PH's Thing, Fact, Object is a Thing-in-Itself

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH ignorantly deny what-is-thing, fact [a feature of reality], object to him is a thing-in-itself or noumenon.

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.

PH's Thing, Fact, Object is a Thing-in-Itself
I have already argued, you are claiming there are things-in-themselves [singular; thing-in-itself] when you insists;
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 absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your above description is literally what Kant meant by a thing-in-itself [noumenon].
Your fact is thus a fact-in-itself, i.e. it has no relation to humans whatsoever.

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 absolutely 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.

PH's What is Fact is literally Kant's Thing-in-Itself
Your above definitions of things in reality by you is what Kant recognized as real things-in-themselves by philosophical 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].

You cannot deny you do not claim the thing-in-itself or noumenon exists as the most real.

Where is Your Proofs that your fact is most real
Since you insist your fact or fact-in-itself that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not is the most real thing,
the onus is you to prove that it really exists as a real thing.
Show your proof?

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

But Kant's invention of noumena - things-in-themselves - was a disastrous mistake, with catastrophic consequences for philosophy ever since.
Link

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.

Kant's introduction of the term 'thing-in-itself' was to expose the delusion of the philosophical realist [noumenon] and theists [thing-in-itself].

For the philosophical realist to insist the thing-in-itself is the real things that exists regardless of whether there are humans, is DELUSIONAL.

However, Kant acknowledged this thing-in-itself [as merely a idea not a real thing] is a useful illusion for his Moral Theory [Pure] - contrast his applied morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 and literally what Kant defined as the noumenon aka thing-in-itself. This is basically the absolutely human[mind] independence of philosophy realism.

Kant described the noumenon aka thing-in-itself and it is delusional to insist it is the real thing;

[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

Kant's Position is AntiRealist;

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. This is the realists' position.
[2]Kant's "conform to our intuition" is that of antirealism.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's Ding an sich is a concept designed for us to reflect upon the fact that it is highly unlikely to give us the whole picture.
.........
Above all this there are things about an object we might call a cup that are beyond our ordinary perception.

Ding an sich is a critique of naive epistemology.
I am surprise to see VA bring it up since it utterly denies any claim about "objective morality"

I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].

I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.

PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.

To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.

But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.

Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.

So, I am using the idea of thing-in-itself to squash PH's claim 'Morality cannot be objective'.
It is not tenable for PH to claim "Morality cannot be objective" when his argument is based on the illusory thing-in-itself.


My claim that Morality is Objective is based on philosophical antirealism, i.e. there are only conditioned things contingent upon a specific collective human-based framework and system [FS] (thus objective) of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.
I am relying on an objective collective-human-based MORAL framework and system [FS] which is objective in grounding my claim that morality is objective.

• P1 Whatever is grounded on a specific collective human-based framework and system [FS] is objective.
  
  P2 Morality is grounded on a specific collective human-based Moral framework and system [FS].
  
  C Therefore, Morality is Objective.

[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.

[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?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

Notes:

I disagree.
Views?

(this was pre-emptive)

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

I disagree.
Views?

(this was pre-emptive)

KIV:

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

I disagree.
Views?

(this was pre-emptive)

You're disagreeing with me because you're immature and you have an undeveloped and naive and childish sense of the world. Quantum Mechanics says that you can't disagree with me,

[Iwannaplato]

KIV:

Kill Internet Viruses.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!

[Atla]

KIV:

Kill Internet Viruses.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!

Kant Is Veritas?