PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH ignorantly deny what is thing to him is a thing-in-itself or noumenon.
Here is the argument what PH et. al. claim as thing [within reality] is what Kant attribute as a thing-in-itself.

P1 Things that exist independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'. [p-realists' claim]
P2 Things-in-themselves don't exist. [antirealists' claim]
C Therefore, nothing [as in P1] exists independent from humans.

P1 is what you have been claiming as real things.
If you think it is stupid, it it your own stupidity where you claim there are things-in-themselves.
There is no way you can deny that.

I don't claim there are things-in-themselves. I have no idea what they could be, and not do you, and nor did Kant. They're a fiction designed to justify a stupid argument.

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
a things [facts] are features of reality that are the case, states of affairs, just-is which are independent of human's opinion, judgment and beliefs, i.e. things exist independently regardless of whether there are humans or not.

You often claimed;
What is The-description is not THE-DESCRIBED.
THE-DESCRIBED is absolute independent of the-description of it.
THE-DESCRIBED in this case is a thing-in-itself, it exists by itself independent of how it is described linguistically by humans.

You also claimed;
An appearance is not that-which-appeared.
That-which-appeared is absolute independent of its appearances in the human mind.
That-which-appeared in this case, is the thing-in-itself, it exists by itself independent of its appearances within humans percepts.

Your above definitions of things in reality by your is what Kant recognized as things-in-themselves by realists.
Kant defined the same things-in-themselves in various perspectives for his purposes but the fundamental things-in-themselves is the same as you defined your things [facts].

And the only reason why you irrationally question the existence of the universe before humans evolved is that you feel the need to defend that stupid argument.

Nope.

As with Kant, the vision and mission for philosophy is;
1. What can we know" [epistemology]
1a. Who am I? [epistemology, metaphysics?]
2. What can we do? [morality]
3. What can we hope for? perpetual peace from 1 and 2.

To achieve the above [1-3] effectively, the most optimal is the anti-p-realism stance and rejecting the p-realists' human independent sense.

The p-realists' human independent sense leave humanity at the mercy of an independent reality [or an independent God], while the anti-p-realism accord humanity some degrees of control over the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

Note Chaos Theory and the current dangers of climate change as partake [ignorant and deliberate] by humans.

The above reason is why I argued;
in the ultimate perspective, the universe cannot exists without somehow related to the human conditions.

btw, I do not deny 'the universe exists independent of the human conditions' but that is the relative view which is subsumed within the ultimate perspective.


Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

OK, the term "recognize" used wrongly here.

What Kant did was, he labelled what [the thing] the p-realists claimed ideologically as absolutely independent of the human condition, the thing-in-itself.
He then proved the thing-in-itself when claimed as real is actually an illusion.

Further, this thing-in-itself [absolutely independent thing] is claimed by theists as an entity with agency, i.e. an independent God.

I have argued, what you claimed as an independent things is a thing-in-itself.
Do you have a counter for this.
PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Prove to me the thing you claim as existing absolutely independent of the human conditions is not what Kant termed as a thing-in-itself.
A thing-in-itself is literally the same as your definition, i.e. a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

1 Explain exactly what a thing-in-itself actually is.
2 Prove that things-in-themselves don't exist.

1 Explain exactly what a thing-in-itself actually is.
I have explained the thing-in-itself aka noumenon many times and have even raised specific threads on it, but you cannot grasp nor understand [not agree with] the concept.

Here again,
In the preface and elsewhere Kant has listed and explained there are loads of problem when philosophers of his past ASSUMED there is something that exists as real beyond the empirical.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.[1][2]
Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

See Criticism to the above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

The above is ideologized as philosophical realism or metaphysical realism:

Philosophical realism – ...– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The "thing" within philosophical realism is the literally the thing-in-itself which is the thing or object within Substance Theory.

In your case, while the terms may be different, the above thing-in-itself is the same as you what is object, thing or fact, i.e.
a fact is a feature of reality which is the case, a state of affairs, just-is that is absolutely independent of the human conditions' of opinions, beliefs, and judgment, i.e. it exists absolutely regardless of whether there are humans or not.
So your claim of what is fact or thing of reality is literally a thing-in-itself as coined by Kant.

2 Prove that things-in-themselves don't exist.
Protocol wise, the onus is on you to prove a positive claim that the thing-in-itself [fact, thing, object] exists as real.

In the CPR Kant wrote [mine]:

[1.] If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
[2.] but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility. [as Object of the Senses].
Bxvii

In the above [1] [when a thing is assumed to be a thing-in-itself] Kant stated we cannot know the object if it is constituted as a thing-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions [intuition].

Note "our faculty of intuition" [2]
What humans can know is only via its intuition[sensible] and realized via empirical evidence.
As such, what is known as real is contingent upon the human conditions.
What is real is with reference to human-based science as the most credible and objective.

The concept of 'know' is extended from emergence and realization of reality as implied in the whole context of the CPR.

Now it is your turn;
prove your thing-in-itself [what is fact] exists as real and is absolutely independent of the human conditions?
Btw, if you refer to science, it is human-based and science only generate polished conjectures [hypothesis] and do not confirm things exist as thing-in-itself beyond its scope.
In addition, at best science merely assumes thing-in-themselves exist as a guide but never taken as really real.

.................

In the CPR Kant wrote [mine]:

[1.] If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
[2.] but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility. [as Object of the Senses].
Bxvii

In the above [1] [when a thing is assumed to be a thing-in-itself] Kant stated we cannot know the object if it is constituted as a thing-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions [intuition].

With or without your square-bracket glosses, none of this is about reality - what actually is. It's all about what humans do or can know.

Notice this: '...I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori[.]' Kant is not saying there's no such thing as 'the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves]' - but only that we can't know what that is, a priori.

So - leaving aside the dodgy a priori/a posteriori distinction - this extract provides no evidence for your anti-realist reading of Kant.

I have quoted many times [raised a thread on it], in the CPR Kant claimed his philosophy is that of ANTIrealism i.e. Kant opposed and reject philosophical realism.

Kant: a Transcendental Idealist & Empirical Realist
viewtopic.php?t=42073
I have a list of all the threads I have raised here.

Kant never agreed that reality and things pre-existed humans [exist as things-in-themselves] awaiting to be discovered by humans as presumed by the philosophical realists [e.g. you].
Kant is basically a constructivist; as such, reality is on an emergence basis.
I also have raised threads on constructivism.

In the above [1] [when a thing is assumed to be a thing-in-itself] Kant stated we cannot know the object if it is constituted as a thing-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions [intuition].
In this case, there is nothing real to be known since there is no emergence of things to be realized and known.

Kant did mention the noumenon is unknowable as a convenience to avoid explaining all the related details [done somewhere in the CRP]; this does not imply there is something out there yet to be known.
What he meant is the thing-in-itself by definition is impossible to be known as real.

My point;
what you defined as fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs or just-is which is independent of the individuals' opinion, beliefs and judgments, i.e. exists regardless whether there are humans or not, is exactly what Kant defined as the noumenon aka thing-in-itself. This is basically the absolutely human[mind] independence of philosophy realism.

You et. al. and theists are both ideologically philosophical realists.
While you [atheist] limit your things-in-themselves to the human-independent 'physical' world, the theists stretch the idea [absolute mind-independent] of a human independent thing-in-itself, i.e. God.

It from here that Kant demonstrate it is impossible to prove God exists as real because it [stretched as a the father of thing-in-itself] is illusory to start with.

[Flannel Jesus]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

Hey!, this is philosophy forum for discussing philosophical issues.
So it is up for discussion.
Provide counter arguments to show I am wrong or mistaken or have created a strawman.

[Age]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

"veritas aequitas" is not the only one that does this here.

"iwannaplato's is another one who continually does the same thing.

And, these two both do this because of the beliefs that they, 'themselves", are continually 'currently' holding onto, 'for dear life', as it could be said and argued.

[Atla]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

VA originally planned to become the greatest philosopher of all time, who will lead humanity to a bright future. He only came here for some practice. But eventually the realization started to set in that he'll never convince anyone of anything. So he had to lower his expections from being the saviour of the universe to being a mild annoyance to PH (and gang) sometimes. He has to keep making these threads, it's the only enjoyment he has left in life. Sad story.

[Age]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

Hey!, this is philosophy forum for discussing philosophical issues.
So it is up for discussion.
Provide counter arguments to show I am wrong or mistaken or have created a strawman.

But you have already been shown how and why you are Wrong here. you, however, and again because of your 'currently' held onto beliefs are not capable of seeing where and when you have been shown to be Wrong.

Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

If you, still, cannot recognise, see, and comprehend this irrefutable unambiguous Fact, then so be it, others can.

And, I have already explained the very reason why you cannot recognise, see, nor comprehend this and other irrefutable Facts here.

[Iwannaplato]

Discuss??
Views??

I can't speak for PH, but one thing I have noted over time that might lead to a confusion here is that sometimes when you present noumena/things in themselves you present them as if they are not in relation to anything else. There's a difference between thinking that things exist even when humans are not around/before humans existed AND things are these isolated objects with no relations to any people perceiving them - when that happens - and being in causal chains with other things.

You have worded your descriptions of things-in-themselves as if one was saying there there are no relationships between objects and people and objects and objects. Then at other times it is clear that the independence is related to the existence of said object being or not being dependent on human presence and perception.

A third issue is how human perception affects what i knows about the things.

One can believe, for example that, yes, our particular ways of perceiving and conceiving affect what we experience as things, but they exist independently of us. The kitchen in still there when no one is in it. We have filters and yes we experience the stove in ways that a bat might not, given its sonic sensory processes. But the kitchen is still there when no creatures - humans, bats, any other creatures are not there.

Also, the objects in the kitchen when humans are there do have causal relationships with the humans - sounds made by machines of humans would lead to vibrations in the other things, etc. PH would likely not be claiming that there is this kind of immaculate non-interaction when things are in proximity or even at distance.

But the base existence of the things is not dependent on a human observer.

So, I can imagine these three kinds of 'independence': existence, filters/perception system effects or not, various kind of interaction
are all being conflated.

So, something like
complete ontological dependence - things are not there when humans are around. I'm pretty sure PH rejects that.
complete causal independence - I doubt believes that. One could even be bringing in issues like whether causal relations are internal or external.
perception and conception effects - to some extent our sense of what objects are (like) is affected by our senses and schemas/models. I would think he agree with this. And this is a kind of dependence. How we perceive/conceive of something is affected by our nature.

In any case, I have noticed over what now might be years, that different kinds of independence are being mingled, other times singled out. Creating what I think might the confusion here. If you went through your writing over the years, I think you would find that at there is variation around what dependence/independence is actually referring to. You can see this in your request/demand at times for someone to demosntrate something exists, somehow, with no human things like language and perceptions (and/or FSK) being used in the demonstration. The inability to do this does not demonstrate complete ontological dependence. It may well be part of the third type of dependence. For example.

One could have diverse opinions about all three of those kinds of independence/dependence.
Independent Existence pertains to ontological independence or ontological realism.
Relational Identity pertains to metaphysical dependence or relational ontology.
Conceptual Schemes pertains to epistemological dependence or conceptual relativism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far, the above views are merely noises without valid and sound arguments.
What I gathered from the above posts is the claim
'a thing exists absolutely independent as mind-independent because it is obvious.'

but what is obvious to them is merely based on common and conventional sense but without valid arguments.

However, as I had argued,
common sense, convention sense, the scientific sense are all grounded an contingent upon a human-based [inevitable] framework and system.
Because it is human-based, deductively it follows it cannot be absolutely independent of the human base, i.e. the human conditions.

There are two senses of reality, i.e.
1. Human-based reality
2. Reality that is absolutely mind independent.

The point is sense 2 is burdened with tons of philosophical issues, dilemma and has evil impacts.
Giving up sense 2 incur no serious loss to humanity except it threatened the psychological insecurity of the individuals.

Sense 1 is most realistic and has a lot of pragmatic values.
Since sense 2 [mind independence] is an evolutionary default, to adopt sense 1, the individual need to face a cold-turkey, thus it is not easy for one to adopt sense 2; this is also why there is so much resistance and condemnations from p-realists when sense 1 is proposed.

[Iwannaplato]

So far, the above views are merely noises without valid and sound arguments.
What I gathered from the above posts is the claim
'a thing exists absolutely independent as mind-independent because it is obvious.'

That's not what Flannel Jesus was saying. That's not what I was saying. I took no position, in that post, on realism/anti-realism. I suggested a communication problem. What you wrote here is utterly incorrect in relation to my post.

Age did take a specific realist stance on the issue.

[Age]

So far, the above views are merely noises without valid and sound arguments.
What I gathered from the above posts is the claim
'a thing exists absolutely independent as mind-independent because it is obvious.'

That's not what Flannel Jesus was saying. That's not what I was saying. I took no position, in that post, on realism/anti-realism. I suggested a communication problem. What you wrote here is utterly incorrect in relation to my post.

Age did take a specific realist stance on the issue.

Will you elaborate on this absolute claim of yours here, or will you, once again, leave whatever 'it' is that you are presuming and believing here up to others to, once more, just imagine what 'it' is that you are even talking about here?

[FlashDangerpants]

I have already argued you claimed there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself]

Confessions of a straw man.

[Iwannaplato]

So far, the above views are merely noises without valid and sound arguments.
What I gathered from the above posts is the claim
'a thing exists absolutely independent as mind-independent because it is obvious.'

That's not what Flannel Jesus was saying. That's not what I was saying. I took no position, in that post, on realism/anti-realism. I suggested a communication problem. What you wrote here is utterly incorrect in relation to my post.

Age did take a specific realist stance on the issue.

Will you elaborate on this absolute claim of yours here, or will you, once again, leave whatever 'it' is that you are presuming and believing here up to others to, once more, just imagine what 'it' is that you are even talking about here?

Which claim? There were a few claims in that post of mine. What about my claim makes it absolutist? And could you explain what you mean by absolutist?

[Atla]

His entire thinking is an inescapable strawman. How does one even get into a mindset where it's impossible to imagine anything other than direct perception? It's baffling.

Maybe VA came out of a serious psychosis and had a total chaos in his mind, and then read the CPR for 3 years, and what he read totally shaped his mind?

[Flannel Jesus]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

Hey!, this is philosophy forum for discussing philosophical issues.
So it is up for discussion.
Provide counter arguments to show I am wrong or mistaken or have created a strawman.

The counter argument is, he said he doesn't believe that, the end.

Your posts are merely noises without valid arguments.