VA wrote:Both Buddhism and Kant believe in an empirical persistent self.
The above is likely to be a misinterpretation of my views; this OP is to set it right.IWP wrote:Buddhism does not.
You'll just have to go back to sources.
And it's funny, you made arguments against persistent empirical things when I presented the people find the same object in a room.
You argued that it need not be and at the quantum level was not the same object.
Well, we're made up of matter also, matter that is always changing and being replaced. Memories are a record of changes, what is experience day to day is not the same.
This is one of the core delusions Buddhism is meant to remove.
I am a Kantian empirical realist, so I believe all empirical concepts within the scientific framework and system.
However as a Transcendental Idealist, whatever is real is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system. As such, if there are no humans, there is nothing real in that sense.
You have to present the problem more clearly and show we where I am wrong.
Kant do not accept the existence of an empirical soul that survives after death.Kant on the other hand thought that an eternal soul was necessary for moral agency.
Where the soul in involved in Kant's morality it is merely a useful illusion on a regulative basis.