Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:56 am
Nope!
Example in the case of Science [based on verification and justifications], the forms as in Plato are assumed to exist.
Note they are assumed, i.e. thus cannot be real.
Surely you should know the meaning of 'assume'.

The forms, ideas and universals are transcendental illusions only if they are claimed and insisted to be real, i.e. exists as real.

False, the scientific method has a form, and thus is subject to your transcendental illusion analysis. The scientific method is claimed to be real, it is a form, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method works or does not work.

It qualifies as a transcendental illusion according to your stance.

The same applies for any group agreed upon definition as to what consists of a "rational argument" as there are multiple groups.

Everything you argue can be defined as a transcendental illusion according to your definitions.

You cannot even define real without being subject to it depending upon a transcendental illusion....the illusion is created by reality.

According to Kant's basis of a transcendental illusion,
what Science does it assumes the transcendental illusion [noumenon] exists to be discovered.

You are too ignorant as to the meaning of an 'assumption' in this case?

So if the illusion is discovered, and science discovers truths, is the illusion a truth?

Quote kants specific reference to this.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:32 pm

False, the scientific method has a form, and thus is subject to your transcendental illusion analysis. The scientific method is claimed to be real, it is a form, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method works or does not work.

It qualifies as a transcendental illusion according to your stance.

The same applies for any group agreed upon definition as to what consists of a "rational argument" as there are multiple groups.

Everything you argue can be defined as a transcendental illusion according to your definitions.

You cannot even define real without being subject to it depending upon a transcendental illusion....the illusion is created by reality.

According to Kant's basis of a transcendental illusion,
what Science does it assumes the transcendental illusion [noumenon] exists to be discovered.

You are too ignorant as to the meaning of an 'assumption' in this case?

So if the illusion is discovered, and science discovers truths, is the illusion a truth?

Quote kants specific reference to this.

The transcendental illusion [Kant's noumenon] is assumed an never discovered.
What is discovered is qualified to whatever Science assumed.
What is discovered are qualified scientific truths of the assumed but never the absolute truth of the assumed.
Note when Science assumed the transcendental illusion, the implication is it is inherently not real.

If say, Science assumed a perfect-circular-round-object exists, in practiced there is no way Science can ever discover, verify and justify a real perfect-circular-round-object in reality.

What is discovered is merely the empirical object that is as near as possible to the assumed.
What is discovered is based on merely polished conjectures.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:45 am
According to Kant's basis of a transcendental illusion,
what Science does it assumes the transcendental illusion [noumenon] exists to be discovered.

You are too ignorant as to the meaning of an 'assumption' in this case?

So if the illusion is discovered, and science discovers truths, is the illusion a truth?

Quote kants specific reference to this.

The transcendental illusion [Kant's noumenon] is assumed an never discovered.
What is discovered is qualified to whatever Science assumed.
What is discovered are qualified scientific truths of the assumed but never the absolute truth of the assumed.
Note when Science assumed the transcendental illusion, the implication is it is inherently not real.

If say, Science assumed a perfect-circular-round-object exists, in practiced there is no way Science can ever discover, verify and justify a real perfect-circular-round-object in reality.

What is discovered is merely the empirical object that is as near as possible to the assumed.
What is discovered is based on merely polished conjectures.

So all is assumed, even your transcendental illusion.

I said this all along, and so have others.

You officially just gave up.

I rest my case.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:54 am
So if the illusion is discovered, and science discovers truths, is the illusion a truth?

Quote kants specific reference to this.

The transcendental illusion [Kant's noumenon] is assumed an never discovered.
What is discovered is qualified to whatever Science assumed.
What is discovered are qualified scientific truths of the assumed but never the absolute truth of the assumed.
Note when Science assumed the transcendental illusion, the implication is it is inherently not real.

If say, Science assumed a perfect-circular-round-object exists, in practiced there is no way Science can ever discover, verify and justify a real perfect-circular-round-object in reality.

What is discovered is merely the empirical object that is as near as possible to the assumed.
What is discovered is based on merely polished conjectures.

So all is assumed, even your transcendental illusion.

I said this all along, and so have others.

You officially just gave up.

I rest my case.

There is a mixed up on my part.

Science assumed something like the noumenon.
Science do not assume the transcendental illusion.

The noumenon is only a transcendental illusion when it is reified as real as you are doing with it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:10 am
The transcendental illusion [Kant's noumenon] is assumed an never discovered.
What is discovered is qualified to whatever Science assumed.
What is discovered are qualified scientific truths of the assumed but never the absolute truth of the assumed.
Note when Science assumed the transcendental illusion, the implication is it is inherently not real.

If say, Science assumed a perfect-circular-round-object exists, in practiced there is no way Science can ever discover, verify and justify a real perfect-circular-round-object in reality.

What is discovered is merely the empirical object that is as near as possible to the assumed.
What is discovered is based on merely polished conjectures.

So all is assumed, even your transcendental illusion.

I said this all along, and so have others.

You officially just gave up.

I rest my case.

There is a mixed up on my part.

Science assumed something like the noumenon.
Science do not assume the transcendental illusion.

The noumenon is only a transcendental illusion when it is reified as real as you are doing with it.

Mix up...? You say the transcendental illusion has never been discovered. You say it above.


You are really falling hard. Best just to stop now.

The argument is dead on your part, you can say mix up all you want...but that is pretty much a heavy mix up...face it.

You lost.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:08 am

So all is assumed, even your transcendental illusion.

I said this all along, and so have others.

You officially just gave up.

I rest my case.

There is a mixed up on my part.

Science assumed something like the noumenon.
Science do not assume the transcendental illusion.

The noumenon is only a transcendental illusion when it is reified as real as you are doing with it.

Mix up...? You say the transcendental illusion has never been discovered. You say it above.


You are really falling hard. Best just to stop now.

The argument is dead on your part, you can say mix up all you want...but that is pretty much a heavy mix up...face it.

You lost.

Yes the transcendental illusion has never been discovered as a real thing.
How can an illusion be a real thing.
Where did I say otherwise?

My correction was, Science never assumed a transcendental illusion.

I intended to stop any way as all your points are off tangents [complained many times] in responding to my propositions.

I don't see as you or me as lost.
If you have proper arguments against my propositions then I will continue.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:10 am
There is a mixed up on my part.

Science assumed something like the noumenon.
Science do not assume the transcendental illusion.

The noumenon is only a transcendental illusion when it is reified as real as you are doing with it.

Mix up...? You say the transcendental illusion has never been discovered. You say it above.


You are really falling hard. Best just to stop now.

The argument is dead on your part, you can say mix up all you want...but that is pretty much a heavy mix up...face it.

You lost.

Yes the transcendental illusion has never been discovered as a real thing.
How can an illusion be a real thing.
Where did I say otherwise?

So the transcendental illusion falls under it's own nature. Second it can only be defined as by an absence of truth....but an absence of true is a continual regress.

My correction was, Science never assumed a transcendental illusion.

I intended to stop any way as all your points are off tangents [complained many times] in responding to my propositions.

I don't see as you or me as lost.
If you have proper arguments against my propositions then I will continue.

The noumenon is a transcendental illusion when claimed as real, but science assumes the noumenon (or something like it), thus science assumes a transcendental illusion.





Yeah, you can't squirm your way out of this...the zombie parasites may though...lol.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:31 pm Mix up...? You say the transcendental illusion has never been discovered. You say it above.
You are really falling hard. Best just to stop now.

The argument is dead on your part, you can say mix up all you want...but that is pretty much a heavy mix up...face it.

You lost.

Yes the transcendental illusion has never been discovered as a real thing.
How can an illusion be a real thing.
Where did I say otherwise?

So the transcendental illusion falls under it's own nature. Second it can only be defined as by an absence of truth....but an absence of true is a continual regress.

My correction was, Science never assumed a transcendental illusion.

I intended to stop any way as all your points are off tangents [complained many times] in responding to my propositions.

I don't see as you or me as lost.
If you have proper arguments against my propositions then I will continue.

The noumenon is a transcendental illusion when claimed as real, but science assumes the noumenon (or something like it), thus science assumes a transcendental illusion.

Yeah, you can't squirm your way out of this...the zombie parasites may though...lol.

The noumenon is merely limit not something real. Kant B311.
If the noumenon is assumed/reified as real, that is a transcendental illusion.
If Science assumes the noumenon, it is not assuming it as real.
If it is not assuming it as real, then it is not assuming it as a transcendental illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:32 am
Yes the transcendental illusion has never been discovered as a real thing.
How can an illusion be a real thing.
Where did I say otherwise?

So the transcendental illusion falls under it's own nature. Second it can only be defined as by an absence of truth....but an absence of true is a continual regress.

My correction was, Science never assumed a transcendental illusion.

I intended to stop any way as all your points are off tangents [complained many times] in responding to my propositions.

I don't see as you or me as lost.
If you have proper arguments against my propositions then I will continue.

The noumenon is a transcendental illusion when claimed as real, but science assumes the noumenon (or something like it), thus science assumes a transcendental illusion.

Yeah, you can't squirm your way out of this...the zombie parasites may though...lol.

The noumenon is merely limit not something real. Kant B311.
If the noumenon is assumed/reified as real, that is a transcendental illusion.
If Science assumes the noumenon, it is not assuming it as real.
If it is not assuming it as real, then it is not assuming it as a transcendental illusion.

So science assumes the noumenon, but it is not assuming it.

Yeah....okay...(pat on head), that's nice (smile).

Your next move will be to say I did not apply the word "real".

To which I will say you did not define it.

To which you will say you did, provide some quotes (but mostly likely throw insults, and maybe direct me to reread what you said somewhere).

To which I will state I already replied.

Then you will say I took "went off tangent" or took it out of context.

To which I will either direct you to reread the quote or ask you to provide a quote here.

You may shudder abit how to answer it and then make a post, quote something from Kant to give the impression of an air of authority.

And I will stop here because, I am getting bored....

Anyhow....





The next move after reading this will be to say the above and/or below, is gibberish,ad-hominum, I went off tangent, or use will say you did not read this at all.

If you respond in this manner it means I am right and you look like an idiot. So your next bet will be to put up an argument in order to come off as intellectually superior...but if you do this then you look like an idiot as well.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:07 am And I will stop here because, I am getting bored....

This is not my thread.

For the threads I raised or posts I made I am expecting as many counter arguments as possible since my effective defense against the counter arguments will enable me to reinforce my position.

If you are bored, that is none of my business.

I am looking forward to counter arguments with proper arguments from whoever.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:07 am And I will stop here because, I am getting bored....

This is not my thread.

For the threads I raised or posts I made I am expecting as many counter arguments as possible since my effective defense against the counter arguments will enable me to reinforce my position.

If you are bored, that is none of my business.

I am looking forward to counter arguments with proper arguments from whoever.

Already said this would happen (off tangent-variant).

On a lighter, less controversial note,

If you really want to reinforce your argument, you are in a tough bind. But it is not your argument alone, it is all of them. All arguments are both composed of and manifest as one fallacy or another.

Arguments are strictly fingerpaintings, a few actual good paintings, that are deemed as valuable if and only if someone says that are valuable.

But this is a fallacy.


Your best bet is to memorize the hell out of the fallacies, not in strictly name, but the actual form and just wipe out everything left and right. Then after that wipe out the fallacies and you will have truth values to stand upon.

For example, using the munchausseen trillema against the munchausseen trillema (which the majority of my threads are littered with), you are left with assumption, continuums, and circualrity as constants for what is true.

The fallacy thus becomes a negative boundary to an argument, where the rational ends, but still necessitates the argument as true.


You cannot do this with standard logic (however there is a fallacy, I can't remember the name, that states that a fallacious argument can have a truth value...I just can't remember the name.)

The best you can do is view it as an art form for personal enhancement (understanding what you believe and why) as well as everyday dialect.... if you think people will listen because you are rational you are wasting your time (and this is probably a fallacy as well).

Logic is an art....that is all it is. Best to just use it as therapy and/or to keep your mind sharp, because people do not respect dialectic...they hate it unless they feel like there on top (and most people do because their is no winning standard so everyone convinces themselves they are the winner).