Yes, but James insistence on the reduction, is illusive according to Kant, yet, being a consistent religious, he considers it an a-priori form of apprehension.
I read the above as,
“Kant, being a consistent religious, he considers it an a-priori form of apprehension”
Kant was not religious at all!
Kant was a deist and not religious as a member of any institutional religion.
There is no such thing as ‘a priori form of apprehension’ of the illusory God in Kant’s philosophy.
The nearest Kant associated with the idea of God is to ASSUME God exists for various purposes.
IMO, there is no imperative to assume God exists, where necessary and for an exclusive secular approach one can ASSUME the idea of ens realissimum, completeness or perfection.
For example, Science has to ASSUME uniformity throughout the infinite Universe to ensure its theories are valid.
He did not. And you wouldn’t know it even if he had.
And what I note in your preaching is your malignant, psychotic obsession with seeing everything as a God issue.
There was nothing whatsoever presented even vaguely associated with First Cause or God.
Yes, that’s right: „Kant pointed to the necessity of that 3rd element, »relevance« or usefulness. He proclaimed that it is of necessity that we presume causality. And in that regard, he was right. But that doesn’t exactly answer whether causality is true, but merely why we accept it as true.“ - James S Saint. Is causality true? Is an exactly answer possible?
Yes it is answerable.
And yes it is “true”.
But one must understand what constitutes “truth”.
The Ontology of Truth is that many ontologies can be truth. A rational ontology is one that helps more than hinders. An ontology without causality as an essential element and principle has very little, if any, use. So a rational ontology includes causality. And that makes causality “true”.
First Kant was an enlightener (“Aufklärer”), then he was an idiealist because he stopped or overcame the era of enlightenment and started the era of the post-enlightenment idealism (“post” because there were some idealists long before Kant, for example Leibniz). In any case, Kant was the “father of the modernity”. I guess that, if you had lived at Kant’s time, you would have tried to prolong the era of enlightenment by saying “yes” to the question “is causality true?”. Kant referred to the epistemology, to the knowledge, thus also to causality but not so much to the metaphysical question of the truth of causality. After Kant the question of a true causality has been occurring again - similar to the time before Kant but (and that is the huge difference) by referring to Kant, thus not without Kant’s philosophy.
A rational ontology includes causality, yes. But does it really make the causality true? One could also say that we accept the world as the truth but do not know whether it is the truth or not.
According to the question of truth there are four answerse possible:
- There is truth.
- There is only truth outside of the (brains of the) subjects. This answer is philosophically called objectivism.
- There is only truth in the (brains of the) subjects. This answer is philosophically called subjectivism, as an extreme form: solipsism.
- There is no truth.
So we have one absolute affirmation (see: 1), two relative affirmations / negations (see: 2 and 3), and one absolute negation (see: 4).
It seems that no one of them can be proved or disproved.
Anything and everything that is consistent and coherent within a comprehensive ontology is necessarily true. That is what “truth” is.
Nothing can be proven to those who do not understand.
1’) As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth
2’) There is only “reality” outside. Truth is the accurate internal map inside a mind.
3’) “There is only truth in the (brains of the) subjects.” = true, BUT … that is not “Subjectivity”.
4’) ref (1)
Don’t conflate Truth with Reality. There can be many ontologies that are Truth, but only one reality to which they each accurate refer.
“Anything and everything that is consistent and coherent within a comprehensive ontology is necessarily true”, yes, but nonetheless the question is: is it true because of your thoughts (subjectively true) or because of reality (objectively true) or because of all (subjectively and objectively true).
“As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.” Do you mean that truth is only in the consciousness? If so, then, please, answer the following two questions:
A) Is the consciousness true?
B) If yes: Is consciousness subjectively true (thus for one’s consciousness) or objectively true (thus for the consciousness[es] of all, for any and every consciousness)?
“There is only “reality” outside.” This sentence means or should mean that the objective world is true and called “reality”, but it doesn’t say anything about the inside, about the (brains of the) subjects, the truth of them.
“Truth is the accurate internal map inside a mind.” This sentence says something about the inside, about the (brains of the) subjects, but it doesn’t say anything about the outside, the so-called “realitiy” or “world”, the truth of them. The underlined word “accurate” does not prove that the internal map maps the outside realitiy. So Kant war right.
“As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.” This sentence underlines what I said, but does also not answer the question where the truth is represented: only in the consciousness of one (the subject), only in the world (the object), or in both. If one says that “there is only truth in the (brains of the) subjects”, then one does not say whether there is also truth outside of the (brains of the) subjects, whether the brains are true or not, and, if (brains of the) subjects are not true, whether there is truth outside of them, and, if the (brains of the) subjects are true, whether they are only subjectively true, or only obejectively true, or both subjectively and objectively true.
In summation: Kant was right.
I think that you are missing the point.
) There is one reality (objective).
) Each conscious entity forms a proposed Truth to match that reality (subjective), but is not Truth if it does not match.
The question, “is consciousness true” doesn’t make sense. That is like asking if color is true or running around in a circle is true. Statements are true or not, not entities or processes. Statements are true when they accurately reference and match the objective reality.
I think that you are missing the point.
) The objectivity (reality, world) and the subjectivity (self, consciousness) depend on each other.
) “Each conscious entity forms a proposed truth to match that reality”. But who decides whether it matches or not? Okay, you would say: the reality as an affectance ontology. But reality (objectivity, world) and consciousness (subjectivity, self) depend on each other.
A says: “X is true.”
B says: “X is not true because I have experienced that Y is true.”
Y says: “Y is not true because science has proved that Y is not true. So X must be true.”
B says: “That’s nonsense, because I have studied logic, and my friends call me ‘the God of logic’.”
Who or what decides what is true? God? Or space and time, thus development, evolution, history, thus something like a result of a logical and/or imagined process? Or just ontology? But, if so, which one? For example: Heidegger’s fundamental ontology? Or “RM:AO”? Or “VO”?
These questions are the point as long as we have no exactly corresponding answers.
This has almost nothing to do with RM:AO. Subjectivity is a subset of objectivity. They are not separate things. Subjectivity is a portion of all that is objective/real.
And “matching” is always a case of logic; “A is A” and “If A is B and B is C, then C is A”. The word “is” or the symbol “=” means “matches”.
… typical internet forum.
You still aren’t seeing it.
I already explained “who decides”. The ontology that you choose decides for you. What anyone else, or any other ontology declares is irrelevant. Either you stick to your ontology or you remain eternally confused. This is what Moses referred to as not “eating the meat of a cloven hoofed animal”.
Again, it is like using a language to describe an event. One person might describe the event differently than another because he uses the language differently, in effect having a different language. Each will declare the other to be wrong. So who is right? You have to learn how they are using their language (and/or their ontology) and then see which is consistent and coherent. Once you see how the language or ontology is being used, you might find that they are both right or perhaps both wrong.
Definitional Logic determines Truth within any chosen ontology/understanding. But first you have to choose your definitions. And that is arbitrary. Definitions are neither true nor false. They are whatever you choose for them to be, merely labels for concepts. They are declared.
And that is the part that Kant (or apparently no one else of that era) could understand.
Oh, I have been seeing it for a very long time.
Unfortunately or fortunately: the problem of the subject/object-dualism is not solved.
Thus: consistent and coherent with my language and/or my ontology!
You can’t validly make both of those statements at the same time.
If (and only if) you were the one who made the statement. When someone else makes a statement, the truth of it is dependent upon HIS ontology/language.
To ask if a statement is true is to ask if the language/ontology was used properly. Truth is a different concern than reality.
Provided that each (thus: one) human had his / her own, thus a so-called “individual” language and / or a so-called “individual” ontology, do you believe that some or even many humans would agree on their languages and / or ontologies?
Certainly and obviously they have. I don’t understand why you would ask … ?
They can be afraid of losing their “individual” languages / ontologies, because they don’t know whether the other “inidividual” languages / ontologies are in agreement with their own, thus their “individual” languages / ontologies. How can they be sure that their “individual” languages / ontologies become one “inter-individual” or “societal” language / ontology (so to speak: as an “individual” language / ontology of a society) without any loss?
Many people are inherently smart enough to realize that there is almost no point or purpose in having one’s own individual language (the exception being when one is designing something unique). The purpose of a language is to communicate and thus one must read the language of the other person and speak in the other person’s language. That is often done poorly and at times, in a more decadent over-ripe societies, individuals attempt to insist on using their own invented language so as to force others into their own mindset. That is not to say that every insistence is merely an ego battle, but such situations arise far more often in over-ripe societies wherein the youth no longer find significant soul or purpose.
What becomes common, community, or national languages is the end result of negotiations between those attempting to use language properly for communication and those attempting to force their own mindsets onto others using language as a manipulative tool.
Hume said that there is no knowledge or epistemology of causality by reason / rationality but only by experience. So according to Hume cause and effects can not be discovered by mere reason / rationality but merely by experience. He said that there is no knowledge or epistemology by reason / rationality / a priori.
Yeah well, Einstein said that one cannot detect free-fall or confirm synchronicity.
People say the darnedest things.