Kant vs the Fact of the External World
Posted: Sat May 07, 2022 6:06 am
It is very intuitive that there is something independent out there and remain after death of people because all [living] humans have evolved evolutionary to focus on things external to them [food, threats, partners] to facilitate survival and this is hardwired in the human brain. This is an existential issue and driven psychologically.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:13 pm Things existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. So the claim that whatever exists depends on humans is patent nonsense.
And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
But note Kant's deep insight Copernican Revolution;
Kant went on to challenge this scandal of a claim of an external world;Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [Bxvii]
A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
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
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
CPR Bxvi
G E Moore took up the challenge and failed.However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
B54
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
Yours is based on pure ignorance and not understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's view thoroughly.And I suggest you investigate refutations of idealism, because you've been duped by an ancient dualism, that Descartes repackaged and Kant never questioned, and that takes metaphorical mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - literally.
Actually you are referring to yourself in a way that [1] minds containing mental things and events - literally in addition to [2] things existing independent of mind which in a way 1 and 2 must be corresponded with.
What Kant advocated is to direct humanity to understand the existential issue and not be a slave to it in focusing on an independent external world which has been a failure since >2000 years ago.
What Kant directed is to focus on facts that are derived from FSKs that are empirically-based and supported with philosophical reasonings.
Prove he is wrong on this. It is not likely because you [Peter Holmes or other anti-Kantian] would never read, even if you read you don't have the competence to grasp the essence of his works.
