Well, how does Kant explain it?
Kant? He’s a friggin idealist! He doesn’t think we can know anything about essences.
…which is still contradictory. But I suppose the more interesting question is, how do you know this to be the case?
That doesn’t answer my question. Where in the “Treatise” does he specifically say that analytic and synthetic judgements cannot lead to knowledge?
This is far from obvious. Even accepting Plato’s definition of knowledge, what serious philosopher in the last hundred years has actually held this view of justification? At the very least you need to give a reason why justification must involve certainty.
No…you have assumptions plus experience plus a well-confirmed scientific theory. That’s knowledge…as the term is used in English.
Mmn? Do I really need to step you through it? Okay…
Socrates: I know nothing.
Logo: How do you know?
Socrates: Well, imagine a cave with a fire and shadows…etc, etc
Logo: Well how do you know all THAT? And why the hell am I wasting my time talking to you?
Socrates: Chill out man…I was using hyperbole.
As a first time poster- am quite bewildered and enchanted by the different posts.
This might sound naive, but isn’t reality in the eyes or mind of the beholder? An aborigines’ thought has the same value as and Oxfordian with 2 or 3 PHd.
{nothing answers anything, there are no answers, no universal truth, no objective reality, no thing in itself, no beyond… there is the perception and the interpretation of the perception and nothing more… ego centric predicament…}
-Imp
-Imp
Welcome, Jose!
I don’t know about Oxford, but it does make a difference if the scholar is from Harvard – in that case, the aborigines’ thought has much more value.
Oh, I thought you were a Kantian! I just pointed out that we know essences, and Kant did not deal with them. What improvements did he supposedly make over the ancien regime? Guess he should have read up on his Scholasticism, as someone on the board said he hadn’t.
Or are you advocating Locke and Sidelle? I thought the argument went for them too.
What non-Realist position were we talking about anyway?
Well, if it can never be known, how does one verify if it is true or not?
{again, objective absolute Knowledge is impossible, but personal belief about perceptions that one calls personal “knowledge” appears for sake of convienence… nothing that can be known exists outside of the perceptions of the individual… if, if, if, if… it doesn’t mean a thing… }
Impossible knowledge is an absolute… it is the negation of all possible knowledge… to know this as certain requires what you negate.
It is all the subject experiences, as ultimate objective knowledge requires one to ultimately become the object. But what if the object is the object, there is nothing in our subjective nature that disqualifies the possibility of it knowing itself despite us not knowing.
The universe is the universe.
Nothing is nothing.
A is A.
All these can be true in and of themselves beyond what our experience of them tells us. Our experience is finite… it must be… if it was infinite then it would be absolute… so more then one absolute exists per your argument.
Then ‘nothing’ itself is an absolute… that is absolutely all there is.
But ‘nothing’ negates experience… how am I experiencing anything if there is nothing to experience… hell, how am I even here to experience it.
But wait… maybe Experience is an absolute. Not in its exactitude, but in the process of itself. Ditto perceptions. If these things did not occur, absolutely, then the universe would not exist.
I will admit one thing. Your existential relativistic non-realism gives me a headache. It just seems to lack common sense. Your philosophy seems to deny existence and therefore it denies it’s own existence. I am more than willing to agree that it does not exist, except in the minds of philosophers who wish to make themselves incomphehensible and to exagerate their own importance. To argue that existence is subjective is the hieght of arrogance to which man can ascend. Such men elect themselves to be God by claiming they are the creators. Since God’s existence has always been in question, then I would place such philosophers in the same category.
Being new at this “game”, will sound more naive than the first time.
However, we seem to have gone far a field!.
Now Isee posting degenerating into some kind of contest; a lot of posturing and self-aggrandizement - which seems to negate the original intentoin of philosphy.
See game theorist wanting to “beat” everybody else, which somewhat specious arguments that do not seem to advance the dialogue.
Oh well, maybe this is normal for these threads to run? Eventually disintegrate into rantings and ravings…then whimpering?
Would appreciate somebody enlightening me
“mind-independent structure to reality” - along the lines of which the mind is also structured though, so it isn’t as radical an idea at heart as it seems on the surface. It actually proposes a greater phenomenological consistency, in fact transcending substance duality. When properly grounded in direct phenomenon, which is the say at large, pathos. “The essence of pathos” …
The Will to Power renders it perhaps anti-realist in the most literal sense; iconoclasm.
Excellent posts; proofs are definitional only when they need to be formulated. In Darwinistic terms, the only thing that can be proven, is proven and thus known by procreation.
Philosophic Caveman: Nietzsche evades this by positing that all knowledge-positing and fact-apprehending is a form of will to power, and that willing to power is interpreting reality in ones own terms;
so, whereas we know that knowledge is not, this knowing knows of itself that it is merely positing.
You see, knowledge is being made subservient to something else, something closer to the act of proving, than to the act of knowing.