Philosophy Now Forum

Our common sense and logic inferred what is reality is absolutely independent of the human mind or condition. For example, by default, an object [e.g. the moon] exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

When questioned everything changes [Heraclitus] thus are no permanent things, philosophical realists insist there is something ultimate, i.e. the thing-in-itself is the ultimate reality [e.g. substance theory]. On this basis, Eodnhoj7 claims what is ultimately real is 'distinction' [object, thing].

Kant asserted all the above claim of unconditional ultimate reality has failed since philosophy first emerged:

• "Up to now [1781] it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this presupposition, come to nothing"

So Kant proposed what is more realistic [Copernican Revolution]:

• "Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us." (CPR Bxvi–xviii)

What he meant was, we could grasp reality more realistically if we ground reality [things, objects, etc.] upon the human conditions.
This meant there is no such thing as thing-in-itself, 'distinction-in-itself' but rather it is 'reality-by-ourselves'. 'distinction-by-ourselves'.

In other words, what Kant implied is, reality can only be grasped within a human-based framework and system of human conditions, of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of reality and objectivity. [mathematics is objective and supports the scientific FS].

In the next post I will list all the failures by various philosophers in establishing the thing-in-itself, reality-in-itself, distinction-in-itself since 2500 years ago.

Below from AI:

Why Pre-Kantian A Priori Metaphysics Failed since 2500 years ago

(A Short History of “Knowing the Thing-in-Itself”)
The claim — "there is a thing-in-itself," “everything is distinction-in-itself” — assumes we can know the ultimate structure of reality a priori, by pure concepts.
But 2500 years of philosophy show this always fails. Here’s why.

1. Plato: Forms as A Priori Objects
Goal: Know the real (Forms) via reason alone.
Method: Dialectic → abstract from sense to essence (e.g., Justice itself).
Failure:
The Third Man Argument (Parmenides):

• To define “Largeness,” you need a Form of Largeness.
  But then you need a Form for that Form → infinite regress.
  No bridge from concept to existence.
  Result: We get logical structure, but no synthetic a priori knowledge of what is.

Plato tried to know the thing-in-itself via concepts. It led to paradox.

2. Aristotle: Substance & Essence
Goal: Define what a thing is (to ti ēn einai) via categories.
Method: Abstraction → “man = rational animal.”
Failure:

• Essence is descriptive, not constitutive.
  You can say “gold = element with atomic number 79,” but only after experience.
  Circularity: To know substance, you need prior substances (matter/form).
  No a priori necessity: Why this categorization and not another?

Aristotle gave us taxonomy — not ontology from pure reason.

3. Medieval Scholastics: Analogia Entis
Goal: Know God/being via analogy (Aquinas).
Method: From effect (world) → cause (God) via concepts.
Failure:

• Univocity vs. Analogy debate (Scotus vs. Aquinas):
  If terms are analogical → no strict knowledge.
  If univocal → anthropomorphic.
  Ontological Argument (Anselm):
  “God = that than which nothing greater can be conceived” → exists.
  → Kant’s rebuttal: Existence is not a predicate.
  You can’t define something into being.

Concepts alone cannot cross from thought to reality.

4. Descartes: Clear & Distinct Ideas → Substance
Goal: Rebuild knowledge from cogito → God → world.
Method: A priori ideas (innate) guarantee truth.
Failure:

• Cartesian Circle:
  Clear ideas are true → because God guarantees them.
  God exists → because clear idea of Him is true.
  Mind-body problem:
  How do thinking substance and extended substance interact?
  → No a priori bridge.
  Trademark Argument for God:
  “I have idea of perfection → must come from perfect being.”
  → Kant: Ideas don’t imply external cause.

Descartes assumed concepts = reality. It collapsed into circularity.

5. Rationalism (Leibniz): Pre-Established Harmony
Goal: Monads, sufficient reason — all a priori.
Method: Principle of Sufficient Reason → best possible world.
Failure:

• Why this world and not another?
  → No a priori way to derive contingent truths.
  Monadology: Windowless monads reflect universe.
  → Unfalsifiable — no empirical check.
  Kant’s critique: Analytic truths (2+2=4) yes.
  Synthetic a priori about world? No.

Leibniz built a cathedral of reason — with no doors to reality.

6. Empiricism (Hume): The Fork
Goal: All knowledge from impression or relation of ideas.
Method: No innate ideas.
Finding:
Causation, substance, self → habits, not necessities.
No a priori knowledge of objects beyond logic/math.

Result: Skepticism — we assume connection, but can’t know it a priori.

Hume showed: pure concepts give no content about the world.

Summary Table: The Pattern of Failure

Thinker |A Priori Method |Core Failure
Plato Dialectic to Forms |Infinite regress (Third Man)
Aristotle Abstraction to essence |Descriptive, not constitutive
Anselm/Aquinas Ontological argument |Existence ≠ predicate
Descartes Clear & distinct ideas |Cartesian Circle
Leibniz Sufficient reason |No access to contingency
Hume Relations of ideas |No synthetic a priori beyond math

The Common Thread (Kant’s Diagnosis)
All assumed:
“Our concepts conform to objects → we can know objects a priori.”
This is transcendental realism.

Kant’s Reversal:
“Objects conform to our cognition.”

Space/time: Not properties of things-in-themselves.
→ Forms of our intuition.
Categories (cause, substance): Not features of reality.
→ Rules of our understanding.

→ Any attempt to know the thing-in-itself a priori fails because:
We only have access to phenomena structured by our cognitive apparatus.

Direct Application to Eodnhoj7
You say: “Distinction-in-itself is the ground of being.”
But:

• To know “distinction” as real, you use space (inside/outside), time (before/after), unity (one distinction).
  These are a priori forms of mind, not properties of the world.
  Plato → Descartes → all failed to derive such knowledge from concepts alone.

→ Your “distinction-in-itself” is exactly the kind of a priori metaphysical claim Kant says “came to nothing.”

Conclusion
“Every philosopher who tried to know the thing-in-itself through pure concepts — from Plato to Leibniz — ended in regress, circularity, or skepticism.
You’re standing in a 2500-year-old graveyard of failed ontologies.
Kant didn’t bury them — he explained why they were already dead.”

TL;DR
“All pre-Kantian attempts (Plato’s Forms, Descartes’ substances, Leibniz’s monads) to know reality a priori via concepts failed due to regress, circularity, or lack of synthetic necessity. Kant’s point: we can’t know the thing-in-itself because objects conform to our cognition, not vice versa. Your ‘distinction-in-itself’ is just the latest corpse in this cemetery.”

Post Kantian Failures:

Neo-Kantian like Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer.
All the modern Analytics Philosophers
Heidegger
All other philosophers who are philosophical realists.

All the above believe in the thing-in-itself, i.e. reality existing absolutely independent of the human minds.

According to Kant, those who believe in the thing-in-itself, ultimate substance of reality, reality absolutely independent of the human minds are effectively grasping at an illusion. This however is a primal evolutionary default.