I didn't pull it out, you did and you are the one misunderstanding it. — TimeLine

This dichotomy between the thing in itself and things as they appear to us. — TimeLine

Where did I pull it out when you are the first to have mentioned it in this thread? :brow:

The thing-in-itself is not accessible. — Agustino

As above. Far out, Agu, do you have to do this in every single thread?

As above. Far out, Agu, do you have to do this in every single thread? — TimeLine

???? Yes, that is in a place where I quote your wrong use of thing in itself.

You're talking about the dichotomy of thing in itself and appearance and have no clue what that even means. Great. I mentioned that your metaphysics isn't very good, no wonder you don't participate in many of the metaphysical discussions here.

Productive self-experience. The framework that determines our value through others is paradoxically narcissistic, despite a reliance on others, because there is an absence of an active orientation towards being. — TimeLine

Can I summarize this then as it's better to give than receive and we should take time to smell the roses because there's meaning even in the smallest moments? I'm not sure who disagrees, and I think attributing the opposite view to the consumer driven capitalists is a strawman. Adhering to an economic philosophy for pragmatic purposes says nothing of the person's theological position. My cite to Joel Osteen was meant to point out that you are espousing traditional Judeo-Christian values, which are held most closely by the consumers you condemn.

I read recently that a couple adopted a child from Thailand and the mother had twins, but they took only one child and never looked back neither did they help the family. To them, adoption was an image, they did not actually care about the child clearly by not caring about the family of the child, they just wanted a token adopted child for social reasons rather than moral. — TimeLine

Either that or they could only save one life, so they did what they could do. The couple did a deed far greater than I, as I adopted no one. I'd also say that even if (and I don't think it's the case) this couple adopted a child and saved him from misery and did it for no reason other than for fame and attention, I still applaud them. A child saved is a child saved, regardless of intent.

Ask not what the rose can do for you, ask what you can do for the rose. — TimeLine

We generally ask both questions - if you imagine that we must treat each and everything in the world by solely asking what we can do for them is (somewhat) silly I think. As I said before, we always see the world from both vantage points - both as a world of things and as a forum for action. Indeed, if we didn't see it as the former, then we couldn't act, because any action implies using things in some way or another. Now you might say that only some kinds of usage are ethically permissible, and that is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that we always see the world from both vantage points.

Eliminating the "world qua forum for action" viewpoint leads to nihilism and despair. Eliminating the other pole, "world qua set of things" leads to idealism and inaction, precisely because we're left with nothing with which to act.

You're talking about the dichotomy of thing in itself and appearance and have no clue what that even means. Great. I mentioned that your metaphysics isn't very good, no wonder you don't participate in many of the metaphysical discussions here. — Agustino

I don't follow why one couldn't believe that our perceptions have been skewed by societal expectations and then further hold that we can somehow transcend our skewed perceptions and then correctly perceive the thing in itself. That is a common view afterall. It's the idea that clarity can be obtained by contemplation, meditation, prayer, or whatever. I get that it's counter to Kant, but so what? I'd think even the staunchest direct realist would admit to false perceptions, yet contend they could be clarified.

Be careful. This is not the shoutbox so I would appreciate you responding appropriately or not responding at all. — TimeLine

Fair enough. I'll try, but I gotta be me.

I don't follow why one couldn't believe that our perceptions have been skewed by societal expectations and then further hold that we can somehow transcend our skewed perceptions and then correctly perceive the thing in itself. That is a common view afterall. It's the idea that clarity can be obtained by contemplation, meditation, prayer, or whatever. I get that it's counter to Kant, but so what? I'd think even the staunchest direct realist would admit to false perceptions, yet contend they could be clarified. — Hanover

I don't object to that, but please don't use a word with heavy connotations when you want to put forward this sort of idea, because then you'll be misunderstood.

Kant also accepts that idea - that we can be mistaken in our views about empirical reality, and these mistakes can be corrected. Kant's distinction is between thing-in-itself and phenomenon. The thing-in-itself is unknowable. Within the phenomenon, we have the distinction between the empirically ideal and illusory, and the empirically real. So when you're in the desert and hallucinate an oasis, that is empirically ideal, and you can achieve clarity about this, and overcome this false perception. But overcoming this false perception has nothing to do with gaining access to the thing-in-itself, and starting to talk about the thing-in-itself in this context really confuses matters, because the word already has a philosophical baggage.

Can I summarize this then as it's better to give than receive and we should take time to smell the roses because there's meaning even in the smallest moments? I'm not sure who disagrees, and I think attributing the opposite view to the consumer driven capitalists is a strawman. Adhering to an economic philosophy for pragmatic purposes says nothing of the person's theological position. My cite to Joel Osteen was meant to point out that you are espousing traditional Judeo-Christian values, which are held most closely by the consumers you condemn. — Hanover

I am not attributing to consumer driven capitalists, like "I have this object" but the fundamental orientation of our self with the external world and where our character is structured by contemporary society that determines this complete totality in the way that we perceive the world. We are no doubt driven by material gain and this mode of existence is so deeply rooted in our understanding that possessing and ownership have become engendered even in our values that everyone including yourself have become property. Prior to this, dogma dominated the social arrangements that values were input and illustrated in the dominant orientation of experience. Both are actually wrong.

Either that or they could only save one life, so they did what they could do. The couple did a deed far greater than I, as I adopted no one. I'd also say that even if (and I don't think it's the case) this couple adopted a child and saved him from misery and did it for no reason other than for fame and attention, I still applaud them. A child saved is a child saved, regardless of intent. — Hanover

They didn't need to 'save' anything, the amount of money they spent taking this child away from his twin and his mother could have been used to give the entire family a comfortable life and both children an excellent education in their respective country. We love to translate these unsustainable actions to be heroic; we can "pity" the disadvantaged because we think our tears is actually going to help them, but take a step back and look at the fruits of the labour here. I am currently moving through an adoption arrangement in Australia (known as Permanent Care) and despite the fact that the child cannot be taken care of by the parents due to a number of possible reasons and hence why the courts take responsibility that enable the order for myself to be the primary carer on a permanent basis, if the parents are still alive we are legislated to ensure visitation rights a number of times. Because, psychologically, this is important for the child.

Kant also accepts that idea - that we can be mistaken in our views about empirical reality, and these mistakes can be corrected. Kant's distinction is between thing-in-itself and phenomenon. The thing-in-itself is unknowable. Within the phenomenon, we have the distinction between the empirically ideal and illusory, and the empirically real. So when you're in the desert and hallucinate an oasis, that is empirically ideal, and you can achieve clarity about this, and overcome this false perception. But overcoming this false perception has nothing to do with gaining access to the thing-in-itself, and starting to talk about the thing-in-itself in this context really confuses matters, because the word already has a philosophical baggage. — Agustino

Our awareness to exercise moral law that is authentically willed and therefore real is based on our understanding of ourselves as one that establishes this law, the world of understanding that is grounded in the transcendental 'I' and this does not follow if the things-in-themselves cannot be known. If subjective experience is noumenal then we are attaching knowledge to the unconscious realm, which is unknowable. What I am attempting to convey is that there is no exclusion from accessing the noumenal because we have practical reason to postulate that free will exists there and presume that it is the location that constitutes reality even if it can be experienced only qua appearance. There is a distinction between appearances and the thing-in-itself, just as much as a person' experiences can be tied to their imagination and schematically projected, but being independent from our experience of it does not make it entirely inaccessible - think semiotics - despite such an assumption being a paralogism because of this presupposition of some unity of apperception. Overall, understanding of the ultimate nature of reality remains unknown, but we are nevertheless capable of regulating using reason the principles that govern our experience that is constitutive of this free will.

everyone including yourself have become property — TimeLine

I wanna jump in more but i won't have time till tomorrow. But how have people become property?

If subjective experience is noumenal then we are attaching knowledge to the unconscious realm, which is unknowable. — TimeLine

Subjective experience is phenomenal. The object of the phenomenon is noumenal. If you say the noumenal is knowable, reading generously, I read that as rejecting Kant as opposed to misunderstanding Kant, but I can't follow your suggestion that the subjective is noumenal (i.e. the phenomenal is noumenal).

I too am working so I will quickly say that contemporary society invented the profitability of the production of goods and the attainment of assets both for the person purchasing and for the system as a whole; the producer markets the profitability in order to get more people to believe that they need to make this purchase. We become proud to own something because we are taught that ownership is valuable. So, as an example, women were considered "property" or an object of possession and the greater the perfection or appearance of this person, the greater the social congratulations (your value is interconnected with this ownership). There is a shift in our understanding of what value is and the acquisition of more objects in your possession - friends, family, job, power, money - the more valuable you become. You essentially become property.

Subjective experience is phenomenal. The object of the phenomenon is noumenal. If you say the noumenal is knowable, reading generously, I read that as rejecting Kant as opposed to misunderstanding Kant, but I can't follow your suggestion that the subjective is noumenal (i.e. the phenomenal is noumenal). — Hanover

How is subjective (being the unconscious) phenomenal?

Certainly the idea of a wife as property is way way less prominent in contemporary culture than it was, so i can't see how consumerism somehow made that phenomenon worse. And I don't see how you can make the jump to friends and family being property based on that seemingly innacurate portrayal of wives as property.

Certainly the idea of a wife as property is way way less prominent in contemporary culture than it was, so i can't see how consumerism somehow made that phenomenon worse. And I don't see how you can make the jump to friends and family being property based on that seemingly innacurate portrayal of wives as property. — Noble Dust

This is a good point, but I am speaking about ownership where there is an absence of relatedness and where the orientation to people is without feeling because people become objects or property. While you are correct that this is not a new phenomenon, it is that consumerism has shifted our approach to this orientation and broadened this symbolic unity, becoming more resistant due to marketing ploys and where success and value is determined by something outside of you. The motivation here is an attempt to symbolically cure the alienation we feel and the lack of esteem we have to our own selfhood.

You could love a person not because you actually love them, but because they epitomise the right type of object that furthers your social position. It is the same thing, just more sophisticated.

How is subjective (being the unconscious) phenomenal? — TimeLine

Subjective experience is defined as phenomenal. Are you positing the subjective as an objective entity that experiences? Maybe I'm not following you. The world of experience (the subjective) is phenomenal.

You could love a person not because you actually love them, but because they epitomise the right type of object that furthers your social position. It is the same thing, just more sophisticated. — TimeLine

Sure, there are thousands of ways people can be in bad relationships, but how is that more prevalent in industrialized, complex, modern societies than in more traditional ones, especially those that formally relegate women to subservient roles? And I'd reiterate that the escape from consumerism in modern society (in the grand ole USA at least) is typically religion, where a higher power decrees meaning and worth regardless of social standing and material wealth. From my American eyes, I just really see this thread as a standard lament that modern society has abandoned God, and I'm having difficulty placing it in the Continental framework you're espousing. You sound like Joel Osteen in the video I posted (that you doubtfully suffered through).

This thread also heavily reminds me of Buber. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

And I'd reiterate that the escape from consumerism in modern society (in the grand ole USA at least) is typically religion, where a higher power decrees meaning and worth regardless of social standing and material wealth. — Hanover

If the good ole consumerist society is not going to give us any real standards of worth and meaning, where else is one to find them?

The church and state are divided, and that's a good thing. What's left is a legislature that can impose laws, but it doesn't operate with any moral authority. Do you turn to your city council for moral direction? We've very intentionally created a godless government, so, yeah, if you want God, you have to go to church.

They didn't need to 'save' anything, the amount of money they spent taking this child away from his twin and his mother could have been used to give the entire family a comfortable life and both children an excellent education in their respective country. — TimeLine

I know nothing of Thai law, but are you suggesting the child was sold from a needy family as opposed to the child being without capable parents? If so, I don't know why the twin being left behind is relevant. I'd be opposed to the sale of people whether they're sold in singles or pairs.

I am currently moving through an adoption arrangement in Australia (known as Permanent Care) and despite the fact that the child cannot be taken care of by the parents due to a number of possible reasons and hence why the courts take responsibility that enable the order for myself to be the primary carer on a permanent basis, if the parents are still alive we are legislated to ensure visitation rights a number of times. Because, psychologically, this is important for the child. — TimeLine

In the US, the termination of parental rights is extremely difficult as long as the parent expresses an interest, but the suggestion that it is based on protecting the interest of the child is wishful thinking. Many of these children would benefit if their parents just let them go. That's a sad reality. The state's hesitancy to terminate parental rights is based as much on its protection of the sanctity of the family unit as it is on the needs of the child.

I am as certain that most adoptions are for reasons pure and true as I am that your adoption will be. Unless you have some supportive data, it's hard for me to accept that couples are bringing little ones in their homes because they match the shrubbery.

The church and state are divided, and that's a good thing. What's left is a legislature that can impose laws, but it doesn't operate with any moral authority. Do you turn to your city council for moral direction? We've very intentionally created a godless government, so, yeah, if you want God, you have to go to church. — Hanover

My question was, that if one does not want God, and does not want to go to church, but still wants to turn somewhere for moral direction, where does that person turn? We've intentionally created a godless government, because we do not want to be governed by the church. But as you admit, the government doesn't give us moral authority, so where do we turn? Obviously we do not want to turn to the church, because we didn't like their moral authority, and that's why we divorced ourselves from it.

"Sounds like the whining of someone with some agenda they're too scared to lay out so they hide it behind a lot of flowery obfuscation."

translation:I can't make heads or tails of postmodern discourse.

"I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me."
Sounds like Merleau-Ponty's flesh of the world.

Are you familiar with Max Weber’s iron cage ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage )?

You're asking how moral atheists ground their morality without God? They pretend like they're not relying on God even though they are. Maybe that answer is personal commentary, but I'm open to hearing your answer.

I know nothing of Thai law, but are you suggesting the child was sold from a needy family as opposed to the child being without capable parents? — Hanover

I was talking about commercial surrogacy and international adoption.

In the US, the termination of parental rights is extremely difficult as long as the parent expresses an interest, but the suggestion that it is based on protecting the interest of the child is wishful thinking. Many of these children would benefit if their parents just let them go. That's a sad reality. The state's hesitancy to terminate parental rights is based as much on its protection of the sanctity of the family unit as it is on the needs of the child. — Hanover

I forgot to respond to this before I hit publish. In Australia, there are strict regulations that determine when a person moves into state care by court order; for instance, a woman could have an intellectual disability and was sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant and does not have the capacity to look after the child, or a drug addict who may also not know the father etc, or the neglect is so profound that protection of the child involves the removal of parental rights. The circumstances are usually dire, however there is a shifting paradigm involving the refugee community due to a lack of extended familial support.

What you say is exactly the same in Australia, which is why when it moves into Permanent Care, there is really no other possible hope for the child to be cared for by their parents. Despite that, visitation rights continue four times per year and this is essential for the child, despite the difficulties.

I am as certain that most adoptions are for reasons pure and true as I am that your adoption will be. — Hanover

My adoption will be a child who has parents that are incapable of looking after him/her and rather than going into state care, I will become his/her permanent carer. I am well known in my community for being amazing with babies and children and I would love to take care of someone that would otherwise have no one. I am not wealthy and do not have much money, but I will work hard enough to invest in their education, although my focus will be to invest my personal efforts for them to overcome mental stress and other risk factors that they will inevitably experience. I am not saying that a majority of adoptee parents are bad, that is certainly not true and I am certain that their intentions are genuine, but this whole celebrity adoption and token child is certainly around.

Subjective experience is defined as phenomenal. Are you positing the subjective as an objective entity that experiences? Maybe I'm not following you. The world of experience (the subjective) is phenomenal. — Hanover

Because that is the 'I' - noumenal feature of the soul - or the real that interacts with schema and creates the phenomenal.

I have heard of it but never really got involved, but I will and will get back to you.