Unlike Kant, I would say that, although there must be something intuited as outside of me in order to determine myself within experience, it is entirely possible that the sensations which are given (for me to intuit) are completely or partially fabricated (by myself or another) and there is no way to know. To me, this doesn’t really matter for practical purposes, but is technically true. — Bob Ross
Whatever the things are in-themselves is entirely impossible to know. — Bob Ross
Your summary of Transcendental Idealism reminded me of a Quantum pioneer's response to the question whether queer quantum science revealed anything about the Real world. It also sounds like something a modern Buddha might say. Or like the spoon-bending-boy to Neo. :smile:For science (and all other empirical studies), transcendental idealism entails that we can only ever claim empirical statements, at best, as valid for possible [perfect—in the sense of the best capabilities and not a perfect representation of reality-in-itself—human] experience. Thusly, science (and the like) are pragmatic for paradigmatic and not ontological purposes. — Bob Ross
I think this contradicts an essential characteristic of transcendental intuition, which is that effect a synthesis of the subjective and the objective. Hence its transcendental character.
Not exactly entirely? For one thing, we know that they are impossible to know, so we know something about them partially, but not entirely.
In which case, they should be of no concern to us. Not exactly a contention, I know, but an entirely reasonable judgment.
Your summary of Transcendental Idealism reminded me of a Quantum pioneer's response to the question whether queer quantum science revealed anything about the Real world. It also sounds like something a modern Buddha might say. Or like the spoon-bending-boy to Neo
Not knowing anything about X does not entail knowledge of anything about X.
Another way to put it, is that I have only negative knowledge of X by negation and never positive knowledge. — Bob Ross
I am starting to embrace transcendental idealism, — Bob Ross
Whatever the things are in-themselves is entirely impossible to know. — Bob Ross
Another way to put it, is that I have only negative knowledge of X by negation and never positive knowledge. — Bob Ross
How much Kant have you read? Have you moved away from Kastrup? I think many people with an interest in philosophy end up here abouts at some point. I held a similar view (mainly through secondary sources) in the 1980’s.
I guess I also find myself wondering, if accurate. so what? Does it make any difference to how one lives? How is this way of thinking of use?
If the sensations are fabricated then are you implying that your intuitions of objectivity are unreliable? As long as you are not effacing the link with objectivity that the intuition effects.
For you to arrive at the conclusion that you don't know anything about X, you should have known,...You know a lot about X, when you don't know anything about X. Consequently the conclusion you don't know anything about X is false….And negative knowledge is also knowledge, no?
While this is in accord with Kantian T.I., there is nothing implied therein having to do with negative knowledge. “Impossible to know”, or, knowledge not possible to obtain, with respect to thing-in-themselves, merely highlights human sensory limitation and says nothing whatsoever about the cognitive aspect of the overall human intellectual system. It is absurd to expect a system to make a determination on something that was never given to it.
…
So…..upon sufficient reflection, you might find that rather than having negative knowledge of X, there is only positive knowledge of yourself, re: you know there is something you cannot know, from which follows, that forcing the former at the expense of the latter is what the A/B quote is meant to indicate.
Instead, I know that what I am given is not a thing-in-itself, but the thing-in-itself could turn out to be a mirror (by happenstance) of what I am given — Bob Ross
One core problem has already been mentioned by .Any book suggestions? Or counter arguments to transcendental idealism that you find hold weight? — Bob Ross
So you might reconsider your first argument. Folk have experiences that do not imply that something exists - hallucinations, dreams, illusions and so on. Your conclusion is not justified. — Banno
1. There is experience, therefore something exists.
2. That something, or a part of it, must be producing experience. — Bob Ross
It is the function of understanding/judgement, to as closely mirror the thing as it is in itself with the thing as it is represented in us. So….not by happenstance, but by logic, Nature herself being the arbiter.
Under the assumption X is some empirical condition, and negative knowledge regarding X is obtained according to judgements such as, “I know X’s are not this or that”, such judgements are “….inane and senseless; that is, they are in reality purposeless and, for this reason, often very ridiculous…”(A709/B737). — Mww
Moreover, you alluded that you used to have a similar view, but have moved past it: could you please elaborate on what convinced you against the view? — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.