The word “transcendental” has a meaning, let’s use that. It means, relating to a spiritual realm. So if we have an idea relating to a spiritual realm, that idea is transcendental, which you are claiming is illusory. We can take empirical and concept as a given.
A transcendental idea can be verified by experience, but it is anecdotal in nature. Like someone claiming Jesus came to them in a dream, that is a transcendental idea. They experienced the dream and it was real to them. It may have pertained to situations that were occurring in their life, or Jesus, in the dream, gave them some kind of mandate – that is the kind of experience that the religious report. We cannot know if their dream had any validity, but for that person it did, they experienced Jesus. We call this anecdotal or even wishful thinking, but the person and their religious community will believe that they had a transcendental experience. Objectively, we cannot know for certain if their experience was real or not. Whether we accept the idea will be based upon our own world views, perspectives, beliefs etc. So to claim that transcendental ideas are without possibility, is a subjective claim, not an objective fact.
It is outside the scope of science to demonstrate that transcendental ideas are real, but experientially, transcendental ideas are real to people who experience them. That is a fact.
With respect. That seems like a child’s reasoning. Ideas/thoughts are conceptualisations. Why would anyone who thought of a “square-circle” believe that it can be real? God/gods are concepts built upon transcendental ideas. There are reasons why people believe they exist, real or not. They have qualities, attributes, emotions, powers, immortality etc., and they are encased within the concept of religions and myths. People may not be right about them, and to compare God(s) conceptually to a square-circle, is fine if that’s what you think about the possibility of such a being existing, but that’s not how God is perceived by all, and there are valid reasons for that. If you want to prove that God doesn’t exist as a fact, then problems such as subjectivity with what you’re claiming arise.
Okay.
An idea without a concept? Ideas are necessarily conceptual, no matter the content. I don’t understand the epistemology of why you separate them?
Are you seriously trying to sell me this? Example please.
This is a statement of belief. I’m not sure why you are trying to present it as a fact?
I have already stated above, for Kant, the transcendental idea is very specific as defined and argued for.
The only 3 pure transcendental ideas are
God - the absolutely unconditional
Soul - that can survive physical death.
The Whole-Universe - totality of all.
Nope the ‘transcendental’ is not specifically related to the spiritual realm.
Idea is this case is not a general idea but specifically a philosophical idea as in Plato’s perspective of ideas, forms and universals.
What counts is whether the thought is conceptually based [empirical] or non-conceptually based.
It you adopt the ‘spiritual realm’ the beings and god you thought of can be empirically-based, e.g. monkey god, which ever anthropomorphic god - ghosts, - spirits, human-liked aliens, etc. These are not transcendental ideas because they are empirically laden and not contradictory.
A square-circle is a transcendental idea albeit not a pure one, because as a contradiction it is empirically impossible.
You have missed my point,
“A transcendental idea is a thought without any empirical elements and possibility” as such can never be experienced at all.
I stated, “What is experienced must be empirical-based.”
If someone dreamt about Jesus.
What is experienced in the ‘dream’ not the object of the dream, i.e. Jesus.
If I dream of an apple, my experience is a real dream, not a real apple.
If I insist upon my dream there are apples, I have to in the wakeful state produce evidence of apples and subject them to testing, verification and confirmation the apples are real.
So if the person dreamt of Jesus, he will have to produce evidence of Jesus in his awake state to justify Jesus exists as real.
In the case of Kant,
to claim pure transcendental ideas are impossible to be real is a logical and philosophical claim which is objective against the framework of reality.
Anyone can go through this logically and philosophically within the framework of reality and arrive at the same logical conclusion, thus objective.
Anyone who disagree with have to prove their counter-views.
The question of impossibility is very straightforward.
It is impossible logically for the non-empirical to be empirical.
The whole argument rested on this premise.
Nope, you got it wrong.
What is real to them are only the thoughts [neural activities] not the object that is thought of.
Schizophrenics will claim the gnomes who spoke with him are really real, but what is real is the neural activities that enable ‘realness’ to his schizophrenic brain.
Note, there are many of the mentally ill who have had experience with a ‘real’ Jesus, God. But they are medically diagnosed as mentally ill. When given the right medicine, their experience of Jesus, God, ghosts, Satan, etc. disappear, e.g. The Temporal Lobes and God youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
There many cases [from tons of research] of people with brain damage, under heavy stress, taking drugs and hallucinogens, doing meditation, and all sorts of reasons, who claim to have experience of God, but the god experience disappear when the stimuli is removed or absent.
From these evidences, it is more probable the basis of god is psychological.
I have given my argument for this.
To top is all, I have argued logically, God is an impossible to be real, based on the perspective of pure transcendental idea.
Your “Ideas/thoughts are conceptualisations.” is misleading you into rhetoric.
Thoughts can be conceptualized or idealized -two distinctly different elements.
Thus conceptualizations cannot be idealizations.
Transcendental ideas are idealizations not conceptualizations.
The idea of the impossibility of ‘square-circle’ is analogical to ‘God’ but the explanation is different.
Who?? it had already happened and is happening for some mental cases, like schizos, etc. thinking of anything and insisting what-is-thought is really really in their deluded mind.
Okay.
I have stated before the ‘idea’ used here is in the philosophical sense as used by Plato in his forms and universals.
I have explained throughout the difference between concept and idea.
Via selective attention you have missed them like the 500 pound gorilla right in front of your eyes.
I have explained in the dream example above.
If one experience an apple [conceptual] in a dream, hallucination, etc. that is not a transcendental idea [as defined].
Kant had argued premise 1 in his Critique of Pure Reason very comprehensively.
Note the point;
Transcendental ideas are not concepts [empirical only]
Example of a transcendental idea is like a square-circle which is empirically impossible.
Along the line of the square-circle, the thought of God is a pure transcendental idea.
It is very heavy stuff to grasp the above.
It is not based on symbolic nor modal logic but merely based on statements so it is within the reach of ordinary language.
I have already argued why the idea of God must ultimately be transcendent as an ontological God and not an empirical-based God.
If theists claim their God is empirical-based, yes it is empirically possible to exists and thus can be proven by empirical-Science upon availability of evidence to test and verify its existence as real Scientifically.
This is Richard Dawkins’ 1/7th God because he is entrapped by his Scientific Framework. But Dawkins insisted despite this empirical possible, it is highly improbable like trying to prove Zeus the Greek god exists.
But there are limitations of the empirical-based God.
What is empirical is conditional and no theists will accept a conditional God. The ultimate God has to be a totally unconditional God.
With the empirical, there is the point of infinite regression and no theist will accept a god where there is a possibility of a greater god than their god.
Finally, according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures. Thus a scientifically proven God [if done] is at best a polished conjecture. Theists will not agree their god are dependent on conjectures, even polished ones.
Nope.
Kant assumed a transcendent for the empirical, i.e. the noumenon, not a real thing but has merely a limiting function with one phase of his long argument. This noumenon is proven to be a thing-in-itself in his next phase of his long argument. Ultimately the noumenon is a pure transcendental idea thought as the totality of Whole Empirical World.
I have already argued what is real must be justifiable empirically and philosophically.
God the pure transcendental idea is purely non-empirical.
Therefore it is impossible for God to be real.
As explained to Fanman, he had not differentiated transcendental-thought into thoughts as transcendental concepts [empirical] and thoughts as transcendental ideas [non-empirical].
I have never stated whatever experience is false.
The experience in terms of neural activities is real, but the object of experience can be real [if this can be verified empirically] or impossible [if this is thought of a pure transcendental idea]
I think I made the error of applying a meaning of “transcendental” that perhaps, was not specifically related to the topic or the points that you are driving at. You mean Transcendental in the Kantian sense, right? I’m not sure though, if it is right to remove the “spiritual” element from the term transcendental, because we are discussing things such and God, the soul and religious experiences, which are inextricably linked to spirituality.
I’ll try to respond to what you say more fully when I have more time.
The term “transcendental” is a very loose term, i.e.
Transcendental
-transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
-being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
-abstract or metaphysical.
-idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
noun
Mathematics. transcendental number.
transcendentals, Scholasticism. categories that have universal application, as being, one, true, good.
The term ‘spiritual’ is another very loose term, i.e.
Spiritual = relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Spiritual is merely what is non-material or non-physical, which can relate to
-the self, consciousness, hallucinations, which can be empirically verifiable and
-the non-empirically verifiable claims like ghosts, spirits, angels, God, Satan, and the likes.
We need to avoid equivocating 1 and 2.
Therefore I would suggest we specifically define precisely what we are talking with the terms ‘transcendental’ & ‘spiritual’ and avoid them as general terms especially when we are digging deeper into the issues.
Just wondering, what is this …thing, this mind or ‘consciousness’ that is having these transcendental thoughts or episodes?
Evolution has taught us that nothing comes about without a specific evolutionary purpose.
So what would be the purpose of these transcendental realisations?
Where did Kant claim that transcendental ideas are not conceptualisations, but idealisations? And if he did, wouldn’t it be contradictory to what he’s stated regarding his view of transcendental logic?
Note the different aspects of the mind, i.e. conscious, preconscious, unconscious.
The transcendental thoughts are triggered from the unconscious mind.
When a person mistakenly see a snake from a piece of rope in the shade, that is a kind of transcendental illusion related to the empirical.
The evolutionary purpose is to avoid death from poisonous snakes which from past experiences of our ancestors has been known to be potentially fatal.
The transcendental illusion of a God derived from an idea [not concept] also has an evolutionary advantage to soothe very disturbing anxieties manifesting from the subconscious or unconscious fear of death, so that the person can function productively to whatever the evolutionary goals.
The point is thematic, transcendental ideas are without empirical elements.
Here is one quote
[quoted umpteen times]
to support my case, note ‘no Empirical premisses’ and ‘no Concept’. Note in […] are mine.
Kant did not specifically state this, that is my point. You have interpreted this from your reading of Kant, and you should make that clear, rather than asserting that others are wrong as though it was a matter of fact, and not a matter of your interpretation. I’m not going to go into why I think you have interpreted what Kant said incorrectly as that would be like trying to climb Everest.
It is not wrong to use the the term ‘conceptualizaton’ in the context I have presented based on past posts and the quote above. It is just I have to explain the basis why I used the term.
As explained the term ‘conceptualization’ in this case refer to the inclusion of empirical concepts to differentiate from idealizations that do not include empirical concepts.
‘Idealization’ is also a term I introduced.
The point is there is a lot of deep nuances in the deeper layers when discussing Kant.
Principle of Charity needed in the above.
You are wrong in not differentiating empirical-concepts [conceptualization] from philosophical ideas [idealization]. That was my original point.
This differentiation is critical because;
empirical-concepts [conceptualization] lead to real empirical/physical things, while,
philosophical ideas [idealization] lead transcendental illusions, e.g. God, which is impossible to be real.
Kant’s proof for 2 is very extensive, philosophically deep and very complicated to grasp.
If you want to understand it, you’ll need to read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
I don’t think so. In terms of what Kant thinks about the these terms or the dictionary definitions of these terms? From my perspective idealisations are necessarily based upon concepts. When we idealise, we add attributes to concepts that may not necessarily be there. In my view, conceptualisations can be idealised, and idealisations can be conceptualised. As such you can claim that God is an idealisation or transcendental idea, but idealisations relating to God are based upon a concept or even many different concepts relating to empirical things.
You need reference(s) for this. Where does Kant make this exact demarcation? Also, I think it was me who introduced the term “conceptualisations” to this discussion.
It is your responsibility as the one making the claim to explain why this is the case. This strikes me as an equivocation to avoid the necessary fact that Kant does not claim, as you have;
You claimed this. And now you’re telling me that I am wrong as though you are in possession of a fact, but it is just your interpretation. As I quoted Kant directly;
You cannot argue with this. I don’t even know why you are trying to.
I mentioned there are loads of nuances which I am not going into.
Note the idealization of a “square-circle” is based on the concept of ‘square’ and ‘circles’ which individually can be empirical when observed.
But a “square-circle” as a contradiction is merely a thought which emerged from idealization of an illusion.
As such there is an algorithm* in the mind that twisted concepts into transcendental ideas.
In this case Kant used the terms ‘pure concepts of the Understanding.’
*Note in B397
[quote above]
Kant mentioned there a syllogism which distort logic.
“Conceptualization” [my term] is the establishment of empirical concepts that are can be empirically verified to be real. E.g. a square is an empirical concept that can be verified to be real when observed.
“Idealization” do rely on concept(s) [nb: nuance] that are abused and are not empirically possible, thus cannot be verified empirically to be real, e.g. square-circle.
The transcendental idea of God is an idealization from the abuse of various concepts [not empirical concepts], supreme creator who created the Universe and all things.
You will have to read up Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. It took me 3 years full time to grasp the points reasonably. I am not going to try and waste time in explaining that to you in a forum like this.
It does not matter who introduced the term ‘conceptualization’ as long as both agree to what it means.
Actually I don’t think it is you who coined the term ‘conceptualization’. If so where? If you have done so, it would not be the same as what I intended the term to mean.
I stand on my point, you will be lost in the above if you have not read Kant’s CPR and understand it thoroughly.
Sounds like a cliche but the above is a serious especially with Kant’s CPR.
To get an idea on this, note;
Your reference is Nov11, However note in Nov 2 I stated the following which implied “conceptualization” from my perspective;
In any case, this is not a big issue.
To me, ‘conceptualization’ is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.
‘Idealization’ is the abuse of the “Pure Concepts of the Understanding” leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.
There were no posts in this topic on the 2nd of November? I am claiming that I introduced the term in this topic and I’m speaking specifically about the term “conceptualisations.” I didn’t mean “conceptualised” as they have different meanings.
A “square-circle” is a contradiction you’ve used as an analogy to demonstrate that something similarly contradictory is impossible. You compare a square circle to God, because you believe the possibility of God existing is the same as a square circle existing. Both of these propositions are based upon a concept, the concept of contradictions – which is what you’re trying to show. Without a conceptual understanding of the variables involved, I don’t believe that idealisation is possible, because idealisation is based upon concepts. If you don’t believe me, check the dictionary. How do you interpret the quote I provided from Kant?
“Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)”
I think that many aspects of God are based on empirical concepts – they are just taken to extreme ideals, i.e. God is not just perfect he is absolutely perfect. Perfection is a concept, but God is idealised as being absolutely perfect. Jesus was a man, but he was a perfect Godman. People are wise, but God has supreme wisdom. Human-beings love, but God’s love is absolute - you see where I’m going? God is based upon empirical concepts taken to the extreme or absolute, that’s why people can relate to God. If God wasn’t given human or empirical attributes people wouldn’t so easily connect with the idea. So if it was claimed as an analogy that God’s anger is a fire, it would be the perfect or absolute fire. These are idealisations, and they are based upon empirical concepts.
Where did Kant claim that transcendental ideas are not conceptualisations, but idealisations? And if he did, wouldn’t it be contradictory to what he’s stated regarding his view of transcendental logic?