Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I hold that "subsuming the scientific-FSK in the negative noumenon" is automatically a kind of solipsism where we usually act as if we weren't solipsists.

The idea of a positive noumenon is Metaphysics.
Metaphysics is generally condemned by critical-thinking and rational philosophers.

• Rejections of metaphysics
  Meta-metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[49] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a meta-metaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][50] or ontological deflationism.[51]
  
  In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
  In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless.
  
  In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[56] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics

Kant did have a soft-spot for Metaphysics in a specific perspective, i.e. only when the noumenon is taken in the Negative Sense.

[Atla]

And I hold that "subsuming the scientific-FSK in the negative noumenon" is automatically a kind of solipsism where we usually act as if we weren't solipsists.

The idea of a positive noumenon is Metaphysics.
Metaphysics is generally condemned by critical-thinking and rational philosophers.

• Rejections of metaphysics
  Meta-metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[49] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a meta-metaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][50] or ontological deflationism.[51]
  
  In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
  In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless.
  
  In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[56] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics

Kant did have a soft-spot for Metaphysics in a specific perspective, i.e. only when the noumenon is taken in the Negative Sense.

Whatever, we were using negative and positive noumena differently (which once again you should have noticed if you weren't so profoundly incompetent/such a pathological liar). But you reject all noumena anyway so you're a solipsist, so it doesn't matter.

You wrote elsewhere you addressed all inconsistencies. All these years we did nothing but point out the mountain-sized errors you make, and you fixed little if any of that. Your epistemology is complete nonsense and it was thoroughly refuted here.

You are a sad, delusional, obsessive, schizoid, megalomaniac shit-for-brains. We've merely been making fun of you but it's getting tiresome anymore at least for me, I don't even find this funny anymore. There's no comedy anymore it's just sad. You're another living proof for how retarded humanity is.

Good luck with becoming a world-changing philosopher. You're even far too stupid to see that your philosophical crap will get rejected everywhere.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have never rejected all noumena.
I accepts the noumenon in the negative sense where necessary and rejects the noumena in the positive sense totally.

As I had declared I am ever ready to defend whatever criticisms and refutations against my views [except those within the ignore list] on an amiable platform.

[Atla]

I have never rejected all noumena.
I accepts the noumenon in the negative sense where necessary and rejects the noumena in the positive sense totally.

As I had declared I am ever ready to defend whatever criticisms and refutations against my views [except those within the ignore list] on an amiable platform.

You know what, word salad, how is anyone supposed to know what you actually mean by that, especially after you did say there are no noumena. Speak in 21st century English. Btw you aren't amiable so others don't have to be either.

[Iwannaplato]

Good luck with becoming a world-changing philosopher. You're even far too stupid to see that your philosophical crap will get rejected everywhere.

And should someone gets a little interested, imagine the author/editor relationship.

[Iwannaplato]

double