical with scientific truths grounded on empirical evidences is the credible intensive verification and justifications processes and its assurance of repeatability and consistency.

What you are claiming, i.e. that-is-beyond-man, totality-in-itself, God-in-itself are merely noises without any solid grounding.
You are running away from proofs, at least the minimal requirements that it reality is a possibility.

You are trying to be evasive in being critical of empiricism and the scientific method which is of no relevance, because all these limitations are already factored into its truths.

The psychological factors can be verified and justified to real mental experiences and physical neural activities in the human brain that are universal to all human beings as human nature.
You can test it yourself, try giving up your current belief i.e. "that is beyond man is real" for a moment and you will feel uneasy.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope.
As with science, an empirical object is verified and justified empirically and philosophically conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.
Whatever is conditioned cannot be an absolute-absolute or thing-in-itself.

Thus scientific truth is non absolute, as it is conditioned upon matter, therefore there is no absolute proof for anything. Empiricism requires matter but matter is untestable except through the application of further matter and a loop occurs. One is testing using the very same phenomenon to test what they are testing.




There is a physical limit that you can observe any point empirically.
To go further you can speculate but it has to be empirically possible.

False, the divergence of one point to another is constantly empirical. Dually the nature of physical limits observes that there is a limit to what can be observed empirically thus necessitating knowledge as being beyond which is empirical.

However, when you speculate on a point-in-itself i.e. totally unconditional of anything including the empirical, you are claiming for something that is empirically impossible.

The totality of matter is incomprehensible thus necessitating empiricism being grounded in assuming matter as the appropriate standard. Matter cannot be proven except through further matter thus a logical loop occurs.

What is empirically impossible cannot be verified and justified to be real empirically and philosophically.

It is empirically impossible to observe the totality of matter, yet matter is used as a standard.

The fact why you are so desperate in reifying what-is-empirically-impossible [merely a thought] as an empirical possibility [a real object] is due to some internal existential psychology.

You have no proof that it is an internal existential psychology. Dually to prove it is psychological is a contradiction considering psychology is unprovable without going through a self referential loop as to what proof is thus relegating proof to a psychology of proof. If matter is responsible for psychology then matter is responsible for the so called existential crisis you claim, thus matter is contradicting itself.

You should research this primal psychological impulse within yourself instead of arguing for it and making so much irrational noises about it.
Can you counter this point?

To argue it is reduced to psychological impulses is to argue empiricism is a psychological impulse as well considering proof is subject to interpretation and God is an interpretation. Research is a facet of psychology as research is an interpretation, you are using psychology to argue psychology yet fail to provide any empirical proof as to what constitutes proof.

Yes it is impossible to have empirical evidence of the totality of matter.
Not sure what you meant, but I know 'matter' is not used as a standard to establish scientific truths.
Scientific truths are based on empirical evidences.
Yes, empiricism and the scientific methods has their limitations and are not absolutely-absolute.

But are you that ignorant, despite the limitations of empiricism and the scientific method, scientific theories [taking into its limitations] has benefited* humanity greatly leverage on the assurance of repeatability, thus consistency. (* while being mindful of its potential negatives].

Thus what is critical with scientific truths grounded on empirical evidences is the credible intensive verification and justifications processes and its assurance of repeatability and consistency.

What you are claiming, i.e. that-is-beyond-man, totality-in-itself, God-in-itself are merely noises without any solid grounding.
You are running away from proofs, at least the minimal requirements that it reality is a possibility.

You are trying to be evasive in being critical of empiricism and the scientific method which is of no relevance, because all these limitations are already factored into its truths.

The psychological factors can be verified and justified to real mental experiences and physical neural activities in the human brain that are universal to all human beings as human nature.
You can test it yourself, try giving up your current belief i.e. "that is beyond man is real" for a moment and you will feel uneasy.

Empiricism observes what is physically sensible. The only physical phenomenon which can be sensed is matter. The totality of matter cannot be sensed thus leaving the groundings of empiricism as root in what is incomprehensible.