Descartes wanted to establish a basis for philosophy so he began with the subjective experience.
His own thinking.
Reality, a.k.a., world, existence…..is what is independent form all subjective consciousness.
Nihilism is when the subjective consciousness is unsatisfied with existence after having assumed the existence of certain abstractions, such as the God of the Bible, universal morality, purpose, meaning etc.
It’s projections failed to materialize and so it declares existence ‘negative’, when, in fact, it is positive, because ti makes him possible.
The god of the Jews, the one conventional minds have adopted, is quintessentially nihilistic, because the way it is defined is contrary to experienced existence, and if hit were to exist then existence would cease.
So, conventional minds declare existence ILLUSORY, so as to then declare their delusions, their abstractions with no reference, to be more real.
The world becomes a negative state, underneath which their fantasy world exists, and is accessible only via unsubstantiated words…..
“Descartes wanted to establish a basis for philosophy so he began with the subjective experience.
His own thinking.
Reality, a.k.a., world, existence…..is what is independent form all subjective consciousness.
Nihilism is when the subjective consciousness is unsatisfied with existence after having assumed the existence of certain abstractions, such as the God of the Bible, universal morality, purpose, meaning etc.
It’s projections failed to materialize and so it declares existence ‘negative’, when, in fact, it is positive, because ti makes him possible.
The god of the Jews, the one conventional minds have adopted, is quintessentially nihilistic, because the way it is defined is contrary to experienced existence, and if hit were to exist then existence would cease.
So, conventional minds declare existence ILLUSORY, so as to then declare their delusions, their abstractions with no reference, to be more real.
The world becomes a negative state, underneath which their fantasy world exists, and is accessible only via unsubstantiated words…..”
A CREATED (not evolved) biological processing machine bot. programmed with binary software which exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist doesn’t possess life.Don’t think for one second that this doesn’t apply to you.
How many times do you need reminding of this?
Life is separate from this physical machine bot.which exists.
The individual is separate from matter but is embroiled with in it and interprets varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from it.
All matter vibrates because the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between all spinning objects and particles (with N and S poles) in the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels are balanced by the starting philosophical formula for everything which is +/-=+/- (N/S=N/S).
Atheism and its false cognitively biased starting philosophy of +=- and -=+ and the science founded upon it is dead….It doesn’t work….it’s farcical,embarrassing nonsense .Why do individuals still try to defend it? It’s total madness.
Mainstream atheistic science is in TOTAL crisis,all of its flag ship theories having now failed as we all know and many scientists are finally acknowledging this and even those that aren’t will get dragged into reality eventually whether they like it or not.
Your metaphysics entails a kind of absolutist rationalist metaphysics that is unjustified by human experience. In an ideal world A=A. In the phenomenal world everything is impermanent. It’s in a state of change. Nothing remains the same for the shortest imaginable period of time. It is because things transform themselves ceaselessly that they cannot maintain their identity even for a second. Not being able to fix their identity, it morphs. The same as true of your body, your mental phenomena and your feelings as honest introspection will show you.
Where does Kant say that? He says “ For all the determining grounds of my existence which can be found in me are representations and, as such, do themselves require a permanent distinct from them, which may determine my existence in relation to their changes, that is, my existence in time, wherein they change.” It may, probably, be urged in opposition to this proof that, after all, I am only conscious immediately of that which is in me, that is, of my representation of external things, and that, consequently, it must always remain uncertain whether anything corresponding to this representation does or does not exist externally to me. But I am conscious, through internal experience, of my existence in time (consequently, also, of the determinability of the former in the latter), and that is more than the simple consciousness of my representation. It is, in fact, the same as the empirical consciousness of my existence, which can only be determined in relation to something, which, while connected with my existence, is external to me. This consciousness of my existence in time is, therefore, identical with the consciousness of a relation to something external to me, and it is, therefore, experience, not fiction, sense, not imagination, which inseparably connects the external with my internal sense. For the external sense is, in itself, the relation of intuition to something real, external to me; and the reality of this something, as opposed to the mere imagination of it, rests solely on its inseparable connection with internal experience as the condition of its possibility. If with the intellectual consciousness of my existence, in the representation: I am, which accompanies all my judgements, and all the operations of my understanding, I could, at the same time, connect a determination of my existence by intellectual intuition, then the consciousness of a relation to something external to me would not be necessary. But the internal intuition in which alone my existence can be determined, though preceded by that purely intellectual consciousness, is itself sensible and attached to the condition of time. Hence this determination of my existence, and consequently my internal experience itself, must depend on something permanent which is not in me, which can be, therefore, only in something external to me, to which I must look upon myself as being related. Thus the reality of the external sense is necessarily connected with that of the internal, in order to the possibility of experience in general; that is, I am just as certainly conscious that there are things external to me related to my sense as I am that I myself exist as determined in time. But in order to ascertain to what given intuitions objects, external me, really correspond, in other words, what intuitions belong to the external sense and not to imagination, I must have recourse, in every particular case, to those rules according to which experience in general (even internal experience) is distinguished from imagination, and which are always based on the proposition that there really is an external experience. We may add the remark that the representation of something permanent in existence, is not the same thing as the permanent representation; for a representation may be very variable and changing—as all our representations, even that of matter, are—and yet refer to something permanent, which must, therefore, be distinct from all my representations and external to me, the existence of which is necessarily included in the determination of my own existence, and with it constitutes one experience—an experience which would not even be possible internally, if it were not also at the same time, in part, external. To the question How? we are no more able to reply, than we are, in general, to think the stationary in time, the coexistence of which with the variable, produces the conception of change. “
After reading such a straight forward declaration of consciousness by Mr. Kant , I will be shocked if you can produce a citation where he denies its existence.
Yes. I differ with him on that point.
He reasoned his way to these conclusions in “The Critique of Pure Reason.
No, Immanuel Kant does not assert that consciousness is invalid because it has identity. In fact, he argues the opposite: the unity of consciousness is a necessary condition for any experience at all. Your premise misrepresents Kant’s position, which is more complex and nuanced.
No, Kant does not substitute the form in which we perceive for the object of perception, but instead argues that these two elements are inseparable in creating our experience of objects. According to his transcendental idealism, our minds provide the a priori forms of intuition, space, and time, which structure the sensory material we receive from the world. The object we perceive is an “appearance” (phenomenon), a synthesis of the raw sensory data and our mind’s structuring faculties.
Yes Kant did say that and by that he meant that human reason has strict limits and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. I agree with him on those points.
If true they would make the knowledge of finite reasonings of our minds absolute which if you were honest with yourself, I think you might realize they’re not. We are human all too human as we appear to one another, you to me no less than me to you. The traces of our evolutionary past are still very much with us. If evolution had built our perceptual system to perceive the world as it really is, we would be driven to extinction because of the non-actionable information overload. Instead, our perceptual system captures and represents the world in an encoded and actionable manner. The contents of perception, the objects, their qualia and the events we see around us are like the icons in a graphical user interface entailed by the screen of perception. We don’t ordinarily become directly acquainted with the world as it really is because to do so would make it impossible for us to compete and survive in our ecosystem.
This is not a problem because change has identity.
You quoted my answer already, and you said you disagree with him on that. He claims that what we are aware of is not the ‘real’ reality, as if there is such a thing as ‘unreal’ reality. Consciousness is awareness of existence. If he claims that what we are conscious of is not the ‘real’ reality, then what he calls consciousness is not consciousness.
Without reference to reality. That’s rationalism, not reason. He’s rationalized, based on a faulty premise, that perception is not perception of reality. What he and you don’t seem to realize is that perception comes first, then concepts, then inference. He’s using stolen concepts of consciousness while denying the axiom of consciousness.
Yes, he does. He argues that we are not aware of objects but appearances. He argues that the senses and perception are agents of distortion. I’ve already demonstrated why this is false. His stated reason for his philosophising was to save the morality of altruism from the age of reason. To do that, he had to undermine reason. If our perceptions are not of reality, then neither are our concepts, including concepts he uses to undermine reason. Ironically, he uses pure reason, rationalism, to try to undermine reason.
The irony being that these superstitious buffoons only reference what others have said, not the world itself.
So, if Kant said it then it must be so.
If it is written then it is somehow more reliable than what they perceive…..because what they perceive is an illusion whereas what is written or spoken is not.
It would appear that when they are reading or hearing the delusions they believe are true and their senses are not deceiving them, but when they look upon the world then, suddenly, the illusion kicks in, and everything they perceive is the opposite of what it seems.
The only way my metaphysics is not justified in human experience is if nothing exists, including humans; if consciousness is consciousness of nothing; if things aren’t what they are; and if reality conforms to conscious intentions. Is there a reality, Felix? When you are conscious, are you conscious of something that doesn’t exist, Felix? Are your statements your statements or someone else’s, Felix? Does wishing make things so, Felix? The axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity, as well as the primacy of existence, are inescapable. You performatively affirm my metaphysics every time you make a statement, and you can’t escape that fact. As soon as you say “it is” about anything, the whole of my metaphysics is implicit.
Your answer to my third question: “How can you reconcile your worldview’s inherent subjectivism with the primacy of existence?” is incoherent. What does “without consciousness, can be shown to exist” mean?
In question number 1 I ask “Does withing make things so?” You answered “Qustion presumes what what it must prove.” What does my question need to prove?
According to Felix the fact that reality exists, that consciousness is consciousness of something real, and that things are what they are, are not justified in human experience. I guess it’s all an illusion. I guess what is justified by human experience is that nothing exists, consciousness is awareness of nothing, everything is nothing, and wishing makes things so.
Well, he’s not aware of books and words or anything else. He’s only aware of his subjective experience. and yet he trusts that my ‘subjective’ experience will bring me awareness of his words. Blank out.
Their strategy is to make the world lose trust in their own senses.
This mental illness is the consequence of decades of sheltering.
When your life is on the line you act, even if you might remain skeptical in theory, as if there is a world beyond your subjective experience, because if you don’t you’re dead.
He denies self-evident truths and yet he believes in a god. Well, if you believe in a supernatural being, you performatively deny the axioms and the primacy of existence.
For them existence is a “fallen state”……they can’t wait to die to go to the real world…. paradise, or, in the case of the Jews, to return to the ‘original state of uniform order’ - divine singularity.
They cannot tolerate separation - multiplicity - because they hate themselves - insecurity.
These psychologically ill individuals find existence intolerable - unjust; a source of unending suffering.
That was Kant’s strategy as well. He knew that if he wanted to save the morality of altruism, of self-sacrifice, then he had to save it from reason, so he set out to thoroughly undermine man’s confidence in his own mind and he had to “deny knowledge to make room for faith.” It just goes to show you how much hatred of the mind there is that Kant is the dominant philosophical influence today.