Atla: Re Kant, ChatGpt is Stupid!

[Atla]

I see about 3 ways to make TI+ERRRRRRRRRRR somewhat internally consistent:

This is already hopeless, though I understand the small project of this post.
What you are doing is dealing with things that his position entails, contradictions and what has been left out.
But he does not really understand such things. He understands the various pieces that he (remembers he) defended/asserted. If you say something is entails, he cries Strawman, without ever interacting with your argument. For example, when you deduce X, this is actually not logical because.....He doesn't refer to a step in the process of your argument and try to show it is wrong. He just says Kant never said that or 'I never said that'.
He doesn't in functional terms understand that his various postions and assertions may or may not fit together and may contradict each other. So, any line of agrument that tries to point this out gets one of the positions reasserted - usually the latest one.

He cannot see the forest for the trees and he forgets many of his trees. In fact, there were tactical measures, used with regard to how they fit in. He robbed Peter to pay Paul, but he never saw that Peter was involved.

At a certain point someone has to be curious to be complete. Not curious about anything if it attacks my enemies or supports the point I am currently making (only), but curious as an observer of one's own whole position. At least often, one can feel that there might be a problem, that you just used a tool that causes problems somewhere else for yourself.

But that's lacking.

So, the moment you are aimed to show what is missing, contradictory or entails, you are talking about categories of knowledge he cannot see.

Oh I'm not trying to talk to VA, that is indeed hopeless, I just typed down my train of thought.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see about 3 ways to make TI+ERRRRRRRRRRR somewhat internally consistent:

- radical solipsism with only appearances, we accept solipsism - no one in their right mind would take this position

- a quasi-solipsism, where we attempt to escape solipsism by positing noumenal but inaccessibe objective reality, other people etc. - in the end we are just positing everything we need but keep them unknowable, so imo the argument is valid that this collapses back into solipsism

- the world of phenomena is shared, so our appearances aren't ours. And those "human conditions" are rather conditions of a universal human-like mind. We don't have individual minds that process things. I debated a few Kantians who seemed to have this position. Still trash imo, since there is no actual evidence of a universal human-like mind, there is all the evidence however that we have individual human minds processing things

First,
The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Thus to charge someone with the idea of solipsism is a non-starter.
It is like insisting someone as claim circles and be squared which merely reflect on is intellectually bankrupt.

- the world of phenomena is shared, so our appearances aren't ours. And those "human conditions" are rather conditions of a universal human-like mind. We don't have individual minds that process things. I debated a few Kantians who seemed to have this position. Still trash imo, since there is no actual evidence of a universal human-like mind, there is all the evidence however that we have individual human minds processing things

If directed at Kant and me, that is a strawman.
That you debated a few Kantians is irrelevant to the above because some "Kantians" have not understood Kant's view thoroughly in relation to the finer points.

Suggest you read this and represent your Problem Statement;
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics.
viewtopic.php?t=42921

[Atla]

If solipsism is incoherent and the third option is wrong, then TI+ERRRRRRRRRRR is an incoherent solipsism.

As for the third option:

According to Kant, is the world of phenomena shared by all rational beings? Summary only.

Yes, according to Kant, the world of phenomena is shared by all rational beings. He argues that phenomena, or the world as we perceive it through our senses, is structured by the mind's innate categories and forms of intuition, such as space and time. These structures are universal and necessary for all rational beings, making the experience of phenomena common to everyone. However, Kant distinguishes this shared empirical reality from the "noumenal world," which exists independently of human perception and remains unknowable.

Shared but not shared, but presumably shared but can't presume that it's shared. Ok I had enough of this idiocy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If solipsism is incoherent and the third option is wrong, then TI+ERRRRRRRRRRR is an incoherent solipsism.

As for the third option:

According to Kant, is the world of phenomena shared by all rational beings? Summary only.

Yes, according to Kant, the world of phenomena is shared by all rational beings. He argues that phenomena, or the world as we perceive it through our senses, is structured by the mind's innate categories and forms of intuition, such as space and time. These structures are universal and necessary for all rational beings, making the experience of phenomena common to everyone. However, Kant distinguishes this shared empirical reality from the "noumenal world," which exists independently of human perception and remains unknowable.

Shared but not shared, but presumably shared but can't presume that it's shared. Ok I had enough of this idiocy.

You are very ignorant and cannot think maturely and rationally.

All humans are "programmed" [evolutionary] with the same basic functions [human nature] within the DNA.
So, it is common empirical sense, "the world of phenomena is shared by all rational beings" we can know it ourselves and don't have to rely on Kant [another human] to tell us.

Just as every normal human will perceive and experience the same shared illusion as this one,
The Hollow Mask Illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
and other common empirical illusions,
every human also shared and experience the same basic reality contingent upon their common generic human nature.

There more you counter me, the more your ignorance is exposed.
Your dogmatic view of reality is due to psychology and not epistemology.

[Atla]

If solipsism is incoherent and the third option is wrong, then TI+ERRRRRRRRRRR is an incoherent solipsism.

As for the third option:

According to Kant, is the world of phenomena shared by all rational beings? Summary only.

Yes, according to Kant, the world of phenomena is shared by all rational beings. He argues that phenomena, or the world as we perceive it through our senses, is structured by the mind's innate categories and forms of intuition, such as space and time. These structures are universal and necessary for all rational beings, making the experience of phenomena common to everyone. However, Kant distinguishes this shared empirical reality from the "noumenal world," which exists independently of human perception and remains unknowable.

Shared but not shared, but presumably shared but can't presume that it's shared. Ok I had enough of this idiocy.

You are very ignorant and cannot think maturely and rationally.

All humans are "programmed" [evolutionary] with the same basic functions [human nature] within the DNA.
So, it is common empirical sense, "the world of phenomena is shared by all rational beings" we can know it ourselves and don't have to rely on Kant [another human] to tell us.

Just as every normal human will perceive and experience the same shared illusion as this one,
The Hollow Mask Illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
and other common empirical illusions,
every human also shared and experience the same basic reality contingent upon their common generic human nature.

There more you counter me, the more your ignorance is exposed.
Your dogmatic view of reality is due to psychology and not epistemology.

You are just too stupid to understand that if the world of phenomena isn't a literally shared entity, then you only know your own phenomena, so other people with their cognitive faculties are noumenal things you posit. You only have the appearance of other people.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh I'm not trying to talk to VA, that is indeed hopeless, I just typed down my train of thought.

Got it and whew!