The Thing Outside of Itself

Since everything is a thing in itself, the 'thing outside of itself' is simply Being experiencing the being of being-for-it. Make sense? Good.

Reply to emancipate :up:

What about a thing outside the inside of itself. The way it sees me trying to see it as if it were me.

Dasein is the thing outside itself.

Reply to unenlightened Does the implication of infinite regression hold?

Interesting test; propose a nonsense term and find a catalog of reference material is already available.

Quoting Cheshire

It is the view a thing in itself has of us.

Things don’t have views. Beings have views.

The point of Kant’s idea of the thing in itself is simply that perspective is inextricable from the knowledge of appearances, that we can only know things as they appear to us. I’m generally bemused by the amount of controversy this seems to cause as it seems mere common sense as far as I’m concerned.

Reply to Cheshire I think so. The nature of psyche is that one experiences an experiencer experiencing - I would not call it a regression exactly, but a circle such that thereafter one repeats and can simply say etc. Hence the eternal trinity of psychological theory - I am divided, and in so saying, I divide myself from the divided self, but in saying that, I am merely repeating the division, so three is always 'enough' of an explanation.

Quoting Wayfarer

that we can only know things as they appear to us.

This may appear to be the case, but our knowing in itself may be quite different from our knowing as it appears to us..

Quoting Wayfarer

The point of Kant’s idea of the thing in itself is simply that perspective is inextricable from the knowledge of appearances, that we can only know things as they appear to us. I’m generally bemused by the amount of controversy this seems to cause as it seems mere common sense as far as I’m concerned.

I can agree that it seems common sense. I think that is because we know what it's like to imagine a different point of view. But, in this case we are imagining a point of view that doesn't exist by definition. When is the case we'll be seeing something without a perspective and how will it compare to when we do have one?

Quoting Wayfarer

Things don’t have views. Beings have views.

Technically, it's an observation that the thing doesn't see us.

Quoting Cheshire

When is the case we'll be seeing something without a perspective and how will it compare to when we do have one?

Isn’t perspective intrinsic to seeing? If you want to see an object, you can’t see it if your face is pressed against it. Only through perspective, and the ability to differentiate the figure from its background, can anything be seen.

I should add, although it’s probably a can of worms, that seeing arithmetical proofs, for instance, is a different matter. I think in this case, the use of ‘to see’ is metaphorical for the act of logical apprehension. That step of logical judgement is, however, part of the act of apperception (the process by which the subject assimilates an object into previously-existing ideas and impressions.) So in the case of human perception, ‘seeing’ can cover a spectrum from the simple visual impression (I see it!) through to understanding the point of something (I see what you mean.)

Quoting Wayfarer

If you want to see an object, you can’t see it if your face is pressed against it.

How could you miss it? Yes, stepping back a bit helps. But, it isn't exclusive.

I'm not sure that specifing mathematical proofs as the subject captures the intention of the discussion. Maybe, The way you see a being see you the way it sees you see it.

Quoting Cheshire

How could you miss it?

But you can’t see what anything is, if your face is hard up against it. Obviously. I don’t need to ‘try it’, or ‘prove it’.

Quoting Cheshire

Maybe, The way you see a being see you the way it sees you see it.

I see no reason to believe that for an instant. I know what a goldfish is when I see one. A goldfish has no idea of what I am.

Reply to Wayfarer Try it.

I successfully identified several objects correctly.

Quoting unenlightened

This may appear to be the case, but our knowing in itself may be quite different from our knowing as it appears to us..

Yes, that's better than I imagined. I was thinking their was merit to challenging itself validity, but I wasn't sure how to demonstrate it properly. Well done.

Quoting Wayfarer

I see no reason to believe that for an instant. I know what a goldfish is when I see one. A goldfish has no idea of what I am.

You'd have to base that belief on knowing what it is to see a goldfish when you see one as you imagine what it sees.

Quoting Cheshire

Yes, that's better than I imagined. I was thinking their was merit to challenging itself validity, but I wasn't sure how to demonstrate it properly. Well done.

Perhaps Kant has it the wrong way around: perhaps my knowledge/perception is the thing in myself, and and the object thereof is the thing outside myself. As if I contain a map, but the territory contains me. How's that for a radical philosophy? :cool:

The thing outside of itself

Quoting Cheshire

It is the view a thing in itself has of us.

Quoting unenlightened

perhaps my knowledge/perception is the thing in myself, and and the object thereof is the thing outside myself. As if I contain a map, but the territory contains me. How's that for a radical philosophy? :cool:

It seems consistent with my experience of the world. I can imagine the things I can see and places I can be. I can also differentiate between the memory and experience.

Reply to TheMadFool Exactly.

Quoting Cheshire

Exactly

And...???

Reply to TheMadFool It's all the same perspective at the end of the day. We pretend what we must look like to the mirror as the mirror. But, there's no real other view to be described regardless of how many qualifications you stack on it.

Quoting Cheshire

It's all the same perspective at the end of the day. We pretend what we must look like to the mirror. But, there's no real other view to be described regardless of how many qualifications you stack on it.

The thing outside of itself knows the thing in itself. I've always wondered about inanimate objects and what, if they could speak, they would have to say.

Could it be the other way round too - because we're watching, the world pretends to be something it's not? :chin: Hmmmm.

Quoting TheMadFool

Could it be the other way round too - because we're watching, the world pretends to be something it's not? :chin: Hmmmm.

I mean I'm at least two assertions deep in some speculation about material. My basis is that Wittgenstein was right, but there's easier ways to demonstrate ideas. Maybe, professional philosophers are so given to the assumption of the validity of it in itself statements they need a long leash to drag them through it at the time.

To your question; I think I subscribe to a type of participatory realism. The world's real and reality results from our interactions with it. If I were you then perhaps I might participate differently, but the parts that don't change are common for a reason. If the world chooses it's participation as well, then there could be more going on than we know. Which we already knew.

Reply to Wayfarer I understand it is supposed to be a metaphor. Seeing the forest for the trees or the end of the wall when all I see is wall. But, it ignores so much back ground information. If I truly don't know what something is you can press it to my face or parade it around the room and I still won't know what it is I'm looking at. It's a valid metaphor for a questionable idea.

Wait a minute so you being a thing inside of itself thinks that it can comprehend a thing outside of itself by using the thing inside itself to create something inside itself which is an idea and a concept of something that could be outside of itself. Do you see the contradiction here?

Quoting MAYAEL

Wait a minute so you being a thing inside of itself thinks that it can comprehend a thing outside of itself by using the thing inside itself to create something inside itself which is an idea and a concept of something that could be outside of itself. Do you see the contradiction here?

So far I've only claimed that I could give a name to thing outside of itself and others could then reason about it as a result. Confirming that we know ourselves as seen by the thing outside of itself point of view is problematic; now that some one has decided it is problematic. Up until this point it's been confirmed twice as viable; one poster even referencing quite a bit of work done on the topic. 1 dismissed the idea and another has offered some insightful speculations and a cartoon.

this pondering as well as the actual "thing" that supposedly exists outside of itself how can we confirm that the hypothesis is correct when we aren't out side of are self?

I say that we can't and to make matters even more difficult we can't even properly ponder it because that would be an attribute we don't have so any concept we come up with is inaccurate in comparison to the actual thing assuming the actual thing did in fact exist so rather it exists or not we are incapable of comprehending it so whatever you're calling a thing outside of itself is not how a thing outside of itself would exist

Quoting Cheshire

propose the concept of the 'thing outside of itself'; as an extension to the thing in itself.

Quoting Cheshire

implying an error probably exist in the original notion of the thing in itself.

....an extension of a probable error, which would necessarily implicate itself as a probable error.

1 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4 is the error compounded, iff 1 + 1 = 3 is the error.

The thing outside of itself is actually very natural to us. We are the thing (persons) living in a universe (outside). We are "the thing" outside of itself.

Unless we are purely in the mind, which is every bit as amazing.

Reply to theRiddler Yep. You solved the puzzle. The thing outside of itself is you. Implied by the definition put forward in the OP as the view of yourself from the thing in itself. It simply terminates to how you think you look; implying the thing in itself doesn't add or subtract from ones perception because it doesn't exist by logical definition. A perception that isn't one falls into the set of things that do not contain themselves. It represents Russell's imaginary break down of logic.

Like, the set of possible things that will never occur. I can imagine there is something there, but I could never justify ascribing it to anything.

Quoting Mww

....an extension of a probable error, which would necessarily implicate itself as a probable error.

I agree.

Over my head. My propensity is to see things in black and white, that it's not possible to imagine anything completely impossible, technically speaking.

That by definition of something's being "possible" it must exist, or otherwise it's impossible.

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. I get that there's a breakdown of logic, but to me that's just the fundamental viewpoint of the observer, and we are not creatures dictated by pure rational thought on the subtlest level of simple being awareness.

Quoting theRiddler

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. I get that there's a breakdown of logic, but to me that's just the fundamental viewpoint of the observer, and we are not creatures dictated by pure rational thought on the subtlest level of simple being awareness.

Quoting theRiddler

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me.

I'm demonstrating complicated nonsense is still nonsense. Philosophy seems to have cracks that let people imagine possible things that will never occur and even reason about them. It's my failure to articulate which is to blame for anyone's misunderstanding of this matter.

Quoting emancipate

experiencing

Makes sense. Although... If being experiences the being of being inside of the being experiencing the being of tbe being outside the being of being of being than it simply doesn't make sense anymore to say "to be or not to be". :lol:

Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity?

Quoting Ciceronianus

Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity?

Well, everybody is pretty sure there's a thing. That much seems familiar, but where it is relative to not your perception of it seems to keep expanding without a noticeable constraint other than the number of words for directions. Next thread, The least most south westernly thing near itself...to be continued.

Quoting theRiddler

That by definition of something's being "possible" it must exist, or otherwise it's impossible.

Actually, that's not really the definition of possible. It has to be an outcome that could occur. Before you flip a coin, it's possible heads or tails could happen. But, one of them won't. Hence, one is a possible outcome that will never occur in the context of the single event.

Actually, that's not really the definition of possible. It has to be an outcome that could occur. Before you flip a coin, it's possible heads or tails could happen. But, one of them won't. Hence, one is a possible outcome that will never occur in the context of the single event.

You're gonna have a hard time proving things could occur that never do occur.

Technically, only events which do occur were ever possible. It's easy to say something "could happen" -- just as easy as it is to lie, I suppose.

Quoting theRiddler

Technically, only events which do occur were ever possible. It's easy to say something "could happen" -- just as easy as it is to lie, I suppose.

Technically, only events which are possible ever occur.