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

[Age]

You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.

Yes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof. For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true. He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.

One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.) Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong. And, of course, even that situation doesn't prove his thesis. And it's funny how often whatever motivation he assigns to other people choices is always, purely coincidentally, beneficial to his own sense of self, his sense of his arguments and his negative judgments of most people at the time this is being written.

He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.

By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children. He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind). He doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means, but further we can see the toxic games he plays.

It has to be some kind of physical brain injury.. rather anticlimactic..

Yes, it 'has to be'.

And, this is not 'absolutist', as well.

[Atla]

I, suppose, to you, this is, absolutely, not 'absolutist' language neither "atla", right?

Wrong. You are incapable of understanding that I don't use absolutist language. Last time I typically did that was when I was like 5.

[Age]

I, suppose, to you, this is, absolutely, not 'absolutist' language neither "atla", right?

Wrong. You are incapable of understanding that I don't use absolutist language. Last time I typically did that was when I was like 5.

Does this mean that you are, still, five.

For obviously some of the language that you are using here is 'absolutist' language.

Also, what you are doing here is proving, absolutely, my claim above here about how you human beings in the days when this was being written had not yet recognized.just how powerful the words that you use, and even say to "yourselves", had over you.

So, once again, 'we' can thank "atla" for proving my claims here to be, absolutely, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[Atla]

I, suppose, to you, this is, absolutely, not 'absolutist' language neither "atla", right?

Wrong. You are incapable of understanding that I don't use absolutist language. Last time I typically did that was when I was like 5.

Does this mean that you are, still, five.

For obviously some of the language that you are using here is 'absolutist' language.

Also, what you are doing here is proving, absolutely, my claim above here about how you human beings in the days when this was being written had not yet recognized.just how powerful the words that you use, and even say to "yourselves", had over you.

So, once again, 'we' can thank "atla" for proving my claims here to be, absolutely, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

'Obviously' to you, because you can't differentiate between 'absolutist' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' languages. You've always been dead wrong, but you can't understand this.

[Age]

Wrong. You are incapable of understanding that I don't use absolutist language. Last time I typically did that was when I was like 5.

Does this mean that you are, still, five.

For obviously some of the language that you are using here is 'absolutist' language.

Also, what you are doing here is proving, absolutely, my claim above here about how you human beings in the days when this was being written had not yet recognized.just how powerful the words that you use, and even say to "yourselves", had over you.

So, once again, 'we' can thank "atla" for proving my claims here to be, absolutely, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

'Obviously' to you, because you can't differentiate between 'absolutist' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' languages. You've always been dead wrong, but you can't understand this.

From "atla's" belief and perspective, 'I have, always, been dead wrong'.

So, when I say, "atla" is right, or is wrong, here, then, to "atla" I will not just be wrong but will, always, be 'dead wrong:.

[Atla]

Does this mean that you are, still, five.

For obviously some of the language that you are using here is 'absolutist' language.

Also, what you are doing here is proving, absolutely, my claim above here about how you human beings in the days when this was being written had not yet recognized.just how powerful the words that you use, and even say to "yourselves", had over you.

So, once again, 'we' can thank "atla" for proving my claims here to be, absolutely, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

'Obviously' to you, because you can't differentiate between 'absolutist' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' languages. You've always been dead wrong, but you can't understand this.

From "atla's" belief and perspective, 'I have, always, been dead wrong'.

So, when I say, "atla" is right, or is wrong, here, then, to "atla" I will not just be wrong but will, always, be 'dead wrong:.

We'll see. So far it sure doesn't look like you have what it takes to admit your mistake and start over.

[Age]

'Obviously' to you, because you can't differentiate between 'absolutist' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' languages. You've always been dead wrong, but you can't understand this.

From "atla's" belief and perspective, 'I have, always, been dead wrong'.

So, when I say, "atla" is right, or is wrong, here, then, to "atla" I will not just be wrong but will, always, be 'dead wrong:.

We'll see. So far it sure doesn't look like you have what it takes to admit your mistake and start over.

Once again see how this one changes the words it uses and thus its language once it first thinks about and what it is going to say and write and considers what 'that language' will actually say, and mean.

Also, and obviously, I am not going to admit that, from my perspective, I have never made.

And, considering that you will never actually specify what, perceived, to you, 'now' mistake that I have, supposedly, made here, then I therefore have absolutely no idea nor clue in regards to what you are even referring to here, exactly

[Atla]

From "atla's" belief and perspective, 'I have, always, been dead wrong'.

So, when I say, "atla" is right, or is wrong, here, then, to "atla" I will not just be wrong but will, always, be 'dead wrong:.

We'll see. So far it sure doesn't look like you have what it takes to admit your mistake and start over.

Once again see how this one changes the words it uses and thus its language once it first thinks about and what it is going to say and write and considers what 'that language' will actually say, and mean.

Also, and obviously, I am not going to admit that, from my perspective, I have never made.

And, considering that you will never actually specify what, perceived, to you, 'now' mistake that I have, supposedly, made here, then I therefore have absolutely no idea nor clue in regards to what you are even referring to here, exactly

So we discussed your mistake for 10-20 comments today, and 2-4 comments later you have once again 'absolutely no idea nor clue' what is being referred to, and also say that I will never specify it. A multi-layered denial mechanism.

Whatever. I said you can't understand your mistake and I was proven correct ten times over. Our so-called 'readers' can all see.

[Age]

We'll see. So far it sure doesn't look like you have what it takes to admit your mistake and start over.

Once again see how this one changes the words it uses and thus its language once it first thinks about and what it is going to say and write and considers what 'that language' will actually say, and mean.

Also, and obviously, I am not going to admit that, from my perspective, I have never made.

And, considering that you will never actually specify what, perceived, to you, 'now' mistake that I have, supposedly, made here, then I therefore have absolutely no idea nor clue in regards to what you are even referring to here, exactly

So we discussed your mistake for 10-20 comments today, and 2-4 comments later you have once again 'absolutely no idea nor clue' what is being referred to, and also say that I will never specify it. A multi-layered denial mechanism.

Whatever. I said you can't understand your mistake and I was proven correct ten times over. Our so-called 'readers' can all see.

No, you are Wrong, again. However, what you have, actually, proved True, once again, is that you will never ever specify what, exactly, is my, supposed, mistake that you believe I have made here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

This is just false. The term 'anti-realism' was not used by him or anyone else at that time. Further his transcendental idealism is not the same an anti-realism. Further Kant never took an ontological stand on Things-in-themselves. He did take a strong epistemological stand on them. But this has all been pointed out to you before, many times.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.......

What is your response to my post above?
viewtopic.php?p=715887#p715887

I have added some references from Kant's CPR is his declaration he opposed Transcendental Realism aka philosophical realism.
viewtopic.php?p=704650&sid=d269be536c30 ... b0#p704650

[CPR A369]
By Transcendental Idealism, I mean the Doctrine that Appearances are to be regarded as being, one and all, Representations only, not Things-in-Themselves,
and that Time and Space are therefore only Sensible Forms of our Intuition, not Determinations Given as existing-by-themselves, nor Conditions of Objects viewed as Things-in-Themselves.

To this [Transcendental] Idealism there is opposed a Transcendental Realism [aka Philosophical realism] which regards Time and Space as something Given in-themselves, independently of our Sensibility.

Whilst Kant did not use the term 'philosophical realism' his 'transcendental realism' aligns with philosophical realism as defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Transcendental Realism, Philosophical Realism, metaphysical realism, empirical idealism all share the same fundamental belief, i.e. the existence of a thing that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless whether there are humans or not.
This is the same as how you define your 'fact' which basically a thing-in-itself or fact-in-itself.

[Atla]

.......

What is your response to my post above?
viewtopic.php?p=715887#p715887

I have added some references from Kant's CPR is his declaration he opposed Transcendental Realism aka philosophical realism.
viewtopic.php?p=704650&sid=d269be536c30 ... b0#p704650

[CPR A369]
By Transcendental Idealism, I mean the Doctrine that Appearances are to be regarded as being, one and all, Representations only, not Things-in-Themselves,
and that Time and Space are therefore only Sensible Forms of our Intuition, not Determinations Given as existing-by-themselves, nor Conditions of Objects viewed as Things-in-Themselves.

To this [Transcendental] Idealism there is opposed a Transcendental Realism [aka Philosophical realism] which regards Time and Space as something Given in-themselves, independently of our Sensibility.

Whilst Kant did not use the term 'philosophical realism' his 'transcendental realism' aligns with philosophical realism as defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Transcendental Realism, Philosophical Realism, metaphysical realism, empirical idealism all share the same fundamental belief, i.e. the existence of a thing that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless whether there are humans or not.
This is the same as how you define your 'fact' which basically a thing-in-itself or fact-in-itself.

VA's biggest lie. Transcendental realism is totally not the same as philosophical realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'

Those are not the words of a philosophical anti-realist. But Kant's invention of noumena - things-in-themselves - was a disastrous mistake, with catastrophic consequences for philosophy ever since. And VA's intellectual derangement is just one example of the damage done.

You are ignorant with the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_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.

Realists [philosophical] tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[10] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.[11][12]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'
The "within me" cannot fit in with philosophical realism's mind independent existence, so it cannot be realist.
So Kant's ".. the moral law within me" has to be antirealist.

I have argued, your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs that is absolutely independent of the human subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment is literally the thing-in-itself that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your fact is thus a fact-in-itself, i.e. it has no relation to humans whatsoever
How can you deny that?
Show me your argument why it is not so?

[Iwannaplato]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'
The "within me" cannot fit in with philosophical realism's mind independent existence, so it cannot be realist.
So Kant's ".. the moral law within me" has to be antirealist.

The moral law is noumenous in Kant.....

"But though the moral law thus gives us a ground of determination which is independent of any sensuous condition and consequently is purely intelligible, yet, as determining ground of a being that belongs to the world of sense, it must be able to affect the sensibility of this being and thus must produce a feeling of pleasure or pain, of which the latter is called the moral feeling. But since the moral law is the ground of determination of the will which is free (thus as a determination of the will belonging to the world of sense and yet also to the world of understanding), it follows that it must be able to affect the causality of man as a being of the world of sense and thus to affect his sensibility and must produce a feeling of pleasure or pain. Hence, the consciousness of a moral law, which must be looked upon as a determination of the will from a pure practical point of view, is also, with respect to the effect which this determination brings about in the sensibility of the subject, an incentive to action."

Kant explains that the moral law is a "ground of determination" that is "purely intelligible," meaning it belongs to the realm of pure reason or the noumenal realm. This is contrasted with the "world of sense," which is the phenomenal realm of empirical experience.

It would be utterly absurd to suggest that Kant considered noumena per se false and unreal. Or that very thing he is in awe of, the moral law, would be false and unreal.

Kant is not with you on noumena.