nah he says that we only see things through our interpretation and it is impossible to see things without it.
so you believe things exist outside of our interpretation of them.
related question.
schizo rumblings in mumbai's asylum chapter 1
get out of here.
how do you prove that morality exists?
morality being non-existent is impossible, because non-existence does not exist
does it mean that ufos and god also exist?
cage
ufos and god exist, otherwise we wouldn't be able to think something about them. But ufo exists as a lie
greek philosophers mog
They do mog but due to their historical conditions they are so different it's difficult to compare them just check Plato's idealism vs German Idealism. Although my comment was in lines that, if you want to "debunk" Kant you could go through the list of guys that did do it in some way. I haven't read all of them though.
but i already debunked kant through reductio ad absurdum
But that makes no sense to me. The thing in itself cannot be experienced or seen in that way it exists independently to being senses or experienced. It's like the true self of something
but your senses and experiences are also things in themselves
Well not like that as I understand it. The thing in itself could be the perfect or ideal form of itself and it cannot be experienced. So you can't say that you experience the thing in itself
thing in itself is not a platonic form, it is literally a something without our interpretation. but it's paradoxical because there's no logical purpose to not apply the thing-in-itself concept to the interpretation, and so the interpretation is also a thing in itself
But I don't understand how the interpretation can be the thing in itself
look.
I don't think you can say something that is already an experience can be the thing in itself
then if the interpretation cannot be a thing of itself cuz it's already an experience
Marx was wrong because communism killed 13 billion people.
I think here's the part missing, the thing in itself is abstract to what you can experience, in fact you will never acknowledge the thing in itselfthen if the interpretation cannot be a thing of itself cuz it's already an experience
then nothing is a thing of itself, because even a rock has an experience
so if it is an unacknowledgeable abstraction, so it doesn't exist in any sense. so it is nothing
The way we interpret it and experience it is because of how our mind works
wow, i didn't know that. you are so smartThe way we interpret it and experience it is because of how our mind works
You posted this coal thread you dont get to talk like this @@!!$#$!
i'm so sorry if i was rude, my darlingYou posted this coal thread you dont get to talk like this @@!!$#$!
I dont think kant considered them things in themselves brocel...
my love, i might rude here, but don't you think that kant didn't even think about that?
im gonna be honest i havent read his books
i've read only a part of critique of judgment
So whats the point of the thread
to debunk him, no?So whats the point of the thread
Why not read what he wrote before debunking him
why should i?
An interpretation wouldnt be a thing in itself, it would just be something the mind does
the conception of the thing in itself is also mind-made
Yeah so? Its a concept limited by the way we experience thingsthe conception of the thing in itself is also mind-made
then how do you experience the concept?
normally? Why would this require a different way to experience it
Wtf is this yo
yeah it wont.
so kant is wrong
Why would the concept being a part of experience make him wrong? It wouldnt change the fact that the things in themselves are outside of our perception
the idea of that something can be outside of your experience is also an idea in your mind
our senses are limited and we recognize it, i dont see the problemthe idea of that something can be outside of your experience is also an idea in your mind
senses are limited, the reason is not
