Mww

Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea? I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in t...

I think got this right. For my part, I don’t think his writing deceptive, as much as just disagreeing with the way he uses his conceptions, which foll...

All well and good, but why would you invoke the antinomies of pure reason, especially with respect to cosmological ideas, when the question was only e...

Either the moral isn’t real as conditioned by fact, or, the moral is real but conditioned by non-empirical fact, a contradiction. For a non-empirical ...

Ehhhh, maybe. I’ll have to back check that. But there’s a more exact exposition of why not. See A592/B620 for the groundwork, if you’re so inclined.

Dunno, don’t care. I don’t bother with -isms or -ists that confound more than confine. Dunno how to answer where is moral realism left when there’s no...

Might be interesting how that even came to be a question.

First thought: “…. Nothing can be more real, or concern us more, than our own sentiments of pleasure and uneasiness; and if these be favourable to vir...

On the one hand, as soon as some sufficiently capable intelligence wants to know of various attributions of “how many”, the material thing is that whi...

This reduces to…the true statements that exist depend on the existence of a mind that can comprehend them. What’s to say the mind on which the cogniti...

Cool. I know you saw mine, scattered in the two threads where this has come up.

No. Memory content is representation of cognized things. Appearance is neither representation nor cognition. Over time, yes, but belief in general, ea...

No, but irrelevant, because the question was, can it be believed the world exists without perception of it. Ehhhh….that’s for the psychologist. For th...

You are correct in that you have no immediate reason a posteriori to believe in the existence of the world in the absence of perception. It is still t...

Nor I. I think of the term as simple speech at the expense of critical thought. Pretty sad, I must say, to create a philosophy predicated on the conve...

Apparently your interest is in with examining what the will does, whereas my interest concerns what the will is, or, what it is about human agency tha...

Cool. I never said or implied any sort of universal will. For my actions to be mine, whatever their cause must be in me. Who ever contested that? Did ...

While that may indeed be true, it does not follow from it, that there is nothing not caused by something. If it is necessary that everything be caused...

I’d agree to intellectual bankruptcy…..not my own of course; no one willingly admits impoverished rationality…..if supernatural predication was all th...

Nope, and no one ever will. Your list seeks natural causality for the way the universe behaves in relation to the possibility for free will, but in co...

Well said. I say that, because it’s pretty much the same sentiment I offered in response to his “Making a Case for Transcendental Idealism”.

Because you say there would need to be one, would I be correct in assuming you already know there was such a force? If not, there was, introduced in 1...

Oh, he was quite aware the brain does everything, but we as human don’t consciously operate in accordance with the scientific mode of brain mechanics....

I agree you have the logical ground for the existence of a thing, as you say, while not perceiving it, iff you’ve already had the experience of that t...

While in general support of your arguments, I think your #1 is suspect. It’s nonetheless quite obvious, if you’re doing continental metaphysics and ev...

So paint-guy leaves the diagonal unpainted, merely playing the odds that shovel-guy would take the most direct route. Shovel-guy’s just following dire...

Kant works for me, but it comes with the burden of attributing to judgement more power than most common folk, and too few current philosophers, are pr...

A. OF REASON IN GENERAL.” , A299/B355. B. OF THE LOGICAL USE OF REASON. C. OF THE PURE USE OF REASON.

I wonder. Say I get famous. In a hundred years, will they take what made me famous, look at it way differently than I meant for it, then call me somet...

Oh, we disagree over a wide range, which is fine. But, with respect to that comment, I’ve been there myself. Pure reason’s intrinsic circularity has b...

Agreed. Those are conditions related to experience or the absence of it. Things-in-themselves, as such, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with ...

Of course they do. In what other world would they lie? They do not lie in the perceived world. A thing-in-itself is still just a thing.

Ok. Thanks.

But what if its non-existence is impossible? I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with naming an existence as such. But naming a mere existence ...

Here’s a language game for ya: when “carrying on” a conversation, the worst one can do is repeat himself. Nope. We named a possible cause, which could...

I’d have agreed, if it had said, representation is really more about how we describe relations within the parts of the cognitive system as a whole. I ...

The homunculus, and the informal fallacy of the argument, disappears from a cognitive system as such. For the subject that is the thinker by means of ...

Not as I understand it.The indirect realist does not and knows it; the direct realist does not but thinks he does. Yes, which fits with what I just sa...

If you see a red postbox, then it is the case the thing comes to you already named, which makes you a direct realist. And to perceive alone, is not to...

Transcendental arguments are not intended for empirical conditions, so, no, there wouldn’t be one. No need to argue for that which gives you a bloody ...

Sure. But why would we care? We work with what we’re given. In the case for natural real objects, say, what do we gain by asking if something we know ...

Not who. What. “…. What we have above all to do is, negatively, to rid ourselves of such illusions as 'the argument from illusion….”, and assorted oth...

“…. The general doctrine….goes like this: (…) we never directly perceive or sense, material objects…. but only sense-data…” I am on whomever’s side th...

Efficient law-like agent of change. Has a nice ring to it, for sure. I swear, Feynman had a cool phrase like that, talking about how fields should be ...

Sure, the causes may be inferred, but wouldn’t models of causation be predicated on observable effects following from them? Working backwards kinda th...

I was just commenting on the main point for writing CPR. But now that you mention it, why do you suppose he devoted everything after A293/B350 to PURE...

I had in mind that empirical science theories are grounded in observation. For some of those there is precedent where syllogistic logical coherence ha...

Kant didn’t force anything, is what I think. There is a truth buried in there but doesn’t have anything to do with force. Or Nietsche.

If a thing is affirmed to be true, the sense of its falsity must already be given. If we know it is this, we must already know why it is not that. How...

Yep. Purpose relates to how the subject feels about a thing, regulated by aesthetic judgement. Phenomena relate to what a subject knows about a thing,...