Mikie

OK. This differs how from the following: (Which is where this diversion started.) If there's any "difference" at all, it's simply that phenomena usual...

To summarize this non-exchange: Again: what "qualifications"? Representations are not what's a priori -- the forms of intuition are. Phenomena are not...

No, you haven't. If you'd like to, feel free. I won't hold my breath. And actually I've used both Kant and Schopenhauer. You've made a claim about phe...

Brilliant analysis.

I guess Kant is ridiculous then. The "thing in itself" and "noumenon" is essentially the same thing, yes. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be glad ...

For those interested: Kant: "Accordingly, it is only the form of sensuous intuition by which we can intuit things a priori, but by which we can know o...

Yeah, I figured as much. I'm sorry you're so confused about this. Perhaps studying Kant would help. And I don't have to "find my own" because you won'...

The forms of sensibility are time and space. These are a priori. We can't experience anything at all except through these forms. Matter, causality, ph...

Different qualifications of the "external object"? What does "different qualifications" mean? So phenomena and representation are different or not? If...

How this got started. If not phenomena, then what is phenomena? Something "undetermined." But not an unknown thing in itself. Something between that i...

Meaning the thing-in-itself, the noumenon. Yes, of course. Representations "for us" is redundant. What does the "they" refer to? The representations o...

No. That would be the thing-in-itself which we cannot know, since everything we can know are representations (from "sensibility" in space and time). A...

It's precisely the Kantian system. How else is phenomena experienced? This is not Kant at all. Nor would he ever make any such claims. In that case th...

In Kant, phenomena are only experienced through our representations. What is the object "beyond" our representations? The ding an sich, the noumenon. ...

Now you're diverting. There's plenty that can be said about Kant's influence on modern science. But first one needs to understand Kant. Saying it's me...

I'm devastated.

Kant was what was being discussed. Try to keep up. Go hero-worship somewhere else. I'm not a Kantian nor do I advocate for Kant's philosophy. But let'...

It's not physicalist. Read some Kant and get back to me.

Of course they are. The phenomenal world is the world of representations. All else is noumenonal, the thing in itself. This isn't that hard.

Funny, no one else seems to be struggling with it. I guess that makes you special. Congrats. No it isn't. Maybe to you -- although I doubt you're bein...

Yes. So what’s “mistaken” exactly? That Kant believed in an outside world? I’m not seeing your point.

I’m not sure about mistaken, but simply one formulation which happens to be the most dominant in the west. Both deal with scientific theories, and a k...

True- not meant as an exhaustive list, of course. Just off the top of my head. But you’re right, that could be a big problem - or a blessing. It’s har...

I’m a triggered snowflake, Sean Hannity. There, now go rest easy in your reality.

Science is successful in telling us stuff about stuff, and by stuff we mean everything. So science is good at telling us that everything is everything...

Climate denier who’s not read a word of Chomsky. Got it.

You cracked the case. Good for you.

Also- epidemics, war, etc, effect the third world quite a lot I’d say. But I don’t have access to your very credible, very edgy sources.

Yes, and be more like you and your ilk— ignoramuses who feel superior believing they have special knowledge. So edgy, so adolescent. Please substantia...

Science is successful at telling us that this “stuff” is galaxies, cells, brain activity? Or is “stuff” now something else?

So climate change and nuclear weapons are mainstream media illusions, and the “real” problems are that many people can’t eat or find clean water. What...

So literally everything? Fine. Good observation. I would say we’re beings among other beings. “Stuff” is misleading.

Maybe. He won by a few thousand votes in normally blue states and lost by 3 million in the popular. Hardly a guarantee.

"Physical," "material," "body," etc., are honorific terms. They used to have a technical notion within mechanical philosophy of the 16th and 17th cent...

Fair enough. Glad to help.

It's quite true that an atom makes sense in chemistry and physics. That has nothing to do with "material," which is meaningless. It used to have a mea...

Can't tell if this is sarcastic.

The term "material" is meaningless. Hence also the "material world."

I think every country, including this one, has a majority of people who believe the climate is changing and it's man-made. That's not my point. Also, ...

I'm not sure if that's true, but the level to which the propaganda is implemented is probably unique. Nevertheless, other countries whose economies de...

Discussing words, their origins and the history of their meaning, is indeed important. That's not being done here. To resort to the dictionary is as u...

Well to say the world is "present-at-hand" simply means the theoretical, "rational" mode of being (which underlies science) where things show up as "b...

Can't necessarily argue with that. Likewise -- although I'm a little less certain about overpopulation these days. I would put nuclear weapons as seco...

No one cares how the word is (mostly) used in English. Least of all me. I'm talking ontology. Do we walk into a physics lecture and gripe about their ...

This is an excellent point. I'm in continual awe of the power of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda.

Fair enough. I don't feel the use of "present-at-hand" makes much sense in this context, but I get your meaning.

Very interesting so far. I would have expected nuclear weapons to come up higher!

Yes, it is so I'm afraid. Except in your world, where you reserve "being" for sentience, and cite the English dictionary. The entirety of that quote: ...

Buildings and office furniture are certainly beings. No one is saying they're sentient beings. How is this hard for you to understand? Possibly becaus...

See Heidegger, "Introduction to Metaphysics," p. 88 (in German) or p.122 (English). It's available online for free. The very idea of a conscious entit...