Philosophy Now Forum

Kant wrote:"Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects. [i.e. philosophical realism]
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."

Kant's critique of philosophical realism highlighted several foundational issues, which he argued had led to failure in our pursuit of knowledge of mind-independent objects. Here’s a breakdown of some key failures that philosophical realism encountered, according to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason:

Radical Skepticism (Veil of Perception):
Philosophical realism presumes that our senses give us access to an external, mind-independent reality. However, this leads to a gap between appearances and things-in-themselves, creating a “veil” between the mind and the world. Since we can only access the world through sensory representations, realism struggles to bridge this gap. Radical skepticism emerges because if we cannot confirm that our perceptions correspond to a reality independent of our minds, then we cannot have certain knowledge of that reality.

Metaphysical Dogmatism:
Realism's attempt to assert knowledge of things-in-themselves often leads to metaphysical dogmatism—the assumption that certain features or essences of reality can be known independently of experience. This is problematic because it relies on speculative metaphysics to assert knowledge claims beyond empirical verification, ultimately resulting in unverifiable assertions that can’t be meaningfully confirmed or denied.

Failure of Rationalism in Extending Knowledge:
Rationalists, who sought to establish knowledge about the world through pure reason alone, failed to substantiate claims about the nature of mind-independent reality. Kant argued that reason cannot extend knowledge of objects beyond the limits of experience. Attempts to grasp absolute realities, like the concept of a soul or an uncaused cause (e.g., God), led only to contradictions and illusions.

Antinomies of Pure Reason:
Realism’s attempt to describe the absolute nature of the universe led Kant to identify a series of antinomies—paradoxes that arise when we try to apply pure concepts of reason to the world as if it existed independently of our perception. For example, reason tells us both that the universe must have a beginning (a finite past) and that it must be infinite, with no beginning. These contradictory conclusions suggest that the objects of metaphysical inquiry (such as the universe as a whole) cannot be known as mind-independent realities but are instead limited to how we perceive and conceptualize them.

Failure to Ground Knowledge in Necessary and Universal Principles:
Realism could not account for the universal and necessary structure of knowledge. Kant argued that empirical observations alone cannot yield necessary truths, and that to achieve universal knowledge, cognition must be structured by a priori concepts (such as space, time, and causality) that the mind imposes on experience. Realism’s failure here lies in assuming that mind-independent objects could provide such necessary principles, when in Kant’s view, only the structures of our own minds make such knowledge possible.

Dependency on Correspondence Theory of Truth:
Realism relies on the idea that truth involves a one-to-one correspondence between our beliefs and mind-independent facts. However, Kant argued that we lack direct access to things-in-themselves, making it impossible to verify that our concepts or perceptions match external reality. Thus, philosophical realism’s notion of truth as correspondence with an independent reality is ultimately incoherent, as it presupposes an unknowable object as the standard of truth.

Incoherence of Absolute Mind-Independence:
Philosophical realism’s commitment to absolute mind-independence is itself incoherent within Kant’s framework. For Kant, the very concepts we use to structure knowledge (such as substance, causality, unity, etc.) are not given by objects but are conditions of human cognition. Thus, trying to know things “in themselves” outside of these cognitive structures leads to incoherent or meaningless statements, as such knowledge would have to be entirely devoid of the concepts and categories that make experience possible.

Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” shifts the framework by asserting that knowledge is structured by the mind’s own a priori forms and categories. Rather than our cognition conforming to an unknowable external reality, the objects of our experience conform to the way our mind organizes experience. This avoids the pitfalls of realism by rooting knowledge in the conditions of possible experience rather than in an inaccessible, mind-independent realm.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:30 am I have proven:
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:30 am The counter against Moral is Objective is generally grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. reality exists absolutely mind/human independent regardless of whether there are human or not. There cannot be any absolutely mind/human independent objective moral elements, therefore morality cannot be objective.
...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:30 am I have proven:
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Why don't you ask your beloved AI if you have proven it? Ask if that is the appropriate verb.
You don't even have to tell the AI that in the thread where you supposedly proved it, you didn't even respond to critics of the position.
Just try to see if the AI you use in appeals to authority thinks you understand what a rather basic word like 'prove' means in philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:58 am I understand 'proof' and 'prove' are most relevant to mathematics, but it is often used everywhere to signify any sort of justifications.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 9:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:58 am I understand 'proof' and 'prove' are most relevant to mathematics, but it is often used everywhere to signify any sort of justifications.

The first part of the sentence above is fairly correct. The second part is false. I mean, people who don't know what they are talking about might call 'any sort of justification' proof. But in philosophical contexts lay people might use proof to mean what they consider very strong justifications. They'd be incorrect, but some certainly do. But, again, ask your AI if it thinks a rational person should use 'proof' in relation to any sort of justification.

Try it.´ Make it clear we are talking about being rational in a philosophy forum.

The Sun was cold today because it was chilly when I went outside.

There a justification which means it fits in the set of 'any sort of justification.'

But it's hardly a proof.

And you do treat your old threads as if they are proofs.

I wouldn't react to you saying: I presented an argument here

and you gave us a link. Or 'I justified my position here'. It's not a coincidence that you used the word 'prove' or 'proof', it fits precisely with the way you refer to these threads. It also fits with the way you use AIs in appeals to authority. It is as if you, using your prompt, and getting a philosophical position from an AI have now demonstrated something. And you then refer back to this as if it is some final position, when the exact same AI will present an opposed position if prompted differently.

If you actually agree that it was not the right word, you could just agree. If you realize that final words have not been generated by AIs on most of these topics, then you could stop acting like they have.

You often present your arguments with condescension, not just aimed at any particular individual or group here but, for example, all realists. And yet you expect the priniciple of charity to be applied to your misuse of 'proof' in a philosophical forum where that use fits in with the way you treat your earlier threads and what AIs generate in response to your prompts.

Nice try.