Hume, Kant, Causality, and Induction

“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.

True.
We can observe the collision of two billiard balls, but without seeing their result we cannot know the outcome.
The moving ball could bounce; transfer all energy to ball 2; both balls can move. or they might turn into a bowl of petunias.
It is only by the constant conjunction of observed objects that predictions can be made about the PROBABLY result.
But ultimately you can’t get there with reason alone. Obviously once you know the ‘laws’ of nature you can predict with reason, but all that stems from observations.
Historically this was a counter thrust to the French Rationalists, particularly Descartes who thought all you had to do with sit in an oven and think it through.
Hume’s thinking on this was massively significant. It moved the emphasis from divine to empirical explanations.

Definitional Logic requires no experience with physical reality while yielding the total truth of it. But because of the limits of human intelligence, it is certainly wise and needful to test deductions with careful observations (aka Science). The observations in themselves DO NOT reveal truth. They merely reveal enough evidence to possibly confirm truth … or possibly disguise it further (such as the speed of light issues).

Truth is only ever known through Definitional Logic.
…although at times aberrantly believed through instincts, hopes, fears, prophets, and/or ordained authorities.

Hume was certainly no logician. Kant came a little closer, but as stated prior, missed a crucial target (the cause of causality and induction).

Yes, that’s right. Hume was a diplomat, and, although he was also a philosopher of the Occidental Enlightenment, he was not a good logician, not a good rationalist, and thus not a good proponent of the Enlightenment. According tu Hume thinking is not more than a function, for example in order to link / join / connect, to shift / convert / permute, to widen / extend / expand, or to cut / shrink / reduce what the senses and experience liver. So according to Hume thinking (logic, rationality, …, thus just the characteristics of the Occidental Enlightenment) is less important than senses and experience; according to Hume thinking is merely a slave of senses and experience.

Yes. And that is what has been promoted in the post-enlightenment era of anti-intelligence and anti-science. The effort became one of destroying the “Tower of Babel”; confuse their language, disease their children, defame their prophets, blind their minds, and confiscate their wealth.

But this time, technology got loose. With technology even stupid, diseased, and blind people can still make progress. Toward what, they only imagine.

All the items that you attack Hume on are exactly the qualities which lifted Europe from the tyranny of ‘reason’ without evidence, to a new dawn of empirical reality.

Without logic, observation and “evidence” are meaningless: “Because I see this, that can’t be true”.

Hume was post-rational. He assumes and embraces all logic and reason, but applies them to empirically valid premises.

Kant improved still with the Critique of Pure Reason which Hume had begun.

They surpassed the Cartesian delusion that Reason was all you needed.