PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Atla]

Let 'us' see if absolutely any reader here has the courage to come and tell 'us' what they think or believe you are talking about here.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that you could then just claim that 'that' was what you were talking about.

Either way you not doing this"yourself", and just waiting for others to do it for you, means that you are, once more, proving my claim True here, for me.

Your claim has always been wrong, but you are not capable of understanding that either.

Thank you for, once more, providing actually living proof that has backed up and supported my claim here, perfectly, again.

Wrong as usual.

[Age]

Your claim has always been wrong, but you are not capable of understanding that either.

Thank you for, once more, providing actually living proof that has backed up and supported my claim here, perfectly, again.

Wrong as usual.

It is, exactly, this belief and claim of yours "atla" that is proving my claimed irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. So, keep it up, it is your Wrong type of beliefs, and your belief in them, which is pointing things here in the Right direction, and moving them on towards the Right path and towards the One and only Right 'track', in Life.

[Atla]

Thank you for, once more, providing actually living proof that has backed up and supported my claim here, perfectly, again.

Wrong as usual.

It is, exactly, this belief and claim of yours "atla" that is proving my claimed irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. So, keep it up, it is your Wrong type of beliefs, and your belief in them, which is pointing things here in the Right direction, and moving them on towards the Right path and towards the One and only Right 'track', in Life.

Dead wrong as usual. Both about my beliefs and the one track.

[Age]

Wrong as usual.

It is, exactly, this belief and claim of yours "atla" that is proving my claimed irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. So, keep it up, it is your Wrong type of beliefs, and your belief in them, which is pointing things here in the Right direction, and moving them on towards the Right path and towards the One and only Right 'track', in Life.

Dead wrong as usual. Both about my beliefs and the one track.

See, here how this one beliefs that it, already, 'knows' the absolute truth of things here. Yet, it cannot even clarify, on just about every occasion I ask, what its very own positions and claims are. Which, honestly, says and points out a great deal here.

[Atla]

See, here how this one beliefs that it, already, 'knows' the absolute truth of things here.

Wrong again. How many more times do you plan to prove me right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant didn't recognise things-in-themselves. He invented them, in order to define them out of existence. And you've been suckered by this trick.

OK, the term "recognize" used wrongly here.

What Kant did was, he labelled what [the thing] the p-realists claimed ideologically as absolutely independent of the human condition, the thing-in-itself.
He then proved the thing-in-itself when claimed as real is actually an illusion.

Further, this thing-in-itself [absolutely independent thing] is claimed by theists as an entity with agency, i.e. an independent God.

I have argued, what you claimed as an independent things is a thing-in-itself.
Do you have a counter for this.
PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Prove to me the thing you claim as existing absolutely independent of the human conditions is not what Kant termed as a thing-in-itself.
A thing-in-itself is literally the same as your definition, i.e. a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions; it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

1 Explain exactly what a thing-in-itself actually is.
2 Prove that things-in-themselves don't exist.

1 Explain exactly what a thing-in-itself actually is.
I have explained the thing-in-itself aka noumenon many times and have even raised specific threads on it, but you cannot grasp nor understand [not agree with] the concept.

Here again,
In the preface and elsewhere Kant has listed and explained there are loads of problem when philosophers of his past ASSUMED there is something that exists as real beyond the empirical.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.[1][2]
Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

See Criticism to the above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

The above is ideologized as philosophical realism or metaphysical realism:

Philosophical realism – ...– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The "thing" within philosophical realism is the literally the thing-in-itself which is the thing or object within Substance Theory.

In your case, while the terms may be different, the above thing-in-itself is the same as you what is object, thing or fact, i.e.
a fact is a feature of reality which is the case, a state of affairs, just-is that is absolutely independent of the human conditions' of opinions, beliefs, and judgment, i.e. it exists absolutely regardless of whether there are humans or not.
So your claim of what is fact or thing of reality is literally a thing-in-itself as coined by Kant.

2 Prove that things-in-themselves don't exist.
Protocol wise, the onus is on you to prove a positive claim that the thing-in-itself [fact, thing, object] exists as real.

In the CPR Kant wrote [mine]:

[1.] If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
[2.] but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility. [as Object of the Senses].
Bxvii

In the above [1] [when a thing is assumed to be a thing-in-itself] Kant stated we cannot know the object if it is constituted as a thing-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions [intuition].

Note "our faculty of intuition" [2]
What humans can know is only via its intuition[sensible] and realized via empirical evidence.
As such, what is known as real is contingent upon the human conditions.
What is real is with reference to human-based science as the most credible and objective.

The concept of 'know' is extended from emergence and realization of reality as implied in the whole context of the CPR.

Now it is your turn;
prove your thing-in-itself [what is fact] exists as real and is absolutely independent of the human conditions?
Btw, if you refer to science, it is human-based and science only generate polished conjectures [hypothesis] and do not confirm things exist as thing-in-itself beyond its scope.
In addition, at best science merely assumes thing-in-themselves exist as a guide but never taken as really real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's Ding an sich is a concept designed for us to reflect upon the fact that it is highly unlikely to give us the whole picture.
.........
Above all this there are things about an object we might call a cup that are beyond our ordinary perception.

Ding an sich is a critique of naive epistemology.
I am surprise to see VA bring it up since it utterly denies any claim about "objective morality"

I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].

I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.

PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.

To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.

But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.

Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.

So, I am using the idea of thing-in-itself to squash PH's claim 'Morality cannot be objective'.
It is not tenable for PH to claim "Morality cannot be objective" when his argument is based on the illusory thing-in-itself.


My claim that Morality is Objective is based on philosophical antirealism, i.e. there are only conditioned things contingent upon a specific collective human-based framework and system [FS] (thus objective) of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.
I am relying on an objective collective-human-based MORAL framework and system [FS] which is objective in grounding my claim that morality is objective.

• P1 Whatever is grounded on a specific collective human-based framework and system [FS] is objective.
  
  P2 Morality is grounded on a specific collective human-based Moral framework and system [FS].
  
  C Therefore, Morality is Objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So this thread is yet another thread where you're going to tell someone what they believe, even when they're telling you explicitly "I don't believe that".

Jesus Christ, you're hopeless.

Hey!, this is philosophy forum for discussing philosophical issues.
So it is up for discussion.
Provide counter arguments to show I am wrong or mistaken or have created a strawman.

The counter argument is, he said he doesn't believe that, the end.

Your posts are merely noises without valid arguments.

How come you are so ignorant of what is going on within philosophical discussion?

It is very common for one party X to make a claim p.
Then, for another party Y to claim not-p with supporting arguments.

I have given my argument why PH's fact is essentially fact-in-itself thus the same as Kant's thing-in-itself.

[Flannel Jesus]

Hey!, this is philosophy forum for discussing philosophical issues.
So it is up for discussion.
Provide counter arguments to show I am wrong or mistaken or have created a strawman.

The counter argument is, he said he doesn't believe that, the end.

Your posts are merely noises without valid arguments.

How come you are so ignorant of what is going on within philosophical discussion?

It is very common for one party X to make a claim p.
Then, for another party Y to claim not-p with supporting arguments.

I have given my argument why PH's fact is essentially fact-in-itself thus the same as Kant's thing-in-itself.

You've made a lot of noise without valid arguments. Why are you so ignorant about how to have a philosophical discussion?

[Iwannaplato]

Kant's Ding an sich is a concept designed for us to reflect upon the fact that it is highly unlikely to give us the whole picture.
.........
Above all this there are things about an object we might call a cup that are beyond our ordinary perception.

Ding an sich is a critique of naive epistemology.
I am surprise to see VA bring it up since it utterly denies any claim about "objective morality"

I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].

I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.

PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.

To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.

But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.

Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.

The problem with this approach is while it may cause problems for PH - if you undermine his sense that the objectivity he seeks isn't there in other areas of philosophy/epistemology - it doesn't necessarily at ALL demonstrate that morality is objective.

PH argues that unlike, say, science, morality is subjective because it is not made of things in themselves.
For the sake of argument we accept that Kant proved things in themselves don't exist.

This is has not proven that morality is objective. It has proven that nothing is objective.

Now in the specific battle with PH, this might put him in an awkward position.

But someone else, for example a nihilist who is also an epistemological skeptic, might just say...right morals aren't objective AND we can't be objective about truth either.

Your argument is context dependent: undermine PH.
But it does not in any way demonstrate the objective existence of morals. It actually just says objectivity, in its traditional sense is gone and we can't know stuff.

You have conflated creating a problem for a specific critic with proving your thesis.

The nihilist skeptic can just say, you're just inventing a new meaning for objective, so you can claim objectivity. Thanks for undermining objectivity in general.

[Atla]

Kant's Ding an sich is a concept designed for us to reflect upon the fact that it is highly unlikely to give us the whole picture.
.........
Above all this there are things about an object we might call a cup that are beyond our ordinary perception.

Ding an sich is a critique of naive epistemology.
I am surprise to see VA bring it up since it utterly denies any claim about "objective morality"

I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].

I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.

PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.

To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.

But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.

Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.

The problem with this approach is while it may cause problems for PH - if you undermine his sense that the objectivity he seeks isn't there in other areas of philosophy/epistemology - it doesn't necessarily at ALL demonstrate that morality is objective.

PH argues that unlike, say, science, morality is subjective because it is not made of things in themselves.
For the sake of argument we accept that Kant proved things in themselves don't exist.

This is has not proven that morality is objective. It has proven that nothing is objective.

Now in the specific battle with PH, this might put him in an awkward position.

But someone else, for example a nihilist who is also an epistemological skeptic, might just say...right morals aren't objective AND we can't be objective about truth either.

Your argument is context dependent: undermine PH.
But it does not in any way demonstrate the objective existence of morals. It actually just says objectivity, in its traditional sense is gone and we can't know stuff.

You have conflated creating a problem for a specific critic with proving your thesis.

The nihilist skeptic can just say, you're just inventing a new meaning for objective, so you can claim objectivity. Thanks for undermining objectivity in general.

You are inviting VA to use critical thinking on his own philosophy. How very rude!

[Iwannaplato]

You are inviting VA to use critical thinking on his own philosophy. How very rude!

Thank you, and I'm not alone in doing this.
One phenomena I've noticed is that those who actually critically engage with VA (and Iambiguous and Age...etc.) have put care in the reading of their posts. In other words however surly you, me, FJ, etc. may be on occasion or in general, we actually read what these people write and put care into trying to understand (often not easy) what these posters mean and how they argue their case. There is a kind of ongoing respect in this which they are not going to get from most posters. We come to understand their positions - and internal contradictions - much better than anyone else, and often better than VA, Age, etc., themselves do.

I see missed opportunities in their habitual reactions. Missed for them.

My use of respect may seem incorrect. It's not about specific positive thoughts about VA, say, or his post. Like he's a good philosopher or that was a good post. It's a more fundamental level of respect when one reads with care, mulls and gives a response communicating what we see as the problems, regardless of how this is couched.

[Age]

See, here how this one beliefs that it, already, 'knows' the absolute truth of things here.

Wrong again. How many more times do you plan to prove me right?

This one believes that it can just say to another, 'You are wrong', and that 'this' is absolutely true, and right.

[Atla]

See, here how this one beliefs that it, already, 'knows' the absolute truth of things here.

Wrong again. How many more times do you plan to prove me right?

This one believes that it can just say to another, 'You are wrong', and that 'this' is absolutely true, and right.

Wrong as usual.

[Age]

Wrong again. How many more times do you plan to prove me right?

This one believes that it can just say to another, 'You are wrong', and that 'this' is absolutely true, and right.

Wrong as usual.

Yes, you are Wrong, as usual.