Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 5:45 am
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 5:29 am
Strawman, TI and TR are not applicable and yet you do apply them. "Absolutely" mind-independent means two different things in most PR, and we can only call one of them noumenon. You never had any idea about the anti-realism vs realism debate and you still don't.
You haven't read any books and articles on the issue. You speed-read them without paying attention to what they were saying.
Are you an omnipresent God who know whether I have read or the way I have read them?
Atla:
"Absolutely" mind-independent means two different things in most PR, and we can only call one of them noumenon.
Explain the above with references. [WIKI or otherwise]
You cannot do it with the noumenon because you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant's CPR.
I find it amusing that no matter how many times you (VA) try to set the AI Chatbots straight by pointing out to them the
"nuances" in Kant's writings which led to your impeccable, unassailable, infallible, impossible to be wrong interpretation of what you insist Kant
"really meant" with his use of the term "noumenon,"...
...they (the Chatbots), nevertheless,
always default to the same (generally accepted) interpretation when asked about it.
For example, just for kicks (and because I have no life), I asked Copilot the following questions (bolding, underlining, and font sizing by me and Copilot)...
Me:
What is the difference between transcendental realism and transcendental idealism?
Copilot:
Transcendental realism and transcendental idealism are two philosophical concepts that deal with the nature of reality and our perception of it. Here's a brief overview of each:
Transcendental Realism
- Definition: This philosophical view posits that objects exist independently of our perception or consciousness. In other words, the external world is real and exists outside of our minds.
Key Proponent: While not as commonly discussed as transcendental idealism, transcendental realism can be associated with certain interpretations of realism in philosophy.
Implication: According to this view, our knowledge and understanding of the world are based on the actual existence of objects and their properties, which we perceive through our senses.
Transcendental Idealism
- Definition: This is a philosophical doctrine primarily associated with Immanuel Kant. It suggests that our experience of objects is shaped by the way our mind structures sensory input. Thus, while objects exist, our perception of them is mediated by our cognitive faculties.
Key Proponent: Immanuel Kant is the most notable philosopher associated with transcendental idealism.
Implication: According to Kant, we can never know things as they are in themselves (noumena); we can only know things as they appear to us (phenomena). Our knowledge is therefore limited to the realm of experience shaped by our mental framework.
In essence, transcendental realism emphasizes the independent existence of the external world, while transcendental idealism focuses on the role of the mind in shaping our experience of that world.
Me:
If in transcendental realism "...our knowledge and understanding of the world are based on the actual existence of objects and their properties...", does that mean that we are viewing these objects as "things in themselves" and thus there is nothing hidden or "noumenal-like" about them?
Copilot:
In transcendental realism, the idea is that objects exist independently of our perception, and our knowledge is based on these objects and their properties. This suggests that we are indeed viewing these objects as "things in themselves," meaning that there is no hidden or "noumenal-like" aspect to them. The objects are considered to be fully accessible to our senses and understanding, without any underlying reality that is beyond our perception.
In contrast, transcendental idealism, as proposed by Kant, posits that while objects do exist, our perception of them is mediated by our cognitive faculties. This means that there is a distinction between the way things appear to us (phenomena) and the way things are in themselves (noumena). In this view,
the noumenal world is hidden from us, and we can only know the phenomenal world shaped by our mental framework.
So, in transcendental realism, there is no hidden noumenal aspect, whereas in transcendental idealism, there is a recognition of a hidden reality beyond our perception.
Me:
In Kant's transcendental idealism, did Kant ever insist or imply in any way (be it nuanced or explicit) that the noumenal world cannot be real and that the noumenon can only be considered as being an illusion?
Copilot:
Kant
did not insist or imply that the noumenal world is unreal or an illusion. In fact, he maintained that the noumenal world (the world of things-in-themselves) is indeed real, but it is beyond our capacity to know it directly. According to Kant, our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world—the world as it appears to us through our senses and cognitive faculties.
Kant's transcendental idealism posits that
while we can never have direct knowledge of the noumenal world, it is not an illusion. Instead, it is a necessary concept to explain the limits of our knowledge and the conditions under which we experience the phenomenal world. The noumenal world serves as a boundary to our understanding, indicating that
there is more to reality than what we can perceive and comprehend.
In summary,
Kant did not view the noumenal world as an illusion but rather as a real aspect of reality that is inaccessible to human cognition. This distinction helps to underscore the limits of human knowledge and the role of our cognitive faculties in shaping our experience of the world.
Again, little V, no matter how many times you've tried to set the Chatbots straight with your "infallible" interpretation of what has been revealed to you
(and only to you) in what you proclaim is hidden in the nuanced subtext of Kant's writings,
"they",...
(the "Chatbots" who have access to the interpretations of renowned Kantian scholars across the globe, indeed, I'm talking about experts with Doctorates in Philosophy who (collectively) have spent hundreds of years studying Kant, as opposed to your measly and amateurish 3 years of armchair study)
...consistently contradict you when asked to give the generally agreed upon answer regarding the ontological status of the noumenon, which is summed up in the following quote from the AI...
"...Kant did not insist or imply that the noumenal world is unreal or an illusion. In fact, he maintained that the noumenal world (the world of things-in-themselves) is indeed real, but it is beyond our capacity to know it directly..."
Now of course none of that implies that you, VA, cannot cleverly "trick" the AIs into agreeing with various points you may make based on your own personal (amateurish/armchair reader's) interpretation
* of Kant.
However, that still does not alter the fact that the AIs always uphold (and offer) the consensus view of the world's leading Kantian scholars regarding how Kant himself presented the status of the noumenon (as noted above).
*(The "accuracy" of the leading experts' interpretation of Kant of which the Chatbots rely on --> 80/100. The "accuracy" of VA's interpretation of Kant of which the Chatbots ignore --> 10/100. 
)
_______