For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amYes.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:05 am Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)
And what are they?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amYes.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:05 am Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
Well, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amYes.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:05 am Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)
LOLHarbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:51 amAnd what are they?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amYes.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:05 am Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
So you don’t have a single example of whatever it is you are talking about?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:07 amWell, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.
Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 amYes.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:05 am Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)
Huh? Who were these knowable things knowable to?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:47 amOkay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.
So ontological realists are NOT talking about humans? Ontological realists are (for some reason) excluding humans from the features of reality they are talking about?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:47 am And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.
Well, that sure sounds like they are, at this moment, mind independent, though perhaps they will not be later. You think they exist and we don't know about them.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:07 amA yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:05 am
Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?
Yes.
That is a strawmanPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:47 amOkay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.
The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.
When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.
Oh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:25 amThat is a strawmanPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:47 amOkay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.
I did not state "there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared."
It is presumed you are referring to "empirical-rational possible things" meaning they are merely possibilities while there are humans and are only realized upon a human based FSK.
The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.
When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.
Kant is literally correct is using the term thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist independent of humans and the human conditions.
The philosophical realists' stance is an evolutionary default which led to theists claiming an absolutely mind independent soul that can survive physical death and a mind-independent God.
This evolutionary default leads to illusions albeit a useful illusions to drive Science forward and provide psychological comfort to theists at present.
The anti-philosophical_realists' [kantian] view is reality and things CANNOT exist in-themselves or by-themselves; somehow things exist in connection to the human conditions.
As Kant asserted,
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182
To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.
Where's the "independence" exactly?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:22 am Oh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.
So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:25 am
To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.
Because we don't know about them yet. Duuuh.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:36 am So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?
So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:25 am
To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.
1. Because we don't know about them yet. Duuuh.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:44 am So why do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet?