Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:40 am
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:20 am
The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.
Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.
"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh
"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:
Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.
Further the above Kant quote is not atheistic, it is part of an agnostic position. He's not asserting there is no God, he's concluding that God is beyond the scope of knowledge (if there is a God). He is not ruling out God, one example of a noumenon.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... %20aspects.
His critical analysis of pure reason leads Kant to limit the scope of theoretical, demonstrative knowledge to the phenomenal world, i.e., to the world of sense perception, thereby denying the possibility of metaphysics, and consequently the validity of the traditional proofs for the existence of God – the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments (ibid., b811–25). But while Kant maintains that God, as a supersensuous being, cannot be an object of demonstrative knowledge, he does not claim that God does not exist, or that He is beyond the reach of reason as such.
Of course perhaps Kant is wrong about this. He's one philosopher. But once you put him out there as an authority and use the CPR as the demonstration of truths, you have to eat, also, the things this philosopher baked that you don't like, or you undermine that authority.
And given that Kant is not a gnat, certain insults must be modified.
How dare Atla accuse little V of being an
"ultracrepidarian"?
Doesn't he (Atla) realize that little V, after having spent three whole years of privately studying Kant's writings, has unilaterally declared himself as being one of the world's leading experts on Kant?
I mean, come on now guys, forget about ChatGPT, because if you really want to know what Kant truly believed, then from now on you simply need to direct any and all of your questions about Kantian philosophy to
- "ChatVA" - who, again, according to his own personal assessment of the worth of his 3 years of reading Kant's writings, has declared himself to be one of the world's leading experts on Kant.
And I say
"...one of..." the world's leading experts, because his legendary modesty inhibits him from saying what he really believes.
By the way, noumena truly do exist.
Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...
...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is
obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.
It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...
"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."
Unfortunately,
"ChatVA's" faulty self-programming has failed to include (encode) some essential fields of information and has thus severely limited the scope and range of his ability to assess the workings of reality.
Therefore, anything he says must be prefaced or pre-qualified with the term:
"...with reservations...".
Oh, and one last thing, I strongly suggest that the existence of literally everything...
(be it us, the planet, the universe, morality, etc., etc.)
...is dependent upon mind in one way or another.
_______
