Philosophy Now Forum

Fja1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:36 am What I'm standing on is that one can make an argument which is analoguous to a self-in-itself of a person, from a social perspective impermeable, and you've covered the obstacles which prevent us from transposing this idea to a person who is (epistemologically or otherwise) a self-in-itself.

Fja1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:26 pmMy point being that I can't think of a philosopher who argues for naive realism as a philosophically valid method of logical investigation. (At least not any philosopher after classical antiquity). What can be a valid argument seen through the filter of everyday experience ("I burn my finger because the fire is hot"), is not a complete and coherent argument for a philosopher whose object is reasoning itself.

I believe this point has been covered by William James, from the point of interest, where the argument "I burn my finger because the fire is hot" is pragmatically valuable (he says: a belief which is verifiable), despite insufficient for philosophical reflection.

Your two points are separate issues which must be dealt separately.

One is a transcendental issue and the other is an empirical issue.

In the case of the empirical issue of "I burn my finger because the fire is hot" there is nevertheless a possibility of non-truths as in a hallucination, dreams, etc.
But fortunately because it is empirical, its truth can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically which the most credible is with science.

Note it is possible for certain people to react psychologically to unreal or imagined fire or other empirical things.
Thus optimally humans should avoid all real fire [or whatever it empirically based] in its dangerous state.

The above is the same with dealing with the empirical self.

The problem with the transcendental self-in-itself [thing-in-itself] is that it is illusory [not empirical] whilst it has some positive psychological effects, it also contribute to terrible evil consequences for humanity.
Note how the concept of the self-in-itself, i.e. the soul gave rise to the idea of a God that led the terrible sufferings committed by Christians and other theists in the past and the Muslims [Islam is inherently evil] will continue to commit in the future with the potential to exterminate the human species.
Note the recent discussion on CRT re whiteness-in-itself and blackness-in-itself.

It is with the terrible fatal consequences to the human species that we must curb the illusory idea of the self-it-itself, i.e. the soul-in-itself and God-in-itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:43 am Note the recent discussion on CRT re whiteness-in-itself and blackness-in-itself.

What is this? Essentialism? (Ie. anti-existentialism). Or the color (= universal) black?

Fja1 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:43 am Note the recent discussion on CRT re whiteness-in-itself and blackness-in-itself.

What is this? Essentialism? (Ie. anti-existentialism). Or the color (= universal) black?

My point is clinging and insisting on the idea of the thing-in-itself lead is based on essentialism or plato universals.
Such ideas and views has more cons and pros moving into the future as per the examples I provided above.

As such, one should not cling and insist a person or Kantian person is a thing-in-itself but rather it is just an empirical self with an emergent human consciousness.

I've thought about this theme a lot, the confrontation of the subject with the real and the rational, and the only thing to come out of it is:

Is reality transcendent to the subject / Why is reality transcendent to the subject?

Fja1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm I've thought about this theme a lot, the confrontation of the subject with the real and the rational, and the only thing to come out of it is:

Is reality transcendent to the subject / Why is reality transcendent to the subject?

The question you need to ask is WHY you are driven to think of such a theme, i.e.
"Is reality transcendent to the subject /
Why is reality transcendent to the subject?"

It is not that you must stop asking the above questions but more necessary to understand what is driving you to ask those questions.

Kant had stated, it is the very nature and inherent of human nature and reason that one is DRIVEN and compelled, forced or seduced to ask the above questions that naturally lead one to transcendent illusions:

These conclusions [transcendent ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational],
since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
CPR B397

This fallacy [of the Transcendent] is not, however, an artificial one; a quite natural Illusion of our common Reason leads us,
B528

And secondly, both it and its opposite must involve no mere artificial Illusion such as at once vanishes upon detection,
but a natural and unavoidable Illusion,
which even after it has ceased to beguile still continues to delude though not to deceive us,
and which though thus capable of being rendered harmless can never be eradicated. B450
CPR B449

The Transcendent Illusions are as natural as the Empirical Optical Illusions, e.g. seeing the Moon or Sun larger at the horizon than overhead, and other illusions.
While most are able to understand most [not all] of the empirical illusion quite easily, the majority 99% are unaware they are subjected to TRANSCENDENT Illusions which are related to thinking and thoughts [not empirical].

So we need to ask why and how humans are driven to question about the TRANSCENDENT which are more often ended with illusions [they think is really real].

Thereafter we need to ask what are the pros and cons of such a natural proclivity. There must be or have been some utilities since such a tendency is inherent and embedded in the human DNA.
So we can extract whatever pros there are and note how they can contribute to the well-being of humanity. We will avoid the cons to remove sufferings of humanity.

Merely thinking and being caught in a loop re your theme above will not get you far, you need be more visionary and think deep and wide as I had presented above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am

Fja1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm I've thought about this theme a lot, the confrontation of the subject with the real and the rational, and the only thing to come out of it is:

Is reality transcendent to the subject / Why is reality transcendent to the subject?

The question you need to ask is WHY you are driven to think of such a theme, i.e.
"Is reality transcendent to the subject /
Why is reality transcendent to the subject?"

I think the motivation, as in the course of this thread, is not because I verifiably believe that a transcendent subject exists, but because I've been asking myself 'what would the optimal argument for a transcendent subject look like''? My mental constructions of a subject that is transcendent to reality or phenomena having not been satisfactory, I've thought how the optimal argument would look like if one turns the problem on its head, asking 'conversely, is there a reality or phenomena which is transcendent to the subject?' Also by successfully refuting such an argument, one might potentially produce a simplified and more accessible argument against the thing-in-itself.

This theme is in a germinal stage and I wish I had the time to reread Kant's CPR.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am It is not that you must stop asking the above questions but more necessary to understand what is driving you to ask those questions.

Kant had stated, it is the very nature and inherent of human nature and reason that one is DRIVEN and compelled, forced or seduced to ask the above questions that naturally lead one to transcendent illusions:

These conclusions [transcendent ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

Prerational? While for Hegel, I believe the real is that which is rational, or that which is rational becomes real, but for others (e. g. Adorno) the real also encompasses things which are not rational, or at least temporarily irrational.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am

They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
CPR B397

This fallacy [of the Transcendent] is not, however, an artificial one; a quite natural Illusion of our common Reason leads us,
B528

And secondly, both it and its opposite must involve no mere artificial Illusion such as at once vanishes upon detection,
but a natural and unavoidable Illusion,
which even after it has ceased to beguile still continues to delude though not to deceive us,
and which though thus capable of being rendered harmless can never be eradicated. B450
CPR B449

The Transcendent Illusions are as natural as the Empirical Optical Illusions, e.g. seeing the Moon or Sun larger at the horizon than overhead, and other illusions.
While most are able to understand most [not all] of the empirical illusion quite easily, the majority 99% are unaware they are subjected to TRANSCENDENT Illusions which are related to thinking and thoughts [not empirical].

So we need to ask why and how humans are driven to question about the TRANSCENDENT which are more often ended with illusions [they think is really real].

I don't know, maybe to inquire on the state of things before they're filtered into perception. Why did Thomas Aquinas conceive such a duality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am Thereafter we need to ask what are the pros and cons of such a natural proclivity. There must be or have been some utilities since such a tendency is inherent and embedded in the human DNA.
So we can extract whatever pros there are and note how they can contribute to the well-being of humanity. We will avoid the cons to remove sufferings of humanity.

Merely thinking and being caught in a loop re your theme above will not get you far, you need be more visionary and think deep and wide as I had presented above.

Fja1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am

Fja1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:37 pm I've thought about this theme a lot, the confrontation of the subject with the real and the rational, and the only thing to come out of it is:

Is reality transcendent to the subject / Why is reality transcendent to the subject?

The question you need to ask is WHY you are driven to think of such a theme, i.e.
"Is reality transcendent to the subject /
Why is reality transcendent to the subject?"

I think the motivation, as in the course of this thread, is not because I verifiably believe that a transcendent subject exists, but because I've been asking myself 'what would the optimal argument for a transcendent subject look like''? My mental constructions of a subject that is transcendent to reality or phenomena having not been satisfactory, I've thought how the optimal argument would look like if one turns the problem on its head, asking 'conversely, is there a reality or phenomena which is transcendent to the subject?' Also by successfully refuting such an argument, one might potentially produce a simplified and more accessible argument against the thing-in-itself.

This theme is in a germinal stage and I wish I had the time to reread Kant's CPR.

Noted your neutral position.

Nevertheless, you can still ask, i.e.
Why are so many believing in the thing-in-itself, one example is a soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

You can reread the Chapter on Paralogism [faulty inferences of the soul],

In the first kind of Syllogism [paralogism]
I conclude from the Transcendental Concept of the Subject,
which contains nothing Manifold,
[to] the Absolute Unity of this Subject itself,
of which, however, even in so doing, I possess no Concept whatsoever.

This Dialectical Inference I shall entitle the Transcendental Paralogism.
CPR 397

You read the Third Paralogism, where the dualist argued for the soul-in-itself as such.

That which is conscious of the Numerical Identity of itself at different times is in so far a person.
Now the Soul is conscious, etc.
Therefore it [the Soul] is a person.
CPR A362

Kant critiqued the above syllogism of an illusory soul-in-itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am It is not that you must stop asking the above questions but more necessary to understand what is driving you to ask those questions.

Kant had stated, it is the very nature and inherent of human nature and reason that one is DRIVEN and compelled, forced or seduced to ask the above questions that naturally lead one to transcendent illusions:

These conclusions [transcendent ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

Prerational? While for Hegel, I believe the real is that which is rational, or that which is rational becomes real, but for others (e. g. Adorno) the real also encompasses things which are not rational, or at least temporarily irrational.

'Real' is a very loose term, so we have to be very precise in the usage of the term 'real'.

What is real is 'what-is.'
One cannot simply claim something is real arbitrarily without any basis or on any irrational basis.

Thus "what is real" must verifiable and justifiable empirically plus philosophically within a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK], thus rationally claimed to be real.

The confidence level of the claim of what is real will depend on the credibility of the FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:21 am

They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
CPR B397

This fallacy [of the Transcendent] is not, however, an artificial one; a quite natural Illusion of our common Reason leads us,
B528

And secondly, both it and its opposite must involve no mere artificial Illusion such as at once vanishes upon detection,
but a natural and unavoidable Illusion,
which even after it has ceased to beguile still continues to delude though not to deceive us,
and which though thus capable of being rendered harmless can never be eradicated. B450
CPR B449

The Transcendent Illusions are as natural as the Empirical Optical Illusions, e.g. seeing the Moon or Sun larger at the horizon than overhead, and other illusions.
While most are able to understand most [not all] of the empirical illusion quite easily, the majority 99% are unaware they are subjected to TRANSCENDENT Illusions which are related to thinking and thoughts [not empirical].

So we need to ask why and how humans are driven to question about the TRANSCENDENT which are more often ended with illusions [they think is really real].

I don't know, maybe to inquire on the state of things before they're filtered into perception. Why did Thomas Aquinas conceive such a duality.

I believe Aquinas would have argued for the dualistic soul-in-itself based on the above unsound syllogism.

To understand WHY he [& others of the likes] did so, we would need to resort to evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, anthropology, neuro-psychology plus supported by critical philosophy.