We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Right about that. The only thing is that to Plato knowledge was of the forms.To Kant the Dinge An Sich is where knowledge does not go.
Schopenhauer showed quite compellingly that the das an sich was nothing more or less than will.
Even Heisenberg never claimed you could take accurate data on a form. Perhaps an overpowered Platonic interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle.
There is no thing in itself that we can see, only infinite layers of metaphor.
EMDR, Water Fasting, No Fap, Affirmations - All spiritual tools to recognize our spiritual nature
Good point. We can discipline from the external to the internal using methods, or appeal to the internal and find for it new goals, thus bypassing all the extraneous/distracting/degenerate behaviors...
"Now the spirit reality is so remote to us that we cannot perceive it at all, except in altered states of consciousness such that our consciousness, our self of self awareness, is suppressed.."
I've often wondered if people suddenly became born without souls after 1990 or so.
I observed a split around 1974-1976. They were raised in nothingness, and found within themselves nothingness.
You must be a boomer. Don't worry: Generation ZYKLON is going to erase your miserable generation from the pages of history and finish what Hitler started.
You can abuse me all you want, here, but please be considerate to my users.
Absolutely reasonable demand. Respek.
In terms of Kant, he was right about space and time being forms of intuition in terms of the plane of existence of the dinge an sich. That mainly comes from Bell's inequality. (The electron has no time or position until measured.) However in terms of forms or universals as Plato understood that there is knowledge. In terms of space and time in the plane of existence of phenomena--they do have object existence. Simply put --reality is radically subjective and local [causality]
Incidentally I think that is one of the great insights of Kant to see that Space and Time are forms of intuition --preceding Bell. But there is where you need Hegel because Kant put all universal into the subject which seems to be a problem as Hegel noted. [So I tend to look at German Idealism as each one complementing the other--not being in opposition but rather filling in gaps in the other;s arguments.]
In my view, Kant is 100% correct about the world being an artifact of our minds.
To Kant things exist, independently of the mind but universals--character depend on the mind. Kant made this clear but the Neo Kant school missed this point. Dr. Kelley Ross does bring out this point. The trouble is that Kant does not distinguish between different kinds of universals. To him, the Schrodinger Equation and space and time have the same status. Hegel rightfully was critical of Kant on that point and I think he was was 100% correct for doing so. So Kant made great progress after Hume and noted that 5+7=12 has nothing to do with the definitions of 5 or 7. But after that he did not make differences between kinds of universals- and neither does Hegel for that matter. The astounding fact is that there was one person who did make this kind of distinction--Aristotle.
Philosophy generally moves in cycles, with old arguments gaining more clarity in some directions and distortions in others. What is meant by the idea that the world is an artifact of our minds is that the world as we know it is after processing by our minds. Nihilism might be seen as extreme skepticism toward human universals, and respect only for nature and its included Platonic forms.
There has been a movement toward Plato developing for some time. That would be Dr. Kelley Ross and other people.
My own preference I have mentioned is towards Plotinus and Maimonides which is a Aristotelian modification of Plato
The details are always important.
Remember folks an "Individualist" is anyone who Brett grinds his jealous axe against.
In order to understand this article, a truly great example of my thesis, that is right my "friends" tis' me again, basically Brett Stevens is spiteful, you're miserable because you can't trust your senses to accurately perceive reality, and out of envy you seek to morally condemn anyone who doesn't share your misery (You're a bad person and an "individualist" if you don't have a miserable pessimism about your own ability to accurately perceive reality). Is this you getting back at us, Brett?