Rhetoric.
You did not fully grasp Kant’s philosophy, perhaps because you have read Kant’s books in English.
Otherwise you would not post such false statemants (see above).
Note Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel and other German philosopher read Kant’s work in German but yet missed the central message and the various nuances of Kant’s work.
I agree translation is a factor but this limitation is reduced with extensive refinements of the translations and expositions from various scholars and comparative studies.
In our current age to use the limitation of language and translation is one of the worse defense.
No. Hegel and Schopenhauer did not niss the central message and the various nuances of Kant’s work.
What are the central message and the various nuances of Kant’s workis according to you?
One of “the worse defense”?
If they had not missed Kant’s central message, they would not have introduced their own theory in contrast to Kant’s central message.
Here is the general view on the idea of the noumenon by Schopenhauer;
If Schopenhauer had understood Kant’s central message, he should have known how Kant’s used of the noumenon or thing-in-itself fit perfectly like a piece of jigsaw within the whole of Kant’s philosophical system.
What you mean is something very different. You mean that Schopenhauer was not Kant. That is - of course - true. To “miss the central message” means something like to “not understand the central message”, right? Schopenhauer understood Kant’s message. And Schopenhauer used Kant’s “Ding an sich” for his “will”-concept, but that does not necessarily mean that he did not understand Kant’s “Ding an sich”.
Right, so the conclusion of this thread is that major world philosophers all missed the point when they read Kant. Prismatic completely understands Kant on the other hand, and uses Kant to justify conclusions that seem obviously false and poorly defended to the rest of us.
Doesn’t that seem familiar.
As I had always said, when one critique Kant, at least they should fully grasp and understand (not necessary agree with) his central message.
Schopenhauer did understand Kant to a certain degree but not the full perspective of the “Ding an sich” they way Kant I intended.
After spending a lot of time in reading Kant, I dare say most (not all) philosophers who read Kant misunderstood his central philosophy and often argued against straw-men.
For example, most [not all] philosophers will interpret Kant’s ethics as highly deontological [rules based] when it is not.
When you think my conclusion are poorly defended the reasons are likely to be due to the following critical elements, i.e.
- Kant philosophy is well recognized as complex - I have put in a lot of hours to break through this complexity and have understood Kant’s philosophy.
- In spite of 1, I don’t claim to be an expert on Kant yet, thus my explanatory and presentation power in communicating the complex thoughts of Kant to others.
- The others who read my interpretations of Kant has very thick skull and are cognitively blind to Kant’s philosophical perspectives. Note the Necker cube analogy I gave earlier.
IMO, your complain is significantly due to 3.
The ONLY way to know that you understand Kant is for Kant to tell you that you do. People spend their entire lives trying to understand Biblical books yet still argue endlessly about them.
No , the reasons your arguments are poorly defended is because you demonstrate no understanding of the difference between states of affairs and the sentences that name them, and whenever I point out your claims are self refuting, you pretend you didn’t see that part of my post.
To wit:
1.) You can’t claim that there’s no evidence for reality outside the mind without denying other minds, and thus denying intersubjectivity.
2.) You claim Kant showed metaphysics was impossible, while the entire point of this thread is you making a metaphysical claim.
Your arguments fail in straightforward ways that have been pointed out to you, and not addressed by you, since the first page of this thread. And it’s not like it’s the only time. How many times have you created a thread where the people in it that aren’t you all seem to think you are lacking a basic knowledge of the the thing you chose to make the thread about, and you have to assure them “No really guys, I read all about this, really!” before just declaring everybody but you is incompetant? Kinda makes you wonder.
Frankly if you are up to date with the main philosophical issues you would have understood [not necessary agree with] what I was driving at. You are asking me to clarify kindergarten stuff of philosophy to you.
I fully understand the controversies between ‘states of affair’ and ‘sentences that name them.’ Note in a more refined level there are the controversies of the same type between
‘appearance’ & ‘what that appear,’
‘perception & the perceived’ and
reference & referent.
I just do not agree both elements are independent of the human subjects.
Note I highlighted your stance of difference between ‘states of affair’ and ‘sentences that name them’ as in philosophical realism, i.e.
If you are not ignorant you would have understood and be aware of the two contrasting views between the philosophical realists and those of the philosophical anti-realists.
Thus it is up to you to prove the philosophical realists stance is true and absolute, and the anti-realists’ views are false.
Point 1-3 above arise out of your ignorance of the main controversial issues within the philosophical community.
I suggest you google ‘Realism versus antirealism,’ ‘Continental versus Analytic philosophy’, and the likes and understand the issues involved.
Note one of the main purpose of Philosophy is about questions and not answers (Russell). Thus what I have been doing is to trigger ourselves to question our fundamental views.
All that and not two words interacting with my refutation of your position. Hardly surprised! Oh well, show’s over I suppose.