Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kant, skepticism, and anthropology

Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 4:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm thinking that Kant's transcendental idealism can be accepted along with Hume's general skepticism. Let me show my work.

On Kant, the mind projects certain modes of thought on to the world. The twelve categories (can't remember 'em), and space and time are the ones I think. We can't know anything that exists outside of those pre-sets because our mind just doesn't function that way.

Kant tries to get around this by redefining reason in a more positivist light. Reason doesn't consist of (as the empiricists had thought) interpreting what actually exists. It entails an active role in creating our objects of experience.

But why can't we just accept his account of how the mind functions as an anthropological-psychological study while discarding his redefinition of reason altogether? What if reason still entails the ability to discern noumena from phenomena. Kant's answer as to why we believe in causality would surely be a step up from Hume's custom thesis, but we still wouldn't rationally justify such belief.

It would appear that we're still doomed to believe in metaphysical concepts without grounding. We've simply exchanged one reason (Hume's custom) for another. Does causality exist? We still don't know since Kant defined noumena as unknowable. So we're really no better off now than before right?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 4:18:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tl;dr: Kant upgrades Hume's philosophy of mind without succeeding in justifying belief in metaphysical concepts like causality.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:17:31 PM, Noumena wrote:
I'm thinking that Kant's transcendental idealism can be accepted along with Hume's general skepticism. Let me show my work.

The Fool: Kant Takes back the notion of Transcendental Idealism. He says it was a mistake, because he did not want to be confused as Idealist in the Berkeley sense Or any AFTER. He changed it to CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

On Kant, the mind projects certain modes of thought on to the world.

The Fool: On to? Or In it?LOL

The twelve categories (can't remember 'em), and space and time are the ones I think.

The Fool: False, do you want to debate on it. ?

We can't know anything that exists outside of those pre-sets because our mind just doesn't function that way.

The Fool: One bold assertion is as good as the next.

Kant tries to get around this by redefining reason in a more positivist light.

The Fool: Does he do that? LOL DO YOU WANT TO DEBATE ON IT!

Reason doesn't consist of (as the empiricists had thought) interpreting what actually exists. It entails an active role in creating our objects of experience.

The Fool: Oh yeah The actual existence. Lol.

But why can't we just accept his account of how the mind functions as an anthropological-psychological study while discarding his redefinition of reason altogether?

The Fool: If you are accepting anything, Its religion.

What if reason still entails the ability to discern noumena from phenomena.

The Fool: What are you using the word Reason to refer to? LOL

Kant's answer as to why we believe in causality would surely be a step up from Hume's custom thesis, but we still wouldn't rationally justify such belief.

The Fool: Another 3 years. You may have the conceptual apparatus to read Kant. I don't mean that as an insult. As you learn, if you learn, overtime what you are reading now will start to look like completely different information. It is there now in-front of you but you don't have the Conception to grasp it as is.. I know I have had to go back and read it all again.

It would appear that we're still doomed to believe in metaphysical concepts without grounding. We've simply exchanged one reason (Hume's custom) for another.

The Fool: No bodies interested in appearances. Humes argument Fails. Want to debate about it?

Does causality exist? We still don't know since Kant defined noumena as unknowable.

The Fool: You mean YOU don;t know.

So we're really no better off now than before right?

The Fool: They didn't define things like the Ideologist do. They either described something or Told you what they mean or what they understand the term to mean. Because defining something makes no sense in that way. Because because there has to be something to Define. You can't learn it until you rid yourself completely of all that continental garbage.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:20:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.

Ah, thanks very much. And now I can provide a link. http://www.angelfire.com...

I think this quote easily discredits what wnope said "in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity that one could choose."
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:31:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On a side-note, I wish I could ban Fool from commenting in these threads I make. I can't understand half of what he says because he doesn't speak English and the other half is just condescending nonsense.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

The Fool: What Kant was the most Anti-God. Lol. Remember The Times. You are thinking out the The Kantian Context. He Was highly criticized and attacked for being atheist in his time. There is no Open Atheism then. You may get murdered and you Definitely are not going to be publishing anything. Even Hume never actually says it.

Kant Proved God is Impossible to know, let alone claim it. His refutation to the Ontological argument is the most famous of all. Its because you are in the US. That you are only being taught specific and more compatible notions with US values.
You being blocked off. from a lot more then you think.

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:29:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

The Fool: What Kant was the most Anti-God. Lol. Remember The Times. You are thinking out the The Kantian Context. He Was highly criticized and attacked for being atheist in his time. There is no Open Atheism then. You may get murdered and you Definitely are not going to be publishing anything. Even Hume never actually says it.

Kant Proved God is Impossible to know, let alone claim it. His refutation to the Ontological argument is the most famous of all. Its because you are in the US. That you are only being taught specific and more compatible notions with US values.
You being blocked off. from a lot more then you think.

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.

Because I'm in the US? I've hardly been taught anything on Kant. Everything I know on him is self-taught because what little mention of him my phil101 professor talked about, I already knew. And I do know about his criticisms of the arguments for God. But I'm not sure why you're saying all this. What did you think I was unaware of?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:46:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:31:14 PM, Noumena wrote:
On a side-note, I wish I could ban Fool from commenting in these threads I make. I can't understand half of what he says because he doesn't speak English and the other half is just condescending nonsense.

The Fool: First off, my English has improved a lot. So don't give me that excuse. Where is clear and condescending part?

Noumena:----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fool: Which part do you not understand?

Noumena:----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fool: Can you give one example of the Non-Sense Part?

Noumena:----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fool: You not understanding just means that you are ignorant of what I said.

Noumena:----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fool: Space and time are Nowhere near nor have anything to do with the categories. Just admit you are making things up.

If the Truth condescending well what do you want?

You are MAKING IT UP!

Don't you feel embarrassed about that?

Do you Speak English?

You are suppose to be a philosopher right? why not just Refute it?
If you don't understand what I am saying Just ask you?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 8:36:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:46:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:31:14 PM, Noumena wrote:
On a side-note, I wish I could ban Fool from commenting in these threads I make. I can't understand half of what he says because he doesn't speak English and the other half is just condescending nonsense.

The Fool: Space and time are Nowhere near nor have anything to do with the categories. Just admit you are making things up.

This is the only part of your post I could understand so I'll respond to it. I didn't say space and time were the in the categories. I said they existed along with the categories as projections which our sense experiences have to conform to. Am I wrong?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 8:37:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.

Lolwut. He ultimately justified his morality by reference to.....God (and immortality and free will).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 11:08:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:20:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.

Ah, thanks very much. And now I can provide a link. http://www.angelfire.com...

I think this quote easily discredits what wnope said "in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity that one could choose."

Not quite.

Hume almost literally said causation was a "glue of the imagination" holding events together.

Kant's justification of causality is that, without it, we cannot give a coherent explanation of the world. But it is not "necessary" in the same sense that we would say the existence of time and space is necessary, so causality is named one of the "Analogies of Experience."

However, a Descartes-looking motherf*cker might ask something along the lines of "But Kant, why couldn't it be the case that external world actually has no causality/is not coherent/etc?" and Kant would answer "Because God isn't trying to f*ck with our head."

Whether or not God exists, a coherent understanding of the perceptual world necessitates presupposing the analogies of experience. So, unlike Hume and Descartes, Kant is not saying "God set the rules like so" but instead "the rules are like so, and if they aren't God is really f*cked up."

"Deus ex machina" wasn't literally talking about "Gods" it was talking about the philosophical act of justifying the use of logic and causation by simply referencing the fact that a Christian God exists.

The most dogmatic version came from the church. Hume, who was raised in a church, was thrown out for even challenging the idea that perception was to be taken as truth due to God's will. His philosophical enterprise consisted of trying to show an alternative to the Church's model.

Kant, however, had the philosophical enterprise of rebutting Hume. Neither disagreed about the existence of God, only HOW God is related to truth.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:10:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 8:37:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.

Lolwut. He ultimately justified his morality by reference to.....God (and immortality and free will).

The Fool: No he throws god in the Noumena section. He argues for RATIONAL MORAL LAW.
And he calls the ability to REASON is YOUR FREEDOM.

you have no shame eh.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:20:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 11:08:09 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:20:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.

Ah, thanks very much. And now I can provide a link. http://www.angelfire.com...

I think this quote easily discredits what wnope said "in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity that one could choose."

Not quite.

Hume almost literally said causation was a "glue of the imagination" holding events together.

Kant's justification of causality is that, without it, we cannot give a coherent explanation of the world. But it is not "necessary" in the same sense that we would say the existence of time and space is necessary, so causality is named one of the "Analogies of Experience."

However, a Descartes-looking motherf*cker might ask something along the lines of "But Kant, why couldn't it be the case that external world actually has no causality/is not coherent/etc?" and Kant would answer "Because God isn't trying to f*ck with our head."

Whether or not God exists, a coherent understanding of the perceptual world necessitates presupposing the analogies of experience. So, unlike Hume and Descartes, Kant is not saying "God set the rules like so" but instead "the rules are like so, and if they aren't God is really f*cked up."

"Deus ex machina" wasn't literally talking about "Gods" it was talking about the philosophical act of justifying the use of logic and causation by simply referencing the fact that a Christian God exists.

The most dogmatic version came from the church. Hume, who was raised in a church, was thrown out for even challenging the idea that perception was to be taken as truth due to God's will. His philosophical enterprise consisted of trying to show an alternative to the Church's model.

Kant, however, had the philosophical enterprise of rebutting Hume. Neither disagreed about the existence of God, only HOW God is related to truth.

The Fool: He says Specifically that those things are beyond the scope of Human understanding. In which it Follows that nobody knows what they are taking about when they talk about them. He can't say it directly, but everybody knows that is follows from his arguments. His grounding work is specifically The Critiquing of The Limits of our knowledge. And God is cut out of possible knowledge. Many people are learning out of the historical context.

The terms that he uses are not the same as today. When Kant says Metaphysics it he attacking THEOLOGY. That is what His Dogmatic Slumbers where.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:10:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/19/2013 8:37:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.

Lolwut. He ultimately justified his morality by reference to.....God (and immortality and free will).

The Fool: No he throws god in the Noumena section. He argues for RATIONAL MORAL LAW.
And he calls the ability to REASON is YOUR FREEDOM.

you have no shame eh.

Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Learn2 Kant.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 6:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 5:44:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:10:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/19/2013 8:37:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:21:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

He Kicks God completely out. He is the first to Show That we Don't even need God For Moral Principles at all. Therefore for the first time ever. Eliminating any possible need to refer to God for anything. It would contradict everything he says.

Lolwut. He ultimately justified his morality by reference to.....God (and immortality and free will).

The Fool: No he throws god in the Noumena section. He argues for RATIONAL MORAL LAW.
And he calls the ability to REASON is YOUR FREEDOM.

you have no shame eh.

Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Learn2 Kant.

A better description is

1.It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue).
2. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
3. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality.
4. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240; 5/124-5)

Kant is not claiming morality is dictated by God, only that morality is not a worthwhile enterprise if there is no God to ensure everything fits into place.

Which goes back to how the Analogy of Experience vis a vis causality ultimately justifies itself using God.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 6:27:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 6:02:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/19/2013 5:44:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:10:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: No he throws god in the Noumena section. He argues for RATIONAL MORAL LAW.
And he calls the ability to REASON is YOUR FREEDOM.

you have no shame eh.

Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Learn2 Kant.

A better description is

1.It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue).
2. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
3. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality.
4. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240; 5/124-5)

Kant is not claiming morality is dictated by God, only that morality is not a worthwhile enterprise if there is no God to ensure everything fits into place.

Which goes back to how the Analogy of Experience vis a vis causality ultimately justifies itself using God.

Whichever way he specifically goes through with it, my point was that he still calls back to God to justify morality.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:33:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:17:31 PM, Noumena wrote:
I'm thinking that Kant's transcendental idealism can be accepted along with Hume's general skepticism. Let me show my work.

On Kant, the mind projects certain modes of thought on to the world. The twelve categories (can't remember 'em), and space and time are the ones I think. We can't know anything that exists outside of those pre-sets because our mind just doesn't function that way.

Kant tries to get around this by redefining reason in a more positivist light. Reason doesn't consist of (as the empiricists had thought) interpreting what actually exists. It entails an active role in creating our objects of experience.

But why can't we just accept his account of how the mind functions as an anthropological-psychological study while discarding his redefinition of reason altogether? What if reason still entails the ability to discern noumena from phenomena. Kant's answer as to why we believe in causality would surely be a step up from Hume's custom thesis, but we still wouldn't rationally justify such belief.

It would appear that we're still doomed to believe in metaphysical concepts without grounding. We've simply exchanged one reason (Hume's custom) for another. Does causality exist? We still don't know since Kant defined noumena as unknowable. So we're really no better off now than before right?

"Eventually, of course, all these anti-metaphysical critics will have to face the contention that no one ever really escapes metaphysics, that its derogators end up hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly." - Harvey Cox
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:36:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 8:36:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:46:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:31:14 PM, Noumena wrote:
On a side-note, I wish I could ban Fool from commenting in these threads I make. I can't understand half of what he says because he doesn't speak English and the other half is just condescending nonsense.

The Fool: Space and time are Nowhere near nor have anything to do with the categories. Just admit you are making things up.

This is the only part of your post I could understand so I'll respond to it. I didn't say space and time were the in the categories. I said they existed along with the categories as projections which our sense experiences have to conform to. Am I wrong?

You are trying to have a rational intelligent discussion with The Fool, so yes, you are wrong.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:15:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 6:36:12 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/19/2013 8:36:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:46:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:31:14 PM, Noumena wrote:
On a side-note, I wish I could ban Fool from commenting in these threads I make. I can't understand half of what he says because he doesn't speak English and the other half is just condescending nonsense.

The Fool: Space and time are Nowhere near nor have anything to do with the categories. Just admit you are making things up.

This is the only part of your post I could understand so I'll respond to it. I didn't say space and time were the in the categories. I said they existed along with the categories as projections which our sense experiences have to conform to. Am I wrong?

You are trying to have a rational intelligent discussion with The Fool, so yes, you are wrong.

The Fool: But why not just Pick one of my lines and Refute them, anything else is to avoid the argument @ hand.
Are you able you back up you claims.
I am always willing to try and make the best sense of somebodies argument. I will help prop up you argument if I can. Why because if I am wrong I don't want to miss it. For I will know Exactly where I need to change my belief. But you can expect me to concede if you can't refute my argument in the PROPER way. All its take is a counter example.

I line it up other argument, and I put my cards on the table For everyone to see.

I quote the exact premise or line I an refuting. As to make it clear as Possible.

You can always ask me what I mean. I will give clear and distinct criteria, to the best of my ability. I follow POC, even when people purposely try to give a confused reinterpreting to other in what I am saying. You don't have a good reason To slander me. But slander all you want. It won't budge my integrity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:16:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 6:27:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 6:02:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/19/2013 5:44:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:10:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: No he throws god in the Noumena section. He argues for RATIONAL MORAL LAW.
And he calls the ability to REASON is YOUR FREEDOM.

you have no shame eh.

Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Learn2 Kant.

A better description is

1.It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue).
2. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
3. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality.
4. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240; 5/124-5)

Kant is not claiming morality is dictated by God, only that morality is not a worthwhile enterprise if there is no God to ensure everything fits into place.

Which goes back to how the Analogy of Experience vis a vis causality ultimately justifies itself using God.

Whichever way he specifically goes through with it, my point was that he still calls back to God to justify morality.

The Fool: do you really want to go with this?.. trust me its against your best interest.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:57:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

This is useless.
Kant argued that morality had three prerequisites, immortality (time to progress towards moral perfection), free will (ought implies can), and the existence of God.

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.

The Fool: This is a Garbage Premise Behavior eh! Kant said that.??
RECOGNIZE THIS QUOTE" The only thing that is good in itself is a GOOD WILL"

Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.

The Fool: Non-sense Justice has to be rational already.. That is has it to be BALANCED. RATIO- RATIONAL.
Do you even know what it means? In the original meaning From THE RATIONALIST who coined the Term from Ratiocination. From accounting.(yes its ENGLISH) Not rational The Colloquialism. Not the Rational in our own special way or paradigm rational.

(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

The Fool: Non-sense. THIS IS A Bold assumption. Justice doesn't imply God. It implies BALANCE, 1to1 ratio.

Therefore:
(4) God exists

The Fool: This doesn't FOLLOW From p (1, 2, and 3.)
THE TRUTH MUST BE PRESERVED FROM THE PREMISED TO CONCLUSION.

The Fool: First things first This is FAKE----------->http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...;

It's just a tidy PERSONAL WEBSITE there are zero genuine References to any actual sources.
I own a copy of the PRIMARY SOURCE azz clown.

There is Not EVEN A QUOTE of any argument, not even a Premise. Its somebodies personal Reinterpretation.
YOU NEED TO GET CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS OR RESEARCH SKILLS. I don"t know what is going on with you education system. There But It is MANDATORY to have A CRITICAL Thinking COURSE first year PHILOSOPHY.

I own a copy of Kant major works, I have read them first hand ME!! I DID. The Fool. Not I heard from someone else from someone else. And I am not clear but I claim it anyways.

You probably can't even tell what could stand as a VALID REFERENCE, in any professional setting. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF a DATABASE like OVID, OR WITH PRIMARY RESOURCES AND FOR SCIENCE SCIENTIFIC journal. Do you not get free access to Professional Data Bases when you are registered in UNIVERSITY. AM NOT TALKING COLLEGE. I am talking UNIVERSITY.
I don't know about college but I know you have to pay to get full access to most of them, if you are not in a university here .

Real Legit Sources HERE, LIKE THESE ONES, LOOK KANT IS RIGHT HERE. NO GOOGLE. ---!!GOOGLE SCHOLARE !!<--
http://books.google.ca...
not sh!t sh!tty sh!t faces sh!t, site.
http://database.oxfordjournals.org...

THIS IS WHAT you should be referencing primary sources. Not he said she said that he said, Therefore its true. monkey poop.

You,ve been Fooled.

again.
<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:41:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 11:08:09 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:20:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.

Ah, thanks very much. And now I can provide a link. http://www.angelfire.com...

I think this quote easily discredits what wnope said "in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity that one could choose."

Not quite.

Hume almost literally said causation was a "glue of the imagination" holding events together.

Kant's justification of causality is that, without it, we cannot give a coherent explanation of the world. But it is not "necessary" in the same sense that we would say the existence of time and space is necessary, so causality is named one of the "Analogies of Experience."

However, a Descartes-looking motherf*cker might ask something along the lines of "But Kant, why couldn't it be the case that external world actually has no causality/is not coherent/etc?" and Kant would answer "Because God isn't trying to f*ck with our head."

Whether or not God exists, a coherent understanding of the perceptual world necessitates presupposing the analogies of experience. So, unlike Hume and Descartes, Kant is not saying "God set the rules like so" but instead "the rules are like so, and if they aren't God is really f*cked up."

"Deus ex machina" wasn't literally talking about "Gods" it was talking about the philosophical act of justifying the use of logic and causation by simply referencing the fact that a Christian God exists.

The most dogmatic version came from the church. Hume, who was raised in a church, was thrown out for even challenging the idea that perception was to be taken as truth due to God's will. His philosophical enterprise consisted of trying to show an alternative to the Church's model.

Kant, however, had the philosophical enterprise of rebutting Hume. Neither disagreed about the existence of God, only HOW God is related to truth.

Could you provide a source? It seems like if it's true, the word "god" should have been mentioned at least once in the standford link I posted.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

Descartes is more influential...We all hate his Cartesian coordinate system, do we?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:37:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:04:22 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

Descartes is more influential...We all hate his Cartesian coordinate system, do we?

His geometry seems alright (from my little knowledge of it). Can't say the same of his philosophy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 12:26:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:41:32 AM, phantom wrote:
At 1/19/2013 11:08:09 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:20:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:03:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:58:49 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

I really can't remember and can't find it on the web, but in ancient (Greek perhaps) storytelling, when the hero was in danger and the writer would introduce a God to save him, they had a term for it. I can't remember what it was exactly. But basically, if I recall correctly, Kant accused Descartes of the same thing for using God as proof of the external world. It would seem hypocritical that Kant would commit basically the same thing.

God's not even mentioned on this webpage, http://plato.stanford.edu... which it should be if Kant used that escape.

Deus Ex Machina.

Ah, thanks very much. And now I can provide a link. http://www.angelfire.com...

I think this quote easily discredits what wnope said "in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity that one could choose."

Not quite.

Hume almost literally said causation was a "glue of the imagination" holding events together.

Kant's justification of causality is that, without it, we cannot give a coherent explanation of the world. But it is not "necessary" in the same sense that we would say the existence of time and space is necessary, so causality is named one of the "Analogies of Experience."

However, a Descartes-looking motherf*cker might ask something along the lines of "But Kant, why couldn't it be the case that external world actually has no causality/is not coherent/etc?" and Kant would answer "Because God isn't trying to f*ck with our head."

Whether or not God exists, a coherent understanding of the perceptual world necessitates presupposing the analogies of experience. So, unlike Hume and Descartes, Kant is not saying "God set the rules like so" but instead "the rules are like so, and if they aren't God is really f*cked up."

"Deus ex machina" wasn't literally talking about "Gods" it was talking about the philosophical act of justifying the use of logic and causation by simply referencing the fact that a Christian God exists.

The most dogmatic version came from the church. Hume, who was raised in a church, was thrown out for even challenging the idea that perception was to be taken as truth due to God's will. His philosophical enterprise consisted of trying to show an alternative to the Church's model.

Kant, however, had the philosophical enterprise of rebutting Hume. Neither disagreed about the existence of God, only HOW God is related to truth.

Could you provide a source? It seems like if it's true, the word "god" should have been mentioned at least once in the standford link I posted.

It's important to understand exactly what Kant was trying to do. He wasn't aiming to introduce God as a causal mechanism, since he believed all rational inquiry into the nature of God was generally useless.

In the first analogy of experience (causality), his chief point is that an individual cannot claim to have a posteriori knowledge without presupposing the analogy.

So in one sense, his epistemology can stand up without God.

However, if you question the normative assumptions behind the analogies (i.e. causality exist, time does not exist, etc), that is WHY we should aim for pure reason, the answer comes in Practical Reason, which depends on the presupposition of God, specifically one who is not trying to screw with our heads(https://bearspace.baylor.edu...)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 11:51:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:37:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:04:22 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:42:40 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 5:03:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm fairly sure Kant ultimately justified believe in causality/uniformity by appealing to God.

Descartes-looking motherfvcker.

Descartes is more influential...We all hate his Cartesian coordinate system, do we?

His geometry seems alright (from my little knowledge of it). Can't say the same of his philosophy.

The Fool: Noumena have No Idea what you are talking about..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL