Hume & Kant are Stupid Philosophers??

[Veritas Aequitas]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

I don't know everything that Atla has said about Hume & Kant, but so far it seems you blatently misrepresented his summation of their intellects.

It also comes off as 'How dare he disagree with/criticize great philosophers?'

[Skepdick]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

Epistemic solipsism is the correct epistemic position for a being which experiences time in the way humans do.

How else do I even begin to explain the fact that I posess memories going back 13.8 billion years? I am not even 50 years old.
How else do I even begin to explain that I can predict the future?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Solipsism is incoherent
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

To accuse Hume and Kant as adopting such an incoherent idea is ignorance. In addition, there the poster did not provide any solid justification for his claims.

Solipsism is generally a put down on anti-realists as stupid.
This is because philosophical realists [PRs] claim reality and things are absolute mind-independent.
When ANTI-philosophical_realists reject the PRs' claim, they are immediately judged to take an opposite stance which is directly interpreted as a mind-dependent stance.
As such PRs deduce ANTI-philosophical_realist are solipsistic, i.e. all in and dependent on the mind of the individual.

This is a very bad and unsound deduction because there are loads of nuances to the ANTI-philosophical_realists' philosophical views cannot be solipsistic, since it is an incoherent idea in the first place.

In another perspective, I have argued PRs who accused others of solipsism, its is the PRs who are solipsistic.
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

[Skepdick]

Solipsism is incoherent
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

To accuse Hume and Kant as adopting such an incoherent idea is ignorance. In addition, there the poster did not provide any solid justification for his claims.

Solipsism is generally a put down on anti-realists as stupid.
This is because philosophical realists [PRs] claim reality and things are absolute mind-independent.
When ANTI-philosophical_realists reject the PRs' claim, they are immediately judged to take an opposite stance which is directly interpreted as a mind-dependent stance.
As such PRs deduce ANTI-philosophical_realist are solipsistic, i.e. all in and dependent on the mind of the individual.

This is a very bad and unsound deduction because there are loads of nuances to the ANTI-philosophical_realists' philosophical views cannot be solipsistic, since it is an incoherent idea in the first place.

In another perspective, I have argued PRs who accused others of solipsism, its is the PRs who are solipsistic.
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

On second thought, fuck the label. It's been tarnished.

Presentism is a new, shiny thing that nobody has shat on yet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

Epistemic solipsism is the correct epistemic position for a being which experiences time in the way humans do.

How else do I even begin to explain the fact that I posess memories going back 13.8 billion years? I am not even 50 years old.
How else do I even begin to explain that I can predict the future?

To topic, Hume and Kant's philosophy do not fit with solipsism per se which is an incoherent idea.

[Harbal]

Notes:

Can I have a b flat, please?

[Atla]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

Hume and Kant aren't "stupid", for example Kant had almost twice your IQ.

I already explained the rest, especially the problem that in the 18th century, they had no good reason yet to switch to indirect perception which is not the common sense, intuitive default view. You didn't understand anything I and others wrote, maybe you should find another hobby.

Pretty sure if Kant were alive today, he would come up with a synthesis (of cognitive faculties and sensory input) that incorporates indirect perception.

I was merely curious that maybe I did miss something, but you never even understood the problem in question.

[Gary Childress]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

Hume and Kant aren't "stupid", for example Kant had almost twice your IQ.

I already explained the rest, especially the problem that in the 18th century, they had no good reason yet to switch to indirect perception which is not the common sense, intuitive default view. You didn't understand anything I and others wrote, maybe you should find another hobby.

Pretty sure if Kant were alive today, he would come up with a synthesis (of cognitive faculties and sensory input) that incorporates indirect perception.

I was merely curious that maybe I did miss something, but you never even understood the problem in question.

I think dispensing with East/West might be a good place to start for real philosophy to happen. I think real philosophy is concerned with human welfare NOT human warfare. ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH ARE "HUMAN".

[Veritas Aequitas]

That Hume & Kant are Stupid and ignorant Philosophers is reflected in the following posts.

Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book.

The above such a blatant claim based on ignorance of Western Philosophy.

Kant is claimed by many to be one of the greatest philosopher of all time and the most influential and Hume is in the top 10.

Rather it is the person who post the above is the ignorant one.

Views??

Hume and Kant aren't "stupid", for example Kant had almost twice your IQ.

I already explained the rest, especially the problem that in the 18th century, they had no good reason yet to switch to indirect perception which is not the common sense, intuitive default view. You didn't understand anything I and others wrote, maybe you should find another hobby.

Pretty sure if Kant were alive today, he would come up with a synthesis (of cognitive faculties and sensory input) that incorporates indirect perception.

I was merely curious that maybe I did miss something, but you never even understood the problem in question.

I critiqued what you wrote;

"Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book."

It is ignorance to attribute 'solipsism' [an incoherent idea] to Hume and Kant in any way.

As I had explained above, the attributing 'solipsism' to ANTI-PRs is a sort of derogatory and put-down on them as common done by philosophical realists.

Re: your harping of Indirect Perception,
where is your detailed argument?
I believe you are ignorant on this matter re Kant;

Here ChatGPT [with reservation] view;

Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" primarily focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, particularly his examination of the nature of human knowledge and the limits of human reason. While Kant does not use the term "indirect perception" in the same way it might be discussed in contemporary philosophy, his work does touch on related concepts and ideas.

Kant introduced the distinction between noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are the objects of our experience, the things we can directly perceive or know through our senses. Noumena, on the other hand, are things as they are in themselves, beyond the limits of human perception and cognition. Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of phenomena, and our knowledge of noumena is limited or even impossible to attain.

In this sense, Kant's philosophy can be seen as addressing the limitations of direct perception and the inherent mediation of our knowledge through the structure of our cognitive faculties. He argued that our perception is shaped by the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to human cognition. This means that what we perceive is not a direct representation of the noumenal world but rather a result of the synthesis of sensory data through our cognitive faculties.

So, while Kant may not have used the term "indirect perception" explicitly, his philosophy does deal with the idea that our perception and knowledge are mediated by our cognitive apparatus, and what we perceive is not a direct representation of reality but rather a product of the synthesis of sensory data and the a priori structures of human cognition. This distinction is central to his overall philosophy as presented in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

Kant is recognized as the 'grandfather of cognitive science' by some.

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has a serious claim to be the single most influential figure
  in the pre-20th century history of cognitive research. His influence continues to be so deep running that in many respects he is the intellectual grandfather of contemporary cognitive science.
  file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/adm,+4115-13463-1-CE.pdf

Suggest you open a thread to justify your point why Kant did not take 'indirect perception' into account plus Hume as well. Justify your claim with sufficient references. Don't be a coward.

[Iwannaplato]

As I had explained above, the attributing 'solipsism' to ANTI-PRs is a sort of derogatory and put-down on them as common done by philosophical realists.

Re: your harping of Indirect Perception,
where is your detailed argument?
I believe you are ignorant on this matter re Kant;

Here ChatGPT [with reservation] view;

Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" primarily focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, particularly his examination of the nature of human knowledge and the limits of human reason. While Kant does not use the term "indirect perception" in the same way it might be discussed in contemporary philosophy, his work does touch on related concepts and ideas.

Kant introduced the distinction between noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are the objects of our experience, the things we can directly perceive or know through our senses. Noumena, on the other hand, are things as they are in themselves, beyond the limits of human perception and cognition. Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of phenomena, and our knowledge of noumena is limited or even impossible to attain.

In this sense, Kant's philosophy can be seen as addressing the limitations of direct perception and the inherent mediation of our knowledge through the structure of our cognitive faculties. He argued that our perception is shaped by the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to human cognition. This means that what we perceive is not a direct representation of the noumenal world but rather a result of the synthesis of sensory data through our cognitive faculties.

So, while Kant may not have used the term "indirect perception" explicitly, his philosophy does deal with the idea that our perception and knowledge are mediated by our cognitive apparatus, and what we perceive is not a direct representation of reality but rather a product of the synthesis of sensory data and the a priori structures of human cognition. This distinction is central to his overall philosophy as presented in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

Kant is recognized as the 'grandfather of cognitive science' by some.

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has a serious claim to be the single most influential figure
  in the pre-20th century history of cognitive research. His influence continues to be so deep running that in many respects he is the intellectual grandfather of contemporary cognitive science.
  file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/adm,+4115-13463-1-CE.pdf

Suggest you open a thread to justify your point why Kant did not take 'indirect perception' into account plus Hume as well. Justify your claim with sufficient references. Don't be a coward.

And the toxic follow up to the lie of the op.
VA begins well...

I critiqued what you wrote;

"Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book."

It is ignorance to attribute 'solipsism' [an incoherent idea] to Hume and Kant in any way.

Though in fact he didn't just critique what Atla wrote: he made up something that Atla did not write, put this in the title of the thread, then attributed a false position to him in the body of the OP.

He then makes a counterassertion without an argument here and turns to Chatgpt, presumately because he cannot mount an argument himself. By the end he's giving Alta orders and telling him he's a coward if he doesn't do what VA demands.

He's also demanding that Atla start a new thread:IOW copy VA's thread proliferation for no reason.

He cannot manage to do the honorable thing and withdraw his false claim about Atla.

Oh, well.

I guess VS's moral FSK includes the goodness of lying about people.

[Atla]

I critiqued what you wrote;

"Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book."

It is ignorance to attribute 'solipsism' [an incoherent idea] to Hume and Kant in any way.

As I had explained above, the attributing 'solipsism' to ANTI-PRs is a sort of derogatory and put-down on them as common done by philosophical realists.

Re: your harping of Indirect Perception,
where is your detailed argument?
I believe you are ignorant on this matter re Kant;

Here ChatGPT [with reservation] view;

Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" primarily focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, particularly his examination of the nature of human knowledge and the limits of human reason. While Kant does not use the term "indirect perception" in the same way it might be discussed in contemporary philosophy, his work does touch on related concepts and ideas.

Kant introduced the distinction between noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are the objects of our experience, the things we can directly perceive or know through our senses. Noumena, on the other hand, are things as they are in themselves, beyond the limits of human perception and cognition. Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of phenomena, and our knowledge of noumena is limited or even impossible to attain.

In this sense, Kant's philosophy can be seen as addressing the limitations of direct perception and the inherent mediation of our knowledge through the structure of our cognitive faculties. He argued that our perception is shaped by the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to human cognition. This means that what we perceive is not a direct representation of the noumenal world but rather a result of the synthesis of sensory data through our cognitive faculties.

So, while Kant may not have used the term "indirect perception" explicitly, his philosophy does deal with the idea that our perception and knowledge are mediated by our cognitive apparatus, and what we perceive is not a direct representation of reality but rather a product of the synthesis of sensory data and the a priori structures of human cognition. This distinction is central to his overall philosophy as presented in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

Kant is recognized as the 'grandfather of cognitive science' by some.

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has a serious claim to be the single most influential figure
  in the pre-20th century history of cognitive research. His influence continues to be so deep running that in many respects he is the intellectual grandfather of contemporary cognitive science.
  file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/adm,+4115-13463-1-CE.pdf

Suggest you open a thread to justify your point why Kant did not take 'indirect perception' into account plus Hume as well. Justify your claim with sufficient references. Don't be a coward.

You tell me: don't be a "coward", make the argument.

That's exactly what I've been doing these past few weeks, over and over again. I've argued that indirect perception + 100% unknowable noumenon is automatically solipsistic.

You didn't understand the argument, you didn't understand indirect perception, you didn't even understand Kant's philosophy. You offered zero counter-argument to anything I wrote.

I consider the debate to be over, I won, you lost. You had your chance to show that Hume and Kant's philosophy aren't inadvertently solipsistic and not up to today's standards, I think I was very patient. (If we grant your claim that Kant held all noumenon to be 100% unknowable).

And if we even grant your wrong claim that the noumenon can't exist, then Kant was totally a solipsist, but that's not what he said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I critiqued what you wrote;

"Maybe Hume maneuvered himself into solipsism without ever really realizing it. Then Kant took over his approach, and even Kant only really realized that he maneuvered himself into solipsism, after he already published his book."

It is ignorance to attribute 'solipsism' [an incoherent idea] to Hume and Kant in any way.

As I had explained above, the attributing 'solipsism' to ANTI-PRs is a sort of derogatory and put-down on them as common done by philosophical realists.

Re: your harping of Indirect Perception,
where is your detailed argument?
I believe you are ignorant on this matter re Kant;

Here ChatGPT [with reservation] view;

Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" primarily focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, particularly his examination of the nature of human knowledge and the limits of human reason. While Kant does not use the term "indirect perception" in the same way it might be discussed in contemporary philosophy, his work does touch on related concepts and ideas.

Kant introduced the distinction between noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are the objects of our experience, the things we can directly perceive or know through our senses. Noumena, on the other hand, are things as they are in themselves, beyond the limits of human perception and cognition. Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of phenomena, and our knowledge of noumena is limited or even impossible to attain.

In this sense, Kant's philosophy can be seen as addressing the limitations of direct perception and the inherent mediation of our knowledge through the structure of our cognitive faculties. He argued that our perception is shaped by the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition, which are inherent to human cognition. This means that what we perceive is not a direct representation of the noumenal world but rather a result of the synthesis of sensory data through our cognitive faculties.

So, while Kant may not have used the term "indirect perception" explicitly, his philosophy does deal with the idea that our perception and knowledge are mediated by our cognitive apparatus, and what we perceive is not a direct representation of reality but rather a product of the synthesis of sensory data and the a priori structures of human cognition. This distinction is central to his overall philosophy as presented in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

Kant is recognized as the 'grandfather of cognitive science' by some.

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has a serious claim to be the single most influential figure
  in the pre-20th century history of cognitive research. His influence continues to be so deep running that in many respects he is the intellectual grandfather of contemporary cognitive science.
  file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/adm,+4115-13463-1-CE.pdf

Suggest you open a thread to justify your point why Kant did not take 'indirect perception' into account plus Hume as well. Justify your claim with sufficient references. Don't be a coward.

You tell me: don't be a "coward", make the argument.

That's exactly what I've been doing these past few weeks, over and over again. I've argued that indirect perception + 100% unknowable noumenon is automatically solipsistic.

You didn't understand the argument, you didn't understand indirect perception, you didn't even understand Kant's philosophy. You offered zero counter-argument to anything I wrote.

I consider the debate to be over, I won, you lost. You had your chance to show that Hume and Kant's philosophy aren't inadvertently solipsistic and not up to today's standards, I think I was very patient. (If we grant your claim that Kant held all noumenon to be 100% unknowable).

And if we even grant your wrong claim that the noumenon can't exist, then Kant was totally a solipsist, but that's not what he said.

Your claim re 'indirect perception' was all over the place.
If I cannot grasp your points, the failure is on your communication and the need to understand the position of your opponent.

Suggest you organize your thoughts and present a more systematic argument in a separate thread so that it can be discussed rationally. Don't be a coward, if it that easy for you, you should be able to raise a new thread on it.

[Atla]

Your claim re 'indirect perception' was all over the place.
If I cannot grasp your points, the failure is on your communication and the need to understand the position of your opponent.

Suggest you organize your thoughts and present a more systematic argument in a separate thread so that it can be discussed rationally. Don't be a coward, if it that easy for you, you should be able to raise a new thread on it.

It's not my "failure" that you are uneducated in science and psychology and have no idea about basic related philosophical issues.