Kant's Copernican revolution versus Indirect Realism: the problem of certainty

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Someone said I should make a topic, how about this one. Let’s try to refute something from Kant.

In a nutshell, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism says (imo no one really knows what Kant meant exactly, not even Kant, I interpret him like this): We only have access to the phenomena, the objects we experience conform to our mode of cognition. Space, time, causality and so on are features of the phenomena. We can’t know the noumena beyond the phenomena, even talking about noumena and about ‘beyond’ are nonsensical.

We take the leap of faith by assuming that there are other conscious beings, and they construct their phenomena the same way we do. We are essentially solipsistic, but we never admit this, we always pretend that we aren’t.

Indirect Realism (monistic variant, preferably within the nondual philosophical framework) says, or at least some version of it says: Yes, what we experience is a construct, and that construct is at least in part shaped by our cognitive faculties. But there may be an objective reality beyond this construct, and we may be able to infer some things about it, from within the construct.

Modern science and modern psychology are arguably aligned with Indirect Realism of course, but I wanted to highlight the problem of certainty.

Kant is certain that we can’t know anything about what’s beyond appearances. Even thinking that there could be an unknowable objective reality, is nonsensical.

An indirect realist however may say that well, there could actually be an objective reality, it’s just that we can’t infer anything about it. Or that there is an objective reality and we can infer say 1% of its features. Or some other percentage. We don’t know how much, but it’s not zero. So an indirect realist isn’t certain that we can’t know anything about what’s beyond appearances.

So where does Kant’s certainty come from? Imo he just made it up. There is no absolute certainty anywhere in philosophy. The one who uses such certainty, is in error.

1 Like
2

But then what is it. It can’t be observed, and we cannot even imagine observing it. We can’t even imagine it existing or it becomes an object to our subject. As such, words like ‘exist’ or ‘reality’ mean nothing.

This is Kant’s certainty - anything that sits outside the frame of the subject-object is already nothing.

3

Here we are talking about an extreme version of Indirect Realism where we think that we can’t know anything about the external world, we just think that it’s reasonable to assume that it exists. (I don’t subscribe to this one.)

Still, here words like ‘exist’ or ‘reality’ have a realist meaning, so they mean something, not nothing. Why is Kant certain that in such a case, we must go with anti-realism?

4

Something I dislike about Kant is that imo he tricked his many followers into thinking that his philosophy isn’t circular. Naturally, both realism and anti-realism are inherently circular. If you’re a realist, you assume the “something”, even if it’s unknowable, because you’re a realist. If you’re an anti-realist, you’re dealing with “nothing” so there’s nothing to deal with, because you’re an anti-realist.

What we need to do is go one level higher still (or deeper if you like), and compare the competing circular philosophies, and try to decide which one is probably better.

5

We can’t fully contain/know the thing-in-itself — we only have full access to our own immediate (indubitable) perceptions.

But we can know this:

We are not self-existent, but we exist — because the uncreated sustains our being.

We act because the uncreated concurs our freedom/co-sovereignty.

And the point (why) of both is participation—as co-creative ends in the image of Creator.

be △ do △ end

being △ action △ quality

is △ ought △ value

understanding △ practical reason △ judgment

6

Looks like Kant didn’t like inherent uncertainty. (Some think he was autistic (but with 180 or so IQ), and many autistics have trouble dealing with uncertainty.)

“…it must still remain a scandal to philosophy and to the general human reason to be obliged to assume, as an article of mere belief, the existence of things external to ourselves (from which, yet, we derive the whole material of cognition for the internal sense), and not to be able to oppose a satisfactory proof…”

There was no scandal. This kind of uncertainty is just something we have to put up with, that’s just life.

Funnily enough, I think it didn’t bother him though that our mode of cognition can also be inherently uncertain. Maybe an evil demon is managing our mode of cognition.

Now Kant does attempt to prove the external world, but from the Indirect Realist perspective, he just treats a part of the internal world as the external world. That doesn’t mean anything.

7

This is your attempt at philosophy? Arguing some other guy’s idea?

:sweat_smile:

No original work of your own?

8

My own work is 6-dimensional infinity loop philosophy and not public. You indeed have no original work of your own though.

9

I’ve developed a complete ontology. You are fully aware. It’s functional, too.

It’s a complete framework, a complete idea, not merely arguing against someone else’s idea.

That’s all you do. That’s all most members here do. Argue. Argue against others. You do not create.

Where is it?

Oh, that’s right. You are unable to present it. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

10

You haven’t developed anything just a long babble about the definition of the word existence.

11

.

It’s a fully functional foundational ontology which seamlessly integrates both theology and science, including the scientific method.

I have the essay posted in the Philosophy section here to prove it.

Where is your essay? Oh, you can’t provide it :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

This world is full of enough lames already. So is the forum. It doesn’t need you.

12

You more or less figured out how people who do actual philosophy use the word existence. Everyone knows that part.

13

.

:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I have:

  • Provided an operational, noncircular definition of existence.

  • Reconciled the Parmenides Heraclitus conflict concerning change.

  • Presented a highly-accessible philosophy, democratizing otherwise obscure philosophical subjects.

  • Presented a philosophical framework connecting epistemology and ontology while explaining their differences.

  • Developed a highly-coherent ontology capable of accommodating various theological, scientific and naturalistic worldviews without contradiction.

Most people aren’t even aware of the first part, the circularity problem of standard definitions.

What have you done?

14

That’s basic stuff. This Kant vs IR topic is intermediate level, do you understand it, can you comment on it?

15

Not at all. Provide one other philosophical framework including those features.

Certainly. But I’m not going to :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

16

Aand he’s banned again.

Pay attention, both Kant and IR give more advanced answers to for example the tree-in-a-forest issue, than your ‘ontology’.

17

Kant was full of absolute nonsense.

Vibration is the means of communication between the physical and the non physical.

Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS are balanced out between all spinning particles with N and S poles resulting in vibration.All vibrating matter transmits binary code data 00,01,10,11 through space contained within varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves which are the output of particle interactions.

The spin speed of the particles determines the frequency of their interactions with other spinning particles and this determines the binary code characteristics of the electromagnetic energy waves emitted from the matter type.

The biological machine physical body receives these analogue energy waves via its antenna senses.The biological machine physical body is an analogue to digital converter.It converts these analogue waves into digital electrical binary signals which are then converted into sounds,visualisations and sensations that the individual interprets in a 3D player experience.

18

I think Indirect Realists do assume there is a reality out there and that we can know about it. Otherwise both Indirect and Realism are misleading words in the name.

As far as Kant. If we perceive appearances (they are not us in some way) then they are also noumena and we can only experience the phenomena of the phenomenon.

19

You exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist and you are a representation of reality (non illusion) greenfuse….NOT a misrepresentation of reality (illusion).

20

I don’t think I am a misrepresentation of reality. In a discussion, I can only recommend that you actually interact, not just react, to what other people say.

Here greenfuse you said _________________. This entails X. But here’s the problem with X. or When you write ___it implies Y. But here’s why Y is not correct. or Here’s a spot where you are making a leap, greenfuse. You go from saying _______________to saying __. But you need to justify that leap.

and so on.

I have no idea what your post is responding to in what I wrote. I have no idea if it actually is responding to what I wrote. I can’t even tell if you read what I wrote. I have no idea if you understood what I wrote. I just find you repeating something as if it is a response. It may be, but I have no way of knowing. Perhaps you have found out something very important and you are right. But I am not sure you know how to communicate to people.