Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 7:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:37 pm
And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.
1. You claimed your "what is fact" is that feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
then contradictory you claim
"we have empirical evidence and experience of reality..."
2.
PH: And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.
If you claims 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of the human condition [1], how can you also claim the non-independent empirical evidence and experience of reality [2] are the facts.
You are only speculating from 2 to 1.
It is impossible for 2-as-experienced to be 1-as-reasoned which is beyond experience.
And here's where you go wrong - and, I think, misinterpret Kant.
P: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, there is no reality independent from the reality that we humans perceive, know and describe.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And it has ridiculous implications, such as that there was no universe before humans evolved, wouldn't be a universe had humans not evolved, and won't be a universe when we've gone.
Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.
Strawman again, the > "a million" times.
Note Kant first para of this Critique of Reason;
Kant in CPR wrote:I. The Distinction Between Pure And Empirical Knowledge
There is no doubt whatever that all our Cognition [Erkenntnis [diff from Knowledge-Wissen] begins with Experience;
........
But although all our Cognition commences [begins] with Experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from Experience.
CPR B1
Cognition is more basic than knowledge.
Thus Kant's
".. yet it does not on that account
all arise from Experience"
as explained in his texts and also is implied, there are prior processes within the human system that correlate with the emergence of the object [thing] to be experienced and then known and described.
The argument should thus be;
1. The object emerged with the human conditions to be realized, perceived, cognized, known and described as real.
2. Therefore, there is no reality [object, thing] existing absolutely independent from the reality that we humans perceive, know and describe.
You are ignorant of Kant's famous Copernican Revolution??
Kant in CPR wrote:1. Hitherto it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our cognition of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
2. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our cognition.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have cognition of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
CPR Bxvi
Point 1 above assume there is an external thing [object] that absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind].
However in point 2, Kant proposed "Objects must conform to our cognition" i.e. implying humans contribute in bringing about the emergence of the things before it is perceived, known and described.
Kant rejected that there is any rea pre-existing absolute independent object or thing [noumenal or thing-in-itself] awaiting discovery by humans.
I have stated many times, your desperation in strawmaning your narrow view is due to some sort of psychological limitations which is inherent & primitive in the majority of humans. Humans need to evolve out of it as an ideology.
Your ideological view [philosophical realism] is very mystical [metaphysical] in that you are chasing for an illusion that is beyond the empirical.
Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.
Cannot understand your point.
According to Kant, the noumenon [thing-in-itself] is merely a thought that is a useful illusion or useful fiction. It is something like Santa Claus which is a useful fiction to please children and for commercial interests.
For Kant the thing-in-itself is a VERY useful illusion [imperative] for the purpose of his moral theories.