Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[VVilliam]

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

Perhaps it is the case that things are real as long as that which is experiencing those things acknowledge them as being real. Most things acknowledged as being real are interacted with by that which acknowledges said things as being real, and it is what gives those things the label "real".

From the bolded, thus whatever is real is always conditional, so can never be absolutely by-itself.

It could be, if there was nothing else but itself.

Perhaps the truth is that the only actual real thing [if it can be called a 'thing'] is that which does the acknowledging...

What is real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible Framework and System of Reality [FSR], e.g. the scientific FSR.

It still may not be real, just because it is seen to exist and experienced as existing by other consciousnesses which acknowledge it, if indeed the only real 'things' are that which acknowledges it as existing.

We could all be existing in a holographic simulation of sorts, where we experience objects as 'real' because the simulation allows for that to occur. Is built that way...

They [reality experiences] are called 'realities' because they are experienced as 'real' but the only real thing is that which is doing the experiencing. [consciousness]

Alternate experiences are had by a large number of individual consciousnesses and in that they are doing the science and reporting their findings to one another.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perhaps it is the case that things are real as long as that which is experiencing those things acknowledge them as being real. Most things acknowledged as being real are interacted with by that which acknowledges said things as being real, and it is what gives those things the label "real".

From the bolded, thus whatever is real is always conditional, so can never be absolutely by-itself.

It could be, if there was nothing else but itself.

Your statement is only true as a statement but never in reality.

The usual counter is how can there be any appearance without that-which-appear.
This statement is merely a statement when one assumes dualism.
There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself.

[Terrapin Station]

The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind.

In order to buy that there are brains, you have to believe that you can observe things that aren't yourself/aren't your own mind. Otherwise you'd have to say that your notion of a "brain" and how it works is just an illusion, and there would be no reason to make claims based on that illusion.

If I were to claim there is a brain-in-itself, that would be illusory.

My notion of what is brain and how it works is justified empirically and philosophically within the relevant FSK with conditional credibility.

Btw, I recognized in one perspective [common and conventional sense] there are things that are external to my self, body and brain, but on a meta-level such externalness is conditioned within the human conditions. This is empirical realism.

The point is going over your head. There are only two options here. Either you can access, via knowledge-by-acquaintance (or in other words, you can observe) things that aren't your own mind, or you can only access your own mind (so that you'd need to be at least an epistemic solipsist) and for anything that appears to you as mental phenomena, you'd have no reason to believe that it's not simply a fantasy, "FSK" nonsense or not.

This goes for things like brains, other people, even your own limbs, etc. If you're going to make a claim based on something about brains, for anyone to think that it's not just a personal fantasy for you, they have to take you to be saying that you can observe brains and reach conclusions about them, in which case you can't at the same time use that to fuel a claim that you can't observe anything external to yourself.

[VVilliam]

From the bolded, thus whatever is real is always conditional, so can never be absolutely by-itself.

It could be, if there was nothing else but itself.

Your statement is only true as a statement but never in reality.

In this reality or every reality?

The usual counter is how can there be any appearance without that-which-appear.
This statement is merely a statement when one assumes dualism.
There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself.

That appears to be a statement of duality. You are arguing that one cannot be self aware of being [existing], without something to bounce off. That has to be dualism.

[Terrapin Station]

Just saw this quote in the above post:

"There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself."

No idea what that's supposed to be saying. "Realized as really real by itself"???

[bahman]

........
It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

[Eodnhoj7]

There is nothing real to be known in the case of things-in-themselves in the first place.

If you understand the things-in-themselves are merely illusions created in your mind, there is no question of needing to know about them, as such you will not be deemed never to know.

The drive to reify illusions of things-in-themselves as real things is a psychological issue in the brain/mind. Thus if one were to nip those impulses at source to modulate them, then one will not be bothered to cling to things-in-themselves are real.

Note, those who clung to the illusory thing-in-itself as real will even kill you if you tell them in their face, their thing-in-itself is an illusion and unreal.

This is why people like PH as triggered by a defense mechanism had classified those who deny the reality of things-in-themselves are stupid, when in the first place they are the stupid and delusional ones.

The phenomenon of the thing in itself is an emergence thus real as existing as an emergence.

The phenomenon is an emergence thus real when verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

For the ignorant, the thing-in-itself, i.e. the noumenon is the basis of the phenomenon but that is not true.

No, it is real as observed through its emergence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

A thing exists in itself if all variations of said thing exist as repetitions of said thing thus leaving variations of said thing as the thing itself. For example all things are a variation of a simple dot, the dot exists through variations of the dot as the dot

Your view are off target.

No a thing in itself is that which repeats as a point of change to some other phenomenon.

[VVilliam]

........
It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

[Veritas Aequitas]

In order to buy that there are brains, you have to believe that you can observe things that aren't yourself/aren't your own mind. Otherwise you'd have to say that your notion of a "brain" and how it works is just an illusion, and there would be no reason to make claims based on that illusion.

If I were to claim there is a brain-in-itself, that would be illusory.

My notion of what is brain and how it works is justified empirically and philosophically within the relevant FSK with conditional credibility.

Btw, I recognized in one perspective [common and conventional sense] there are things that are external to my self, body and brain, but on a meta-level such externalness is conditioned within the human conditions. This is empirical realism.

The point is going over your head. There are only two options here. Either you can access, via knowledge-by-acquaintance (or in other words, you can observe) things that aren't your own mind, or you can only access your own mind (so that you'd need to be at least an epistemic solipsist) and for anything that appears to you as mental phenomena, you'd have no reason to believe that it's not simply a fantasy, "FSK" nonsense or not.

This goes for things like brains, other people, even your own limbs, etc. If you're going to make a claim based on something about brains, for anyone to think that it's not just a personal fantasy for you, they have to take you to be saying that you can observe brains and reach conclusions about them, in which case you can't at the same time use that to fuel a claim that you can't observe anything external to yourself.

I don't get the whole gist of your views about, nevertheless,

I can agree with Russell's "knowledge by acquaintance" versus 'knowledge by description" with some limitations.

But "knowledge by acquaintance" can only have credibility when verified and justified empirically & philosophically as real within a credible FSK.
I am not making a claim on my own.
In this case, I am relying on faith to believe 'whatever is a brain' as concluded from the scientific FSK is justified true knowledge because it is the most credible FSK we have.

But the point is 'what is brain' cannot exists as brain-in-itself without being supported by a credible FSK.
It is the same with any thing which is claimed to be knowledge, a thing claimed as real must be supported by its credible FSK. There is no thing-in-itself without reference to any specific FSK.

In your case, what you are claiming is "a thing-in-itself exists if and only if a thing-in-itself exists" which are mere words and has nothing to do with reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It could be, if there was nothing else but itself.

Your statement is only true as a statement but never in reality.

In this reality or every reality?

The usual counter is how can there be any appearance without that-which-appear.
This statement is merely a statement when one assumes dualism.
There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself.

That appears to be a statement of duality. You are arguing that one cannot be self aware of being [existing], without something to bounce off. That has to be dualism.

What I meant by dualism is when you view the subject as independent of the object.

On the contrary I view the subject and object as one, which is monism in this sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just saw this quote in the above post:

"There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself."

No idea what that's supposed to be saying. "Realized as really real by itself"???

Note this again,


If the object is claimed to exist a thing-in-itself, then,
"Realized as really real by itself" meant the perceiver is able to realize a 100% representation of the exactness of the pre-existing object, i.e. the above 'candle'.

But the above is impossible because,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
If this is the case, then there is no pre-existing candle-by-itself out there waiting to be perceived.
Rather the supposed candle out there is actually a candle-cocreated-by-the-perceiver* and not a candle-by-itself independent of any human conditions.

*a perceiver within the collective-perceivers.

There are no real things-in-themselves.

There are no facts-in-themselves, there are only facts-within-FSKs.
Thus there are moral facts within the moral FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

........
It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

Definitely an illusion can affect a person.
A person seeing a snake in the shade will likely react to the illusion [a piece of rope perceived as a snake].

However in this case, I am referring to transcendental illusion, i.e. insisting a thing exists as a thing-in-itself as really real and independent of all human conditions.
For example, to insist the table you see out there is really real and independent of any human conditions [minds, etc.] is an illusion.

Note Russell raised the following question, which is true from the Kantian perspective;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

The above allude to the point there is no table-in-itself.
Kant had a credible argument to support the conclusion, there is no table-in-itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The phenomenon of the thing in itself is an emergence thus real as existing as an emergence.

The phenomenon is an emergence thus real when verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

For the ignorant, the thing-in-itself, i.e. the noumenon is the basis of the phenomenon but that is not true.

No, it is real as observed through its emergence.

What is observed is merely the phenomenon and nothing else.

There no 'its' as in your "through its emergence."
An emergence is what is given, there is no ultimate source for any emergence.

Your craving for an 'its' is purely psychological due to cognitive dissonance, i.e. you cannot live with anything that do not have a cause.
Note Hume's counter on that.

Your sort of craving from a cause is where it give rise to theism, i.e. God exists, and leading theists to killing non-theists based on an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A thing exists in itself if all variations of said thing exist as repetitions of said thing thus leaving variations of said thing as the thing itself. For example all things are a variation of a simple dot, the dot exists through variations of the dot as the dot

Your view are off target.

No a thing in itself is that which repeats as a point of change to some other phenomenon.

Your above are merely words and statements.
Prove your thing-in-itself exists as real?