VA Conflate TR with PR??

[Atla]

Strawman.

From a nuance view, modern realism-in-general is grounded on mind-independence but there are two senses of it;

1. Absolute mind-independence, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. philosophical realism, transcendental realism as its subs.

2. Relative mind-independence, i.e. it is relative [not literally dependent] to humans, so no humans, no mind-independence, e.g. empirical realism and various idealisms.

Kant's CPR is grounded on his Copernican Revolution [human orientated] which opposed sense 1 where to Kant is his Transcendental Realism then but in modern times is labelled Philosophical Realism.
Kant Transcendental Realism would cover platonic realism, Descartes realism, rationalism's realism, direct/indirect realism, theism and whatever is grounded on absolutely mind-independent during his time.
So Transcendental Realism to Kant is no different with modern Philosophical Realism, i.e. re absolute mind-independence.



From the above, Kant's Copernican Revolution implies there is no external "world-as-it-is" existing by itself, i.e. absolutely human mind independent, rather, the human is related to what the world is.

Kant's Copernican Revolution [TO] opposed all Transcendental Realism which include any realism that claims absolute mind-independence which in modern time is categorized within Philosophical Realism.
So, Kant's CPR addressed [& opposed] all modern realisms that claimed absolute mind-independence, i.e. classed as Philosophical Realism.

Word salad, you are conflating TR with PR. Your "Absolute" mind-independence is only one thing only in TR. Kant never addressed most modern PRs.

I have been giving you references to support my arguments.
What you have been doing is merely blabbering.
Where are your references to support your argument?

Don't you get it? All those criticisms you received from us for years, were more or less correct. It's just that now that I'm more familiar with Kant's really odd definitions and really weird argument, I can spell it out better.

Don't give childish excuses with the so-happened majority ad populum views here.
You don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR.
So, how could ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.
Where are your references [books, articles, etc.] to support your argument?

If you refer to AI, ask it to give specific supporting references.

Word salad, you don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR. As shown by Wiki, AI, and just about any source nowadays. So, how could you ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad, you are conflating TR with PR. Your "Absolute" mind-independence is only one thing only in TR. Kant never addressed most modern PRs.

I have been giving you references to support my arguments.
What you have been doing is merely blabbering.
Where are your references to support your argument?

Don't you get it? All those criticisms you received from us for years, were more or less correct. It's just that now that I'm more familiar with Kant's really odd definitions and really weird argument, I can spell it out better.

Don't give childish excuses with the so-happened majority ad populum views here.
You don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR.
So, how could ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.
Where are your references [books, articles, etc.] to support your argument?

If you refer to AI, ask it to give specific supporting references.

Word salad, you don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR. As shown by Wiki, AI, and just about any source nowadays. So, how could you ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.

Blabbering again.
To avoid your point being lost is a dumpster, I suggest you open a new thread to argue your case [PR differ from TR] with references from WIKI and the CPR so you easily refer to it. Don't be a coward and run from this.

[Atla]

I have been giving you references to support my arguments.
What you have been doing is merely blabbering.
Where are your references to support your argument?


Don't give childish excuses with the so-happened majority ad populum views here.
You don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR.
So, how could ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.
Where are your references [books, articles, etc.] to support your argument?

If you refer to AI, ask it to give specific supporting references.

Word salad, you don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR. As shown by Wiki, AI, and just about any source nowadays. So, how could you ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.

Blabbering again.
To avoid your point being lost is a dumpster, I suggest you open a new thread to argue your case [PR differ from TR] with references from WIKI and the CPR so you easily refer to it. Don't be a coward and run from this.

You're the coward who ran away in many topics already from the fact that TR isn't the same as PR. So most of your 500 Kantian topics were dishonest, agressive strawmen. You just want to hurt people, that's all there is to it, that's why you're framing the billions of "p-realists" on the planet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad, you don't understand the generally accepted definition of philosophical realism [PR] and worst you are ignorant of Kant, so his TR. As shown by Wiki, AI, and just about any source nowadays. So, how could you ever mount a solid argument with reference to PR and TR.

Blabbering again.
To avoid your point being lost is a dumpster, I suggest you open a new thread to argue your case [PR differ from TR] with references from WIKI and the CPR so you easily refer to it. Don't be a coward and run from this.

You're the coward who ran away in many topics already from the fact that TR isn't the same as PR. So most of your 500 Kantian topics were dishonest, agressive strawmen. You just want to hurt people, that's all there is to it, that's why you're framing the billions of "p-realists" on the planet.

What I am interested is the philosophical truths as justified with rationality and references.
So far, you are merely blabbering without providing the relevant references; where is your intellectual responsibility and integrity.

The concept of mind-independence is an evolutionary default.
What I am arguing is against the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism which had triggered loads of evil against humanity since it first emerged.

It is the ideology of philosophical realism that resisted moral empirical realism thus hindering moral progress and striving towards perpetual peace.
Look, it is the normative moral subjectivists and relativists who by definition of their ideology has to tolerate the Oct 7 genocides and all sort of evil acts which are claimed to be relatively moral.

[Atla]

Blabbering again.
To avoid your point being lost is a dumpster, I suggest you open a new thread to argue your case [PR differ from TR] with references from WIKI and the CPR so you easily refer to it. Don't be a coward and run from this.

You're the coward who ran away in many topics already from the fact that TR isn't the same as PR. So most of your 500 Kantian topics were dishonest, agressive strawmen. You just want to hurt people, that's all there is to it, that's why you're framing the billions of "p-realists" on the planet.

What I am interested is the philosophical truths as justified with rationality and references.
So far, you are merely blabbering without providing the relevant references; where is your intellectual responsibility and integrity.

The concept of mind-independence is an evolutionary default.
What I am arguing is against the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism which had triggered loads of evil against humanity since it first emerged.

It is the ideology of philosophical realism that resisted moral empirical realism thus hindering moral progress and striving towards perpetual peace.
Look, it is the normative moral subjectivists and relativists who by definition of their ideology has to tolerate the Oct 7 genocides and all sort of evil acts which are claimed to be relatively moral.

You are interested in lies, not truth. You want to accuse billions of people of believing things they don't actually believe in, so you can mistreat them, punish them. All the while pretending that this will somehow save humanity and make you a hero.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Stop asking the AI to write strawman lies for you already. IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt on the above, I provided relevant references:

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor wrote:
[Interlocutor] "IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" but did not give references.

My comments:
As generally defined "Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

My interlocutor "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" don't make sense. What possibility could the ultimate object of indirect realism [as defined] be capable of being known?

Kant argued, the unknowable object is an intelligible object:

[Kant]The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.
A280 B336
For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves. [Kant]

Since knowing is confined to the senses and human conditions, there is no possibility for humans to know the ultimate object of indirect realism and also the unknowable noumenon.
Therefore the ultimate object of indirect realism is 100% unknowable in the empirical sense and there is no other means of knowing it because humans do not have the necessary intelligible intuition to know an intelligible object.

ChatGPT Responded

ChatGPT Wrote
Your critique of your interlocutor's assertion, supported by Kant's framework and the nature of indirect realism, is well-founded.
Let me synthesize and elaborate on your argument to strengthen its coherence and rigor:

Key Assertions and Supporting Reasoning

Definition of Indirect Realism (IR):
As stated in the provided Wikipedia reference, IR posits that perception is mediated through a conceptual framework or representations, not as direct access to the external world.
This implies that what is experienced is not the ultimate object itself but its representation within the mind, shaped by human sensory and cognitive conditions.

Unknowability of the Ultimate Object in IR:
Your interlocutor claims that the "ultimate object isn't 100% unknowable," yet offers no plausible mechanism by which it could be known.
This claim contradicts the core of indirect realism:

Sensory Data: Only provides access to mediated representations, not the ultimate object itself.

Conceptual Frameworks: Similarly, these are constructs within the human mind and do not grant direct knowledge of the mind-independent reality.

Kant’s insight applies here: Knowing anything requires a sensible intuition—a direct form of apprehension tied to our sensory and cognitive faculties.
Since the ultimate object in IR lies beyond the senses, it is inherently unknowable to human cognition.

Kant on the Unknowability of Noumenon and Intelligible Objects:
Kant's argument, as cited (A280/B336), directly supports the position that any object beyond sensory intuition (such as an intelligible object) is unknowable:

Without sensible intuition, intelligible objects "would be for us nothing at all."
Appearances (phenomena) cannot represent objects-in-themselves (noumena), as the latter are not accessible through human sensory or cognitive conditions.

The ultimate object of IR is analogous to the noumenon in Kant’s framework.
Both are mind-independent realities that lie beyond human sensory and cognitive reach, making them equally unknowable.

Conclusion: 100% Unknowable:
Given that IR's ultimate object exists beyond sensory and conceptual mediation, it is 100% unknowable to humans. There is no empirical, sensory, or intelligible intuition available to access or comprehend such a reality.

Any claim to partial knowability would require:
A mechanism for direct or unmediated knowledge of the ultimate object.
Evidence that sensory or representational mediation grants access to the object's intrinsic nature, which IR explicitly denies.

Further Clarification to the Interlocutor:
If your interlocutor insists on partial knowability, ask them to clarify:

What form of "knowledge" they believe is accessible regarding the ultimate object.
What mechanism or pathway exists to access or comprehend it beyond representations or sensory mediation.
Without clear answers to these points, their assertion remains unsupported and contradicts both IR's foundations and Kant's insights.

What is your counter to the above?
avoid blabbering.

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

[Atla]

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt on the above, I provided relevant references:




ChatGPT Responded




What is your counter to the above?
avoid blabbering.

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

And what's it with your obsession to copy the same response into two threads.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are interested in lies, not truth. You want to accuse billions of people of believing things they don't actually believe in, so you can mistreat them, punish them. All the while pretending that this will somehow save humanity and make you a hero.

So far I have provided the relevant references to support my argument:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism and from this forum & elsewhere

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism and from this forum & elsewhere

Where are your references in supporting your arguments??
So far, you are merely blabbering as an empty vessel.

[Atla]

You are interested in lies, not truth. You want to accuse billions of people of believing things they don't actually believe in, so you can mistreat them, punish them. All the while pretending that this will somehow save humanity and make you a hero.

So far I have provided the relevant references to support my argument:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism and from this forum & elsewhere

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism and from this forum & elsewhere

Where are your references in supporting your arguments??
So far, you are merely blabbering as an empty vessel.

Those links didn't support your argument, they contradicted it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

And what's it with your obsession to copy the same response into two threads.

"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

The above is more relevant to this OP.

[Atla]

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

And what's it with your obsession to copy the same response into two threads.

"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

The above is more relevant to this OP.

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

And what's it with your obsession to copy the same response into two threads.

"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

The above is more relevant to this OP.

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

You making the following claim:
"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

It is only in your mind, I have no idea what you are alluding to.
Obviously you can point out where for me to compare X to Y.

[Atla]

"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

The above is more relevant to this OP.

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

You making the following claim:
"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

It is only in your mind, I have no idea what you are alluding to.
Obviously you can point out where for me to compare X to Y.

Okay then you really have no idea that any system other than Kant's can exist. That suggests to me an IQ of about 80-90.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

You making the following claim:
"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

It is only in your mind, I have no idea what you are alluding to.
Obviously you can point out where for me to compare X to Y.

Okay then you really have no idea that any system other than Kant's can exist. That suggests to me an IQ of about 80-90.

Obviously I am aware there could >1000 philosophical views on a certain issue other than that of Kant's.
But are they credible and objective?
What is your credible and objective system that can counter Kant's?
If you are so confident your should do it in thread for easy reference.

[Atla]

You making the following claim:
"IR is rejecting that assumption"
where specifically?

It is only in your mind, I have no idea what you are alluding to.
Obviously you can point out where for me to compare X to Y.

Okay then you really have no idea that any system other than Kant's can exist. That suggests to me an IQ of about 80-90.

Obviously I am aware there could >1000 philosophical views on a certain issue other than that of Kant's.
But are they credible and objective?
What is your credible and objective system that can counter Kant's?
If you are so confident your should do it in thread for easy reference.

After telling him about an arguably better alternative system for years, he can't remember a single word. What is this?