Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:45 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:34 am

That's a tricky question to answer. I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms. The problem comes in if we look at his consistancy of application of his arguments and ideas. It's like 'intelligible' means X and he uses it in an OK fashion. Then it's pointed out that some other idea or position of his is vulnerable to the same critique or negative labelling and the X meaning disappears. And in general, he won't directly respond. IOW he won't say potentials are not just in the intellect, you can sense them by........The word disappears.

I have given up pretending that he actually responds to points made. I think you wrote something similar to him.

In the past I might reexplain the points I made in a new way. Only to find myself with him, yes, writing a lot, but not addressing the points I made. I'm not saying he consciously decides to do this, but it is a rigid pattern.

Instead of responding to the points I make, he repeats his position.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he supports his position in ways that have nothing to do with what I write.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he gives links to where he already proved his position.

Often, I can't even tell, reading his responses, if he actually read my posts.
I can't tell from his posts what part of what I wrote he might think he is responding to in some way.

His way of (not) responding means that the discussion often just simply resets to the noll position. Or you could say his posts in the thread are paraphrasings of his OP.

It's not a discussion, but it is presented as if it is one.

Agree, except for the "I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms." part. I have rather major doubts there.

Don't embarrass yourself, I have given the links;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

wherein Kant had stated noumena are intelligible objects and where humans do not have the intelligible intuition [if such a thing is even possible] to realize it as real.

Yes so he wasn't both relying on and rejecting noumena at the same time, unlike you.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:00 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:45 am
Agree, except for the "I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms." part. I have rather major doubts there.

Don't embarrass yourself, I have given the links;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

wherein Kant had stated noumena are intelligible objects and where humans do not have the intelligible intuition [if such a thing is even possible] to realize it as real.

Yes so he wasn't both relying on and rejecting noumena at the same time, unlike you.

I am with Kant, where did I ever reject the noumena as a negative idea?

Kant as with me, reject the noumena in the positive sense as something real like you do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:36 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:00 am
Don't embarrass yourself, I have given the links;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

wherein Kant had stated noumena are intelligible objects and where humans do not have the intelligible intuition [if such a thing is even possible] to realize it as real.

Yes so he wasn't both relying on and rejecting noumena at the same time, unlike you.

I am with Kant, where did I ever reject the noumena as a negative idea?

Kant as with me, reject the noumena in the positive sense as something real like you do.

We already established that most of your philosophy is based on noumena. No need to go over it again.

Noumena are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory.

THere is a world of understanding between "are" and "thus".

The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself.
We have access to this via evolved perceptual sensory organs. There are dozens of sensory inputs and the brain intperprets these impression. The organs of senstation are those by which we have managed to survive and thrive. Whilst it can be argued that these are "accurate" , it is possibly more useful to think of them as providing the most useful interpretation, but without necessarily offering a ourely objective and disinterested pov.
Our impressions are accurate enough for us to understand those perts of reality which have for billions of years helped us survive, reproduce and find food; warn of dangers and so forth. But clearly these are likely to exaggerate danger and ignore what is not especailly useful to our survival.
And since we know reality only through those perceptions it may not be possible to sense everything.

For example.
We can sense hunger. This is a remarkably usuful trait to possess. We feel it as a yearning for food, and emptyness in the middle of our bodies, and it can invoke images of food and its possible locations; fridge, shop, apple on a tree - in our imagination.
But objectively what we are actually sensing is low blood sugar in most cases.
It does not feel like low blood sugar, but in essence that is the root of the sensation.
IN some cases the feeling is induced by out sense of time. Those who are habituated to eat at the same time each day can get the sensation of hunger simply for the fact that the clock has moved.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:26 am As often, your points are off tangent without any solid arguments, else I would have addressed them.

So, you admit not addressing the points I made.

As I had stated many times,
all scientific facts [observables or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Since it is human-based [anti-realist] how can it be 'realist' which is non-human-based.
This is one of the reason why you are off-based here.

This is absurd. You argue that because their conclusions are based on FSKs there is no mind independent reality. They don't. Most models in science are realist. They're models and theories may be mind independent, but they certainly think the Moon is older than homo sapiens.

And if they are antirealist, the not only does the Moon not exist when we aren't looking or after we are gone. But the not able to be experienced and highly unobservable moral potential, does not exist. Only when it is manifest does it exist.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:21 am The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself.

We have access to this via evolved perceptual sensory organs.

"The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself" and by-itself, i.e. an island by itself absolutely independent of the human conditions.

We [humans] have access to this [absolutely human-independent noumenon] via our evolved human-dependent perceptual sensory organs.

Can you see the contradiction in your statement above?

In a way, it is Meno's Paradox.
How can you be so sure that your perceived-human-dependent thing [so-claimed noumenon] is precisely the same as that in-itself human-independent noumenon?
There is no way, you can prove an in-itself_human-independent-noumenon exist as real because 'proving' has to be human-based thus it FOLLOWs cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The solution to the above dilemma is as explained by Hume and other anti-realists, i.e.
the idea of the noumenon is an illusion fabricated by the human mind inferred from experiences [conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history].

There is no real noumenon to be discovered in the first place.
The idea of a noumenon is an illusion your mind deceived you to believe it is real to soothe your subliminal cognitive dissonances.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:26 am As often, your points are off tangent without any solid arguments, else I would have addressed them.

So, you admit not addressing the points I made.

Yes, where I think the point is off topic and irrelevant.
You can however represent your topic in a separate OP for discussion if it that critical to philosophy.

As I had stated many times,
all scientific facts [observables or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Since it is human-based [anti-realist] how can it be 'realist' which is non-human-based.
This is one of the reason why you are off-based here.

This is absurd. You argue that because their conclusions are based on FSKs there is no mind independent reality. They don't. Most models in science are realist. They're models and theories may be mind independent, but they certainly think the Moon is older than homo sapiens.

And if they are antirealist, the not only does the Moon not exist when we aren't looking or after we are gone. But the not able to be experienced and highly unobservable moral potential, does not exist. Only when it is manifest does it exist.

Most?? that is the ad populum fallacy.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

Many modern scientists are biting the bullet on this;

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Note also Hawking's Model Dependent Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

I suggest you make it a point to upgrade your philosophical thinking and not be a slave to the 4.5 billion years old evolutionary default.

Note my above post to Sculptor.
viewtopic.php?p=667920#p667920

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 4:02 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:21 am The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself.

We have access to this via evolved perceptual sensory organs.

"The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself" and by-itself, i.e. an island by itself absolutely independent of the human conditions.

We [humans] have access to this [absolutely human-independent noumenon] via our evolved human-dependent perceptual sensory organs.

Can you see the contradiction in your statement above?

In a way, it is Meno's Paradox.
How can you be so sure that your perceived-human-dependent thing [so-claimed noumenon] is precisely the same as that in-itself human-independent noumenon?

It's called a framework.
And it is verifiable bevause aspect of the noumenon, previously opaque have been reveals by technological innovations; has been verirfied by agreements from other human observers; and predictions of some of its truths have been shown to be true.
The framework works, and whilst that continues there is no contradiction.

There is no way, you can prove an in-itself_human-independent-noumenon exist as real because 'proving' has to be human-based thus it FOLLOWs cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You can go down your own rabbit hole of solipsism if you want, but you will be struck dumb and motionless.

The solution to the above dilemma is as explained by Hume and other anti-realists, i.e.
the idea of the noumenon is an illusion fabricated by the human mind inferred from experiences [conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history].

Nah.
THere is no real dilemms here. Realism can be cast aside easiloy enough. And let's face it. The notions I expressed in my post are 100% in tune with Hume, and Kant.
And without contradiction.

There is no real noumenon to be discovered in the first place.

Prove it!

The idea of a noumenon is an illusion your mind deceived you to believe it is real to soothe your subliminal cognitive dissonances.

Nope.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:34 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:12 am Is there even any concept from Western philosophy that he's using correctly?

...Instead of responding to the points I make, he repeats his position.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he supports his position in ways that have nothing to do with what I write.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he gives links to where he already proved his position.

Often, I can't even tell, reading his responses, if he actually read my posts.
I can't tell from his posts what part of what I wrote he might think he is responding to in some way.

His way of (not) responding means that the discussion often just simply resets to the noll position. Or you could say his posts in the thread are paraphrasings of his OP.

It's not a discussion, but it is presented as if it is one.

Yes, all of which begs the question: why do we keep arguing with him?

And in regard to his obsession with old philosophers such as Kant (and now Hume), for some reason he just cannot seem to understand that the only way he is going to progress towards any sort of true understanding of reality is by standing on the shoulders of these old giants in order to see beyond them.

Again, why do some of us feel compelled to keep arguing with this self-aggrandizing nihilist who, in essence, not only believes that life is meaningless and holds no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also believes that all humans in general would get along much better if they too believed (like him) that life is meaningless?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:01 pm ...but also believes that all humans in general would get along much better if they too believed (like him) that life is meaningless?
_______

I missed where he says life is meaningless.

And, yeah, why do this?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 8:08 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:01 pm ...but also believes that all humans in general would get along much better if they too believed (like him) that life is meaningless?
_______

I missed where he says life is meaningless.

Then you have missed the fundamental (bottom-line) gist of his entire philosophy.

He believes that life ends for us at the moment of physical death.

If so, then clearly, there is no ultimate purpose for us as individuals in the context of eternity.

That is a form of existential nihilism that he is attempting to foist on humanity in place of any form of religion that suggests that life continues on after death.

Now I'm not suggesting that he isn't inadvertently serving the greater purpose of functioning as part of a "wrecking crew" that is involved in the necessary task of helping to tear down the old and dilapidated religions of the world in order to make way for a new "material/spiritual paradigm."

The problem is that wrecking crews usually precede some sort of construction crew that is in possession of new and improved architectural plans that will replace the old edifices.

However, except for perhaps the unsatisfying teachings of the most mundane aspects of Buddhism, little V's got absolutely nothing to offer as a replacement for that which he wishes to take away from the vast majority of humans on earth who believe in some sort of higher intelligence being responsible for the unfathomable order of the universe.

Again, he is a materialistic nihilist who hasn't the slightest clue as to how we and the universe came into existence, yet he is absolutely "cocksure" that it cannot be the result of some kind of transcendent intelligence.

I mean, good lord, he promotes Buddhism as being a viable replacement for the Abrahamic religions, yet, like his misinterpretation of some of Kant's ideas, he has even misinterpreted Buddhism by denying the notion of transcendence and the existence of an eternal soul implicit in the following claim made by the Buddha himself...

Wiki wrote: In the 40-plus years of his life after enlightenment, Gautama Buddha is said to have recounted almost 554 past life stories, (called Jataka tales) of his prior existences.

_______

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 4:02 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:21 am The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself.

We have access to this via evolved perceptual sensory organs.

"The noumenon is the world as it is, in itself" and by-itself, i.e. an island by itself absolutely independent of the human conditions.

We [humans] have access to this [absolutely human-independent noumenon] via our evolved human-dependent perceptual sensory organs.

Can you see the contradiction in your statement above?

In a way, it is Meno's Paradox.
How can you be so sure that your perceived-human-dependent thing [so-claimed noumenon] is precisely the same as that in-itself human-independent noumenon?

It's called a framework.
And it is verifiable bevause aspect of the noumenon, previously opaque have been reveals by technological innovations; has been verirfied by agreements from other human observers; and predictions of some of its truths have been shown to be true.
The framework works, and whilst that continues there is no contradiction.

Yes, framework and essentially framing 'systems' which are human-based, thus my Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge. [FSR-FSK].

Whatever-is-revealed by these human-based FSK-FSK must be conditioned and qualified to them specifically.
That which is revealed can NEVER be an independent thing which is the noumenon.
The claim that 'water is H20' must always be qualified to the human-based Science-Chemistry FSR-FSK; it is because the Science-Chemistry FSR-FSK said so, not you, your mother or father said so.

Because the reality 'water is H20' is conditioned upon a human-based FSK, logically, it FOLLOWs, it cannot be absolutely mind-independent as a noumenon.

There is no way, you can prove an in-itself_human-independent-noumenon exist as real because 'proving' has to be human-based thus it FOLLOWs cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You can go down your own rabbit hole of solipsism if you want, but you will be struck dumb and motionless.

The solution to the above dilemma is as explained by Hume and other anti-realists, i.e.
the idea of the noumenon is an illusion fabricated by the human mind inferred from experiences [conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history].

Nah.
THere is no real dilemms here. Realism can be cast aside easiloy enough. And let's face it. The notions I expressed in my post are 100% in tune with Hume, and Kant.
And without contradiction.

There is no real noumenon to be discovered in the first place.

Prove it!

The idea of a noumenon is an illusion your mind deceived you to believe it is real to soothe your subliminal cognitive dissonances.

Nope.

You are the one who is claiming positively there is an absolutely mind-independent noumenon.
The onus is on you to prove [human-based] the absolutely mind-independent noumenon [non-human-based] exists as real.
From the above, it is a non-starter, else it is a contradiction.

This is why Hume indirectly insisted the rationalists' 'noumenon' cannot be empirically real.
Hume implied your noumenon is a psychological aberration and illusion.

You are accusing antirealists as likely solipsistic while being ignorant you as a realist is standing on solipsistic grounds.
see:
Philosophical Realism [mind-independence] is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:10 am You are the one who is claiming positively there is an absolutely mind-independent noumenon.

DUH

The onus is on you to prove [human-based] the absolutely mind-independent noumenon [non-human-based] exists as real.
From the above, it is a non-starter, else it is a contradiction.

The simple fact that you are responding to one of my posts proves it.
Unless you think I am a phanotm of your own mind...

This is why Hume indirectly insisted the rationalists' 'noumenon' cannot be empirically real.
Hume implied your noumenon is a psychological aberration and illusion.

You are accusing antirealists as likely solipsistic while being ignorant you as a realist is standing on solipsistic grounds.
see:
Philosophical Realism [mind-independence] is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Gibber gibber gibber

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:42 pm

Wiki wrote: In the 40-plus years of his life after enlightenment, Gautama Buddha is said to have recounted almost 554 past life stories, (called Jataka tales) of his prior existences.

_______

I think it's unclear where this was mere rebirth or reincarnation. BUT either way we have something that is outside of VA's philosophy And most certainly having to do with noumena.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:47 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:42 pm

Wiki wrote: In the 40-plus years of his life after enlightenment, Gautama Buddha is said to have recounted almost 554 past life stories, (called Jataka tales) of his prior existences.

_______

I think it's unclear where this was mere rebirth or reincarnation. BUT either way we have something that is outside of VA's philosophy And most certainly having to do with noumena.

Indeed, "unclear" is the key word here.

I will never say never, but I personally feel that the concept of reincarnation is nonsensical.

I say that for several reasons, but I don't want to hijack little V's thread in order to air my doubts about reincarnation.

Anyway, with that being said, did you at least understand how VA has been promoting a philosophy of existential nihilism that very few people on earth (aside from a few hardcore atheists) will ever accept? - (and rightly so, for it invokes the ridiculous "chance hypothesis")

I mean, aside from his no-brainer efforts to call into question the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds, what do you suppose he's wishing to achieve by his obsessive (hyper-manic) attempts to strip humans of any form of "hope" that there may indeed be more to life than meets the eye?
_______