Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Patronising twat. I wonder why you think I haven't spent half a lifetime reading and understanding Kant's drivel.

I wonder why you swallow whole Kant's spurious distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition. I wonder why you think that 'the nature that objects have in themselves' is any different from their sensible nature.

I wonder why you cling to this claptrap despite centuries of refutation and demolition.

Just quoting rubbish does nothing to improve it.

Regardless of the time you spent [if you ever did anything serious on it] on reading Kant, I am confident you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophies.

Explain to me why there cannot be a distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition?
Hey! when you are differentiating matter-of-fact from opinions, beliefs and judgment you are relying on the distinction between sensible [empirical] object and intelligible objects. It is just that you are using this distinction is a crude manner without precision.

Pick one of the quotes above and explain why they don't prove anything in relation to the issue on hand.

So far you are merely blabbering and making noises without providing any substantial to argue for.

All philosophical thesis will have the pro-followers and anti-followers, show me any exceptions?
Kant's philosophy had stood the test of time and is as ever popular at present since they were first introduced.
Btw, Kant is recognized as one of the 5 greatest philosopher of all times and the top in many polls.

That you are gripped with subliminal fears for the evolutionary default of external-ness towards the ideological philosophical realism of mind-independence is the reason you cannot grasp [not necessary agree with] the meanings of Kant's philosophy.

[Atla]

Patronising twat. I wonder why you think I haven't spent half a lifetime reading and understanding Kant's drivel.

I wonder why you swallow whole Kant's spurious distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition. I wonder why you think that 'the nature that objects have in themselves' is any different from their sensible nature.

I wonder why you cling to this claptrap despite centuries of refutation and demolition.

Just quoting rubbish does nothing to improve it.

Regardless of the time you spent [if you ever did anything serious on it] on reading Kant, I am confident you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophies.

Explain to me why there cannot be a distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition?
Hey! when you are differentiating matter-of-fact from opinions, beliefs and judgment you are relying on the distinction between sensible [empirical] object and intelligible objects. It is just that you are using this distinction is a crude manner without precision.

Pick one of the quotes above and explain why they don't prove anything in relation to the issue on hand.

So far you are merely blabbering and making noises without providing any substantial to argue for.

All philosophical thesis will have the pro-followers and anti-followers, show me any exceptions?
Kant's philosophy had stood the test of time and is as ever popular at present since they were first introduced.
Btw, Kant is recognized as one of the 5 greatest philosopher of all times and the top in many polls.

That you are gripped with subliminal fears for the evolutionary default of external-ness towards the ideological philosophical realism of mind-independence is the reason you cannot grasp [not necessary agree with] the meanings of Kant's philosophy.

Whatever Kant said, I think we can fairly confidently say that he never denied that the external world could exist as real. He said it would be inherently unknowable to us. You seem to have misunderstood Kant all along.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant wrote;

• ... it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General
  that the Existence of Things outside us [claimed by P-realist] (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
  and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we [refer to philosophical realists] are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
  Kant- CPR -Preface B

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?p=646632&hilit=scandal#p646632

Kant did refer to the 'primal' default of independent external world as 'unknown' in various senses, but ultimately for Kant, any dogmatic ideological insistence that an independent external world exists [reified] as really real is delusional.

Kant had introduced his 'Copernican Revolution' a TOP-DOWN human-related approach to what is reality which is the 'most' realistic which humans can relied upon for the progress of humanity in the future.

[Atla]

Kant wrote;

• ... it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General
  that the Existence of Things outside us [claimed by P-realist] (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
  and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we [refer to philosophical realists] are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
  Kant- CPR -Preface B

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?p=646632&hilit=scandal#p646632

Kant did refer to the independent external world as 'unknown' in various senses, but ultimately for Kant, any dogmatic insistence that an independent external world exists [reified] as really real is delusional.

Kant had introduced his 'Copernican Revolution' a TOP-DOWN human-related approach to what is reality which is the 'most' realistic which humans can relied upon for the progress of humanity in the future.

Yes, insisting that an independent (or NOT independent) external world exists [reified] as really real, is ultimately a delusional philosophy. Because we can't reify it, what we are reifying, is just thoughts in the head, the actual external world is inherently unknowable.

But that does NOT mean that the external world can't exist.

The scandal will never go away, the external world will always be inherently unknowable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone can make all sorts of claims based on faith.
When challenged to produce proofs that such things exist as real, the simple excuse is 'it is inherently unknowable'.
This should win the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Will PH & Gang accept objective moral facts exist without proof, the only claim is they are inherently unknowable, therefore they exist as real nevertheless?

[Atla]

Anyone can make all sorts of claims based on faith.
When challenged to produce proofs that such things exist as real, the simple excuse is 'it is inherently unknowable'.
This should win the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Certainty is the ultimate illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To claim "the external world will always be inherently unknowable" is based on a certainty independent of human body, brain and mind.
This claim by human philosophical realists of certainty is delusional.
This is an axymoron because mind-related humans cannot claim the certainty of mind-unrelatedness or mind-independence.

[Skepdick]

Certainty is the ultimate illusion.

I am absolutely certain that I am uncertain.

And just like that! Synthesis.

[Peter Holmes]

Patronising twat. I wonder why you think I haven't spent half a lifetime reading and understanding Kant's drivel.

I wonder why you swallow whole Kant's spurious distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition. I wonder why you think that 'the nature that objects have in themselves' is any different from their sensible nature.

I wonder why you cling to this claptrap despite centuries of refutation and demolition.

Just quoting rubbish does nothing to improve it.

Regardless of the time you spent [if you ever did anything serious on it] on reading Kant, I am confident you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophies.

Explain to me why there cannot be a distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition?
Hey! when you are differentiating matter-of-fact from opinions, beliefs and judgment you are relying on the distinction between sensible [empirical] object and intelligible objects. It is just that you are using this distinction is a crude manner without precision.

Wtf is an intelligible entity? And wtf is intellectual intuition? You quote Kant using these expressions as though their meanings or referents are commonplace and widely understood. But they aren't.

And the distinction between matters of fact and matters of belief, judgement or opinion has nothing to do with some hopelessly antiquated distinction between sensible and intelligible entities.

Like Plato and Descartes, Kant matters in the history of philosophy. But it's evidence and arguments that count; Kant's central arguments are unsound; and you don't understand them anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Patronising twat. I wonder why you think I haven't spent half a lifetime reading and understanding Kant's drivel.

I wonder why you swallow whole Kant's spurious distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition. I wonder why you think that 'the nature that objects have in themselves' is any different from their sensible nature.

I wonder why you cling to this claptrap despite centuries of refutation and demolition.

Just quoting rubbish does nothing to improve it.

Regardless of the time you spent [if you ever did anything serious on it] on reading Kant, I am confident you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophies.

Explain to me why there cannot be a distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition?
Hey! when you are differentiating matter-of-fact from opinions, beliefs and judgment you are relying on the distinction between sensible [empirical] object and intelligible objects. It is just that you are using this distinction is a crude manner without precision.

Wtf is an intelligible entity? And wtf is intellectual intuition? You quote Kant using these expressions as though their meanings or referents are commonplace and widely understood. But they aren't.

And the distinction between matters of fact and matters of belief, judgement or opinion has nothing to do with some hopelessly antiquated distinction between sensible and intelligible entities.

Like Plato and Descartes, Kant matters in the history of philosophy. But it's evidence and arguments that count; Kant's central arguments are unsound; and you don't understand them anyway.

It is obvious you do not understand Kant at all.

The distinction between intelligible objects vs sensible objects and their respective intuitions are explained in Kant's CPR extensively in the Transcendent Aesthetic and the Transcendental Logic.

You can get an idea of the distinction in the Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena I presented herein
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
CPR B294-315

You keep blabbering, introduce something substantial why you think Kant is wrong in relation to the above?

[Peter Holmes]

Regardless of the time you spent [if you ever did anything serious on it] on reading Kant, I am confident you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophies.

Explain to me why there cannot be a distinction between sensible and intelligible entities, between sensible and intellectual intuition?
Hey! when you are differentiating matter-of-fact from opinions, beliefs and judgment you are relying on the distinction between sensible [empirical] object and intelligible objects. It is just that you are using this distinction is a crude manner without precision.

Wtf is an intelligible entity? And wtf is intellectual intuition? You quote Kant using these expressions as though their meanings or referents are commonplace and widely understood. But they aren't.

And the distinction between matters of fact and matters of belief, judgement or opinion has nothing to do with some hopelessly antiquated distinction between sensible and intelligible entities.

Like Plato and Descartes, Kant matters in the history of philosophy. But it's evidence and arguments that count; Kant's central arguments are unsound; and you don't understand them anyway.

It is obvious you do not understand Kant at all.

The distinction between intelligible objects vs sensible objects and their respective intuitions are explained in Kant's CPR extensively in the Transcendent Aesthetic and the Transcendental Logic.

You can get an idea of the distinction in the Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena I presented herein
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
CPR B294-315

You keep blabbering, introduce something substantial why you think Kant is wrong in relation to the above?

To repeat, Kant's invention of the noumenon - a thing-in-itself - is a silly tease required to establish the silly claim that all we can have access to - and therefore all we can know - are phenomena, or things as they appear to our senses.

So Kant repackaged empiricist skepticism, in order to find a way around the supposed 'scandal' that we can't 'prove' the existence of the so-called external world. Hence his so-called Copernican revolution in epistemology.

Here are some questions. Try answering them without simply quoting Kant.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.

[Skepdick]

Here are some questions. Try answering them without simply quoting Kant.

Yeah sure.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?

Hypotheses non fingo.

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.

In what coordinate system would you like the answer?

[Iwannaplato]

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?

What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.

This is not me advocating for a particular -ism, but here's what these questions made me think of.

1) Not only would the external independent object disappear, but wouldn't the self disappear from the model also? There's no 'experiencer' because that smacks of person an sich. There would simply be this changing phenomenon. VAs antirealism seems a non-dualism. I think, but am not sure. (this is a bit like your question about 'of what are phenomena, phenomena?' They aren't of anything they are the extent of reality. Which is a kind of ontological phenomenalism and when I google those words, I get.....Kant).

2) Does this mean there is no unconscious mind? The unconscious mind (we can drop 'mind' out) would not exist. It would be a ding an sich in the self where there is no separate self, there is merely experiencing.

3) In a different way just as, I think, the removal of the object, removes the subject, since these are just hallucinated 'things' pulled out incorrectly from 'the phenomenon.' So, why would there be minds (or brains) perceiving. There would just be phenomena. IOW from VA's antirealism we consider the noumena unreal. They are posited stuff outside of experience causing experience. Minds are the same hallucination at the other end (or brains). There's no subject experiences the phenomenon. We only have the phenomenon. It's not occurring 'in' 'a mind' 'or brain'. The container idea and those two nouns are just hallucinated facets of 'the phenomenon.'

These three are more or less paraphrases.

And there would be, for example, no reason to divvy the world up in life vs. dead matter. All we have is the phenomenon. We can call that 'life' but there's nothing to contrast that with. There is just life. VA's antirealism must be a kind of panpsychism, a specific one where there are just phenomena.

And that get's interesting, I think, when we think of morality.

There aren't persons in anything the usual sense of that word. There is just this ongoing experiencing, 'the phenomenon'. I am not sure what effect that has on morality, but it seems like a game changer.

[Skepdick]

There would simply be this changing phenomenon.

Does this mean there is.... The ... would not exist.

And there would be...

There where? If we are talking about "there" then where is "here"?

You are still pre-supposing dualism; and te social connotation baked into the meaning of your questions still drags us right back onto the exact same silly Merry-go-round: getting ontology right.

[Atla]

To claim "the external world will always be inherently unknowable" is based on a certainty independent of human body, brain and mind.
This claim by human philosophical realists of certainty is delusional.
This is an axymoron because mind-related humans cannot claim the certainty of mind-unrelatedness or mind-independence.

Again, certainty is the ultimate illusion. So we can never be absolutely certain that the external world will always be inherently unknowable.

Kant seems to have been an intellectual coward however, who didn't accept the inherent uncertainty that is the basis of all advanced philosophy. He wanted to look good, so he "solved" the scandal of philosophy by pretending away the noumenon. He massively complicated things, even though his stance also requires some faith, just like any other stance.