Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you agreed with him before and twice I asked you to explicitly confirm which you did. For example:

What made you change your mind so fast?

Note I stated "yes, according to Kant" not "according to me personally."

Alright. Thank you for the clarification. Our choice of going slow on the subject is paying finally as we are able to clarify and understand each other better. So let us continue going slow if you don't mind.

So, you were agreeing that for Kant only (and not you personally) the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but that Kant found it to be insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you re-confirm?

Yes.

[Averroes]

Note I stated "yes, according to Kant" not "according to me personally."

Alright. Thank you for the clarification. Our choice of going slow on the subject is paying finally as we are able to clarify and understand each other better. So let us continue going slow if you don't mind.

So, you were agreeing that for Kant only (and not you personally) the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but that Kant found it to be insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you re-confirm?

Yes.

Thank you for taking the time to confirm. We have thus establish that you are in disagreement with Kant in that significant respect? Is that fair to say?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Alright. Thank you for the clarification. Our choice of going slow on the subject is paying finally as we are able to clarify and understand each other better. So let us continue going slow if you don't mind.

So, you were agreeing that for Kant only (and not you personally) the Design argument demonstrate the existence of an Author of the world limited by the capabilities of the material with which He works, but that Kant found it to be insufficient to prove the existence of an All-Sufficient Creator. Can you re-confirm?

Yes.

Thank you for taking the time to confirm. We have thus establish that you are in disagreement with Kant in that significant respect? Is that fair to say?

Yes.

[Averroes]

Yes.

Thank you for taking the time to confirm. We have thus establish that you are in disagreement with Kant in that significant respect? Is that fair to say?

Yes.

It was a very nice conversation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think VA is tortured by Kant's idea - which he often quotes - that we're all tortured by the fact that what we call reality is - and must be - an illusion - because we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways, necessarily using our conceptual categories - primarily of space and time.

I agree with IWP's point that, if we can't know what reality is - because it isn't really anything-in-itself - then we also can't know what reality is not. And VA insists reality is not mind-independent.

You are begging the question,
you are assuming positively there is "a reality that you cannot know" thus cannot know what it is not.

As Kant has stated, such a assumed-positive-reality is merely an intelligible reality that is illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.

Seriously for information sake, I suggest you read the Phenomena vs Noumena thread carefully.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987
Read it 10 times if necessary with a fine-toothed comb.

[Sculptor]

This is an opinion too..

It is wrong to hide the reptile under everything else, since the reptile is front and centre everyday.
I think for many people that particular onion should be the other way round.
If you don't believe me, spend some time on the terraces of Milwall on a Saturday for MOTD

[Sculptor]

Thank you for taking the time to confirm. We have thus establish that you are in disagreement with Kant in that significant respect? Is that fair to say?

Yes.

It was a very nice conversation.

Maybe you should get a room?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is an opinion too..

It is wrong to hide the reptile under everything else, since the reptile is front and centre everyday.
I think for many people that particular onion should be the other way round.
If you don't believe me, spend some time on the terraces of Milwall on a Saturday for MOTD

Nah.

The better analogy is that of a large river system like the Yangtze, Amazon or the Nile that rages with violent rush of water from a constant rains at the mountain source [reptilian], the mid valleys [mammalian], and the fertile rich plains [neocortex].

Those on the the terraces of Millwall on a Saturday are likely those with a 'large river system' without dams [inhibitors] along the upper and mid valleys to regulate and modulate the violent rages and surges of water that cause terrible floods with fatal consequences.
Note, with the 3-Gorges Dam, we don't hear or read reports of terrible floods in the Yangtze plains that occurred very frequently in the past.

In the case of all humans and their "triune" brain, they should self-develop effective neural inhibitors [prefrontal planning and executing brain] to modulate the very strong evolutionary rages from the primal instincts [reptilian] and emotional [mammalian] sources in the brain.

I had argued, all humans are evolved with potential neural moral functions which are mostly inactive in the majority of people, e.g. the Millwall FC crowds, Muslims of ISIS, etc.
As such, by self-developing these moral inhibitors and regulators, the majority will be able to facilitate moral progress within humanity.

[Agent Smith]

This chapter is ... is ...

I know ... reminds me of ...

Lattices, wooden ones, diamonds ... a shadowy figure ... dressed in?

Black! Yeah!

We're ...

In the right place then?

99%

[Iwannaplato]

In the case of all humans and their "triune" brain, they should self-develop effective neural inhibitors [prefrontal planning and executing brain] to modulate the very strong evolutionary rages from the primal instincts [reptilian] and emotional [mammalian] sources in the brain.

But those neural patterns are IN THE BRAIN!!!!!!!!!!
You'd be trying to modulate OBJECTIVE MORAL FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ON WHAT GROUNDS!!!!??????
How can we decide something right there in the brain, conditioned on the neuroscience FSK, has the wrong volume which is ALSO an objective moral fact, the strength of those urges, they are also conditioned on the neuroscience FSK!!!!!

[Sculptor]

This is an opinion too..

It is wrong to hide the reptile under everything else, since the reptile is front and centre everyday.
I think for many people that particular onion should be the other way round.
If you don't believe me, spend some time on the terraces of Milwall on a Saturday for MOTD

Nah.

In other words: yes, acording to the verbal that you followed it with, in which you gave yet another failing opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is an opinion too..
It is wrong to hide the reptile under everything else, since the reptile is front and centre everyday.
I think for many people that particular onion should be the other way round.
If you don't believe me, spend some time on the terraces of Milwall on a Saturday for MOTD

Nah.

In other words: yes, acording to the verbal that you followed it with, in which you gave yet another failing opinion.

That is your typical response from your ignorance of advance knowledge, which readily available if you care to research. It is likely you don't even know where to start.

Similarly, you are like those on the terraces of Milwall on an EPL Saturday, in this case intellectually wise, operating on the reptilian and mammalian brains.

[Sculptor]

Nah.

In other words: yes, acording to the verbal that you followed it with, in which you gave yet another failing opinion.

That is your typical response from your ignorance of advance knowledge, which readily available if you care to research. It is likely you don't even know where to start.

Similarly, you are like those on the terraces of Milwall on an EPL Saturday, in this case intellectually wise, operating on the reptilian and mammalian brains.

It's not as if the rest of the Forum does not also think you are batting for the looney bin too.
I mean, really? Moral objectivism existed before life on earth. Nice!