PessimisticIdealism

Let's see what Schopenhauer has to say about this issue. These passages are taken straight from his Fourfold Root.

We experience "Subjectivity" as a kind of locus of felt, qualitative "intensity" as it were; and this Subjectival intensity cannot be "known" Objectiv...

It's not "perceived" because the Subject is not perceived by any sensory modality. When I use the term "feeling," I mean something much more sublimina...

The Subject is felt, it is not known as one of the Objects present to-and-for-itself. Actually in the argument I give at the beginning, I am speaking ...

In the context of what we are dealing with here, I don't think the fact that we cannot in principle make the Subject an Object for-itself (while retai...

I agree with you here. The represented "I" that we "know" in "Self-consciousness" (pardon the expression) is not the "concrete" knowing Subject, rathe...

The "Objectified Subject" is not The Subject, rather it is "Subject'" (which is not identical to the Subject doing the knowing). It is purely an Objec...

I would argue that it is not self-undermining. When I speak of my "I", I am unable to ostensively point to it or describe it as I would an Object. Wha...

Well that's a petty dismissal. Nowhere in any of my posts have I mentioned god or arguments for god. Also, regarding the bivalent equivalence and iden...

If we restrict the meaning of "self-knowledge" to the Subject making itself an Object of knowledge while retaining its "Subject-hood," then yes, "self...

This is a very interesting idea, and I have spent a great deal of time thinking about whether or not such an explanation can do justice to the whole a...

I can't tell what you are trying to get at here.

Your objection seems to rest on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "Subject" and "Object." All "Knowledge" is a relationship between a knowing "Su...

I'd love to see you guys tear his "treatise" to pieces with facts and logic, epic style.

Of course we are responsible for our actions; however, he's saying that we own actions in the same way that we can own a table or a chair. He claims t...

Ancap_Society claims to have discovered an "apodictic proof" of self-ownership. His writing is mostly incoherent; however, I'll copy and paste several...

I’m not assuming its negation, rather I am saying it’s a meaningless proposition.

It is indeed an absurd question; however, the question is simply a response the absurd statement “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” In or...

Whoops, I apologize. That was meant for @"Wayfarer".

Well, unfortunately, you are interpreting the standard realist position wrongly. You are exactly right, @"Wayfarer".

What kind of realist are you then?

P1) That which lies within my consciousness is what I have immediate certainty of. (i.e. I am certain that what is presented in my consciousness is pr...

I should probably alter the conclusion to say something along the lines of: “The realist position is not self-evident because it is a synthetic propos...

I basically agree. Practicality and efficiency render skepticism unhelpful in terms of getting on with our daily lives; however, this wouldn't by any ...

I don’t think your argument is synonymous with the original argument I present. I’ll put your argument in premise form: P1) In order to know whether o...

Right, and that axiom must be taken as a “given.” However, I wouldn’t say that giving the realist position the status of axiom renders it “off limits”...