Critique of Pure Reason/ "Real Predicate"

[Dream]

Ok, I'm caught up in the thread. So Kant decided that knowledge, such as mathematics, in man may precede experience, moreover that man must be conditioned ahead of time to be able to have experiences at all. Hmm. I agree a child must be taught about God -- either by a person or by God, but not that the sentence "God is" is necessarily incomplete; because we have neither the predicate conditions nor the experience to say so. Some Christians think there is no excuse for not knowing about God, however that is usually because they are taking a single verse (Romans 1:20) out of its context.

Here's an extract from the current WPedia article on Kant.

Originally Posted by WPedia

Kant, however, contests this: he claims that elementary mathematics, like arithmetic, is synthetic a priori, in that its statements provide new knowledge, but knowledge that is not derived from experience. This becomes part of his over-all argument for transcendental idealism. That is, he argues that the possibility of experience depends on certain necessary conditions—which he calls a priori forms—and that these conditions structure and hold true of the world of experience. In so doing, his main claims in the " Transcendental Aesthetic" are that mathematic judgments are synthetic a priori and in addition, that Space and Time are not derived from experience but rather are its preconditions

Originally Posted by Ecclectic Mystic

Can anyone tell me if I'm misinterpreting this? When Kant suggests that existence may not be a real predicate it seems like it means that a sentence like "God is" is incomplete and must instead be something like "God is _____" ("God is perfect" or "God is loving" etc..). This tells me that one can only say "God is" if it goes something like: "God 'is' if God is loving." Otherwise, either he's not God or he doesn't exist, right?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

You are still not being clear in your presentation. All *what* were created by humans? Knowledge? I demonstrated that this assertion is incorrect. The primary fallacy in your assertion is the qualifier "all."

Do you wish to define what it is that mankind exchanges?

Not talking about whale conversing we are talking about 'knowledge'... that thing in which ideas are conveyed.

So you can grunt your knowledge, sing, put sound to it, symbols or even them .........'man/women/child only created things'.......... called words.

So twist it up all you like; nothing creates words but mankind. all MOST all knowledge conveyed between mankind comes in the form of words.

and MANKIND CREATED EVRY WORD IN EXISTENCE......

is that clear enough .... or are we going back to dogs and cats, whales and tales

Very well, it still does not negate my assertion that true knowledge requires experience.

Hence why a God on a thrown is a joke!

Otherwise, what you are promoting can as easily be said of lies; "lies conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate..." To the unwary or those not understanding, lies might easily be confused with "knowledge."

Now you're talking..... every lie in existence was create by a person...

and much of what people believe as true in religious contents are fibs...

Allow me to present an example; I can tell you how to pick, cook and eat wild mushrooms. According to you, that would be me conveying knowledge to you. If you take what I have given you, this you call knowledge, and go out and pick the wrong mushrooms, properly prepare them, eat and die...I have not given you knowledge, I have lied to you.

no but to suggest, these are exactly what to look for, these are its properties, and that if you believe in them, you will have ever lasting life....

now you are lying!


animals don't lie to make themselves believed; people do!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Name a nature of God we do not.

then

Originally Posted by Bishadi

or that some dude will fly through the cloud and rapture up the good....... that's all logical?

Here we go again ...

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Dream —

According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant's view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

More here

Thomas

[Thomas]

According to Kantian philosophy then:

Math and science are certainly true of the phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

Kant argues that man is incapable of objectivity with regard to reality. He can, by the powers of reason, make determinations about the noumena (eg Kant can come up with the idea of noumena in the first place) ... and the history of philosophy shows this.

Christianity would agree, but modifies this position by the belief that Revelation is the one instance that comprises infallible data with regard to the noumena, because it issues from God and not from an operation of human reason.

+++

Math and science are then unable to offer a meaningful refutation of the idea of Revelation — precisely because revelation concerns the noumena, which the empirical and rational sciences determine a priori as unknowable. If they don't know it, they cannot make any affirmative statement beyond their own unknowing.

The fallacy of any scientific refutation of God, from a Kantian perspective, is that it is trying to prove/disprove something utilising a methodology which a priori asserts it is incapable of comprehending the data.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

then


Here we go again ...

Thomas

fight fire with fire

genesis 3

22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

According to Kantian philosophy then:

Kant argues that man is incapable of objectivity with regard to reality. He can, by the powers of reason, make determinations about the noumena (eg Kant can come up with the idea of noumena in the first place) ... and the history of philosophy shows this.

Noumena could be likened to comprehending "i am" or 'I exist therfore I am'... in which by mind we can define being aware....

You missed the whole concept; that knowledge is what feeds the capacity for mind to comprehend experiences.

Christianity would agree, but modifies this position by the belief that Revelation is the one instance that comprises infallible data with regard to the noumena, because it issues from God and not from an operation of human reason.

oh brother............ what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

or simply what does word apocolypse mean?

The revealing is what combines all mankind. Knowledge is that last chapter all of mankind is awaiting......

Math and science are then unable to offer a meaningful refutation of the idea of Revelation — precisely because revelation concerns the noumena, which the empirical and rational sciences determine a priori as unknowable. If they don't know it, they cannot make any affirmative statement beyond their own unknowing.

but knowledge evolves..

from one day the earth was flat; now it is round..

once we thought man came from dirt... but find life evolved.

Women was thought to come from man; and never have that ever occurred.. but in single celled biology we find for life to procreate a portion of itself is given.....

knowledge correct the errors in logic left by the religious parables.....the evolution continues...

and of course; when the last chapter unfolds; then knowledge is what combines mankind equally.................

not the magic and illusions created by the minds of mankind, but the revealing found in the natural progression within the laws of existence (God)

The fallacy of any scientific refutation of God, from a Kantian perspective, is that it is trying to prove/disprove something utilising a methodology which a priori asserts it is incapable of comprehending the data.

Thomas

and the religions can offer knowledge to the human experience with compassionate foundation but beliefs have never granted man Peace within the knowledge to define awareness...

you be abusing what can't be understood by faith alone (Kant knew that)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Noumena could be likened to comprehending "i am" or 'I exist therfore I am'... in which by mind we can define being aware....

No ... that "I am" is the observance of a phenomena. "Why am I?" is the question one might ask of the noumena.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

You missed the whole concept; that knowledge is what feeds the capacity for mind to comprehend experiences.

And you miss the point that knowledge is all a human construct — an exercise of reason and logic — that is useful for explaining phenomena. It's just one way of managing reality.

Knowledge doesn't exist out there, like some huge oil resource ... it's something man determines, as he goes along.

Like number ... numbers don't exist, but they're a useful way of co-ordinating multiplicity ... but they are a human invention.

But then knowledge is just an abstraction, isn't it ... it's all words, made up by men (which even you treat with such disdain) ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

A disclosure of the noumenal of that which is, by its nature, beyond the scope of the phenomenological.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

or simply what does word apocolypse mean?

"Lifting the veil" ... same thing. Different order of disclosure.

We're talking 'gnosis' here, not 'knowledge' — gnosis in the Christian sense of a union that transcends knowing, and is a way of being.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No ... that "I am" is the observance of a phenomena. "Why am I?" is the question one might ask of the noumena.

That is not what is it for? My view i guess is a Plato kind.

yet to review; it appears as if to use 'noumenon' is to describe or lean on the concept of God. Or purely Existence itself.

The unknowable.......... as faith defines

And you miss the point that knowledge is all a human construct — an exercise of reason and logic — that is useful for explaining phenomena.

Isn't that was knowledge assists mankind with; Comprehending phenomenon? Associating? Describing all the while evolving.

and to suggest 'knowing' as in a gnostic approach is pure, then why do people need to learn anything gnostic? If your idea is pure then we should each be able to sit in a closet right after birth and know existence in all her noumenon......

Thomas.... you be digging another hole

Knowledge doesn't exist out there, like some huge oil resource ... it's something man determines, as he goes along.

Like number ... numbers don't exist, but they're a useful way of co-ordinating multiplicity ... but they are a human invention.

exactly; as all was experienced and descibed by mankind; the evolution of knowledge.

all happens in time...

the progression to knowledge has currently peaked and the only method of reaching the next plateau is a paradigm shift....

But then knowledge is just an abstraction, isn't it ... it's all words, made up by men (which even you treat with such disdain) ...

and how so many tangents were born as the amount of 'disdain' caused man to branch out, furthering the progression; even unwittingly.

but few step back to reconcile;

maybe try it, is my suggestion to you.

Originally Posted by Bishadi
what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

then you said


A disclosure of the noumenal of that which is, by its nature, beyond the scope of the phenomenological.

How can you say that? It is like fibbing just because you 'will not' be honest.

the revealing is when mankind becomes equal based on the truth as there is only ONE WAY it all works........ and from that foundation all phenomenon will cease to be unknown

"Lifting the veil" ... same thing. Different order of disclosure.

We're talking 'gnosis' here, not 'knowledge' — gnosis in the Christian sense of a union that transcends knowing, and is a way of being.

Thomas

that is your opinion


and has nothing to do with Kant other than you can't see the big picture, and happy to continue in the 'can't understand' mindset.

is that your attraction to Kant? Is it because it has a ring to being complacent?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

That is not what is it for? My view i guess is a Plato kind.

Well, Plato and Kant and Christianity regards the intelligible world as both good and moral ... although how they integrate existence into the intelligible is a different matter.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

yet to review; it appears as if to use 'noumenon' is to describe or lean on the concept of God. Or purely Existence itself.

Well ... I would say that the noumenal covers that which the intelligible can speculate upon, but not prove empirically.

One is not obliged to assume that what lies beyond one's comprehension is the Deity, be it a Christian God, or any other ... likewise, to elevate 'existence' to the level of noumena implies there's more to existence than what is comprehendable via its phenomena ... and then one would have to determine what constitutes existence at the level of noumena, which would rule out light, energy, matter, time ... etc. and you're in to speculation again.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Isn't that was knowledge assists mankind with; Comprehending phenomenon? Associating? Describing all the while evolving.

Yes it does ... but is it the be-all and end-all of human existence, or is it just something we do ... man's happiness does not depend upon knowledge per se, and I dare say most of the human race would rather be happy than knowledgeable ... (although I'm not proposing ignorance as an escape from reality, or a virtue).

But perhaps I have to tread carefully ... to me it seems you ascribe to the process of MET something more than the sum of its parts, as it were ... and you factor knowledge into the formula ... so I would suggest that you're doing just as a theologian does, in speculating on the nature of reality ... and maybe I've got this all wrong, but to me it seems you're saying that the empirical phenomena is all that there is, and that must be God, because there's nothing else but energy in various combinations and degrees of activity ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

and to suggest 'knowing' as in a gnostic approach is pure, then why do people need to learn anything gnostic?

Well 'gnosis' in the wider sense means 'more interior' ... so I would say that knowledge, which is words ... is a construct around and about something, whereas gnosis is the experience of the thing itself ... not the description of the thing ...

I once recall talking to a sailor, about icebergs ... so we're swapping facts about icebergs ... then he said, "of course, you can smell 'em, musty things ... " and I realised for all my knowledge, he had experienced an iceberg — and that's what counts.

It's like a nice cup of tea ... I can explain it to you, the in-depth knowledge of the plant, boiling water, the principle of infusion, milk and sugar ... but nothing matches the taste of a cup of tea, that's real, the knowledge, in that sense, isn't ... it's necessary data if you want to make a cup of tea, though.

Knowledge will never reach the point where it is the thing about which it informs, if that makes sense ... I think man utilises knowledge to try and do just that.

A Catholic priest said in a homily "Go out and look at the sky on a dark and cloudless night ... look at the infinitessimal depths, the dimension ... then factor in time ... infinity in another direction ... it's magnificence is stark, stupendous, breathtaking ... heart-stoppingly, achingly beautiful ... and yet you, you little thing, you little thing that lasts less than a spark in the history of time, you can take it all in ... and more ... "

Originally Posted by Bishadi

If your idea is pure then we should each be able to sit in a closet right after birth and know existence in all her noumenon

Who's to say some can't, or don't ... I would say the state of bliss is just that ... and that suggests there's a world of difference between 'knowledge' and 'knowing'.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

the progression to knowledge has currently peaked and the only method of reaching the next plateau is a paradigm shift....

Perhaps you're right ... perhaps the next step is being, in all its simplicity, not knowledge, in all its complexity.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

How can you say that? It is like fibbing just because you 'will not' be honest.

Not at all ... I've said no more than many philosophers have said ... Anaximander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, why, the Asiatic traditions — the Dao, Buddhism — both say pretty much the same, there is this world, and there is other ... you're just showing your prejudice, if I read you right, in insisting that 'this' is all there is?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

other than you can't see the big picture, and happy to continue in the 'can't understand' mindset.

And yet I'm saying the picture is bigger than the one you paint ... curious, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

is that your attraction to Kant? Is it because it has a ring to being complacent?

Oh, hardly! I'm Catholic, remember, not a Kantian — we reckon he's wrong, and a whole heap of trouble! ... if anything a NeoPlatonist, although I'd like to say I'm a Thomist, but I've a long way to go yet ... but regardless, I believe the noumena can be known ... if it chooses to be known ...

Thomas

[Bishadi]

much better articulation in this last set

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well ... I would say that the noumenal covers that which the intelligible can speculate upon, but not prove empirically.

so basically an answer for the unknown? The same as much of historical records share is GOD, turning the screws (waiving the magic wand)

One is not obliged to assume that what lies beyond one's comprehension is the Deity, be it a Christian God, or any other ... likewise, to elevate 'existence' to the level of noumena implies there's more to existence than what is comprehendable via its phenomena ... and then one would have to determine what constitutes existence at the level of noumena, which would rule out light, energy, matter, time ... etc. and you're in to speculation again.

not really as to include all that 'is'... then we find that much of the phenomenon is simply properties of the interactions of the three.

as there is nothing 'outside' of existence..... just think about it for a minute; if heaven is there, and we are talking about it here, then it is ours, in our existence; we created the terms to even represent the idea or belief...

but is it the be-all and end-all of human existence,

YES!

Ever item we create, an airplane for example, came from the collective of knowledge understood. So from a spark of an 'idea' man created an airplane.

Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.

Ever hear the idea, in the beginning was the 'word' .......... now for the 'end all', to be the beginning of all then only by comprehending MET could you understand t<0....... i.e.... predetermined...

now mentally recall a picture of the 'yin and yang' what does the cycle mean?

But perhaps I have to tread carefully ... to me it seems you ascribe to the process of MET something more than the sum of its parts, as it were ... and you factor knowledge into the formula

hence how schroadinger's cat became relative, in which the observer is directly related to the outcome of the experiment; by it's conception alone... Meaning the final product was concieved before an action was even taken to begin the experiment.

How do you think prophecies work? Some dude sitting in a bush with a bic, talking to someone?

Well 'gnosis' in the wider sense means 'more interior' ...

so may I ask, what would be more important to self reflection and observance than to know what each idea means, when we even think about it

such that to feel hungry; be aware of what it is, as well how to address it

well to have vision, site and that enlightenment; to be aware that all mass is entangled in time, then when we see a dajavu, or that bliss, we can comprehend its literal applicability and live within the experiences in Peace.

so I would say that knowledge, which is words ... is a construct around and about something, whereas gnosis is the experience of the thing itself ... not the description of the thing ...

I once recall talking to a sailor, about icebergs ... so we're swapping facts about icebergs ... then he said, "of course, you can smell 'em, musty things ... " and I realised for all my knowledge, he had experienced an iceberg — and that's what counts.

Did you notice how that works? Without words for you to comprehend his experience, you would never trust he ever saw one (ice berg)...

I'm Catholic,

born one......

and with a whole slew of priests and nuns in the lineage; in fact we have a gold chalice in either St Mary's or notradame in Indiana (not found) as well a big gold monstrance in the philipines...... family with lots of contribution to the system of religion... i.e... even Roger Bacon.13th century... we be a 'bacon bit'

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Do you wish to define what it is that mankind exchanges?

Already did define what mankind exchanges. Experience.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Hence why a God on a thrown is a joke!

Eliminate the throne, and you are still left with G-d.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

and much of what people believe as true in religious contents are fibs...

True. And much of what people believe as true in scientific contexts are fibs...also true.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

no but to suggest, these are exactly what to look for, these are its properties, and that if you believe in them, you will have ever lasting life....now you are lying!

Evasion of the premise is not an answer, it is evasion.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

animals don't lie to make themselves believed; people do!

And butterflies don't paint each others' wings...so? What does this have to do with the subject at hand? A demonstration that humans invented words and vocabulary? I haven't argued against that.

What I have argued against is your assertion that the *only way* to convey knowledge was through the use of human language -words- which is demonstrably incorrect.

You goofed in your assertion. Oh well. Happens to the best of us. Guess you're not infallible afterall.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Already did define what mankind exchanges. Experience.

How does one person share their experiences with another?

just answer the question

Eliminate the throne, and you are still left with G-d.

Of course... eliminate every word to share what you experience and we all still left with God...(existence)...

point is God is not over there or anywhere else; except right with all of us at all times..... there is never a separation except in the minds of an 'i' (selfishness)

or like a 'critique' from Islam once asked; 'do you mean god is in the rats, the dogs and their poop too?'

True. And much of what people believe as true in scientific contexts are fibs...also true.

but the science are geared to progress each moment, where as faith requires belief held in the face of evidence; big difference.... (self preservation)...

One is geared not to evolve, the other recognizes humility and learns for the purpose of the very progression.

Even as the people of science may not have the obligation and often hold onto specific data for business reasons; in contrast, many of faith will oppress data specifically because it damages the words of faith. i.e... gallileo

Evasion of the premise is not an answer, it is evasion.

OK ... to believe in magic and phenomenon and call them miracles by God..... is purely ignorance and complacency created by the religious right.

No evasion there; directly honest. Feel better?

And butterflies don't paint each others' wings...so? What does this have to do with the subject at hand? A demonstration that humans invented words and vocabulary? I haven't argued against that.

the point was, nature does not fib to mankind in words! People do......

And religious right have reason to lie to people; nature (God) doesn't do this to mankind with purpose and intent.

What I have argued against is your assertion that the *only way* to convey knowledge was through the use of human language -words- which is demonstrably incorrect.

Then let's ask again, without evasion:

How does one person express an experience to another?

Please don't tell me 'they stare at them'............. what the whole point is, that man created the ideas and words to define and describe God, magic, phenomena..... and it is within these fibs; that faith exists!

You goofed in your assertion.

often do... and why even when the truth is schmacking folk right in the face.............

it is directly my fault for not having the correct words;

if i could walk on water; i would be a dangerous man!

i.e.... imagine is Jesus had the power of magic (God).... do you actually think he would have ever died of the flesh, let alone allow one person to speak bad without having a clue what they were talking about?

imagine how mad he would be to recognize what folk have done to his teachings and then use his name.......... ?

if any one of them prophets had a direct link to god; imagine how mad they would have been to find any atrocity still continuing ..... and imagine what they would have done to decievers and the faithful to ill regard.....?


If ever magic existed in true form; then not a one 'good' person would ever be harmed and all the bad would have been wiped off the face of the earth, already!

[Bruno's logic]

“Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.” – Bishadi

Yes that’s it… one truth…. One existence…. One thing existing……. Space…… in and of space…..

What would ‘we’ be able to create?

Well for one thing we could finally live in peace and live in a utopian society where war and hatred, cruelty and injustice are distant memories and no longer excepted as the normal way of experiencing existence.

For another thing we could finally release our full potential as the Human Entity from planet Earth…. We will always be Earthiens to the rest of the universe. Will they see us as fully evolved or as ignorant idiots believing in their vain imaginings….

Humanity can overcome out shortcomings, given enough time and a little bit of luck....
who knows in a million years we may be know as the keepers of the truth and the teachers of the universe....
~Bruno

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bruno's logic

“Now go big........... if all of mankind (collective conscious) knew the truth, what would they be able to create.” – Bishadi

Yes that’s it… one truth…. One existence…. One thing existing……. Space…… in and of space…..

What would ‘we’ be able to create?

Well for one thing we could finally live in peace and live in a utopian society where war and hatred, cruelty and injustice are distant memories and no longer excepted as the normal way of experiencing existence.

For another thing we could finally release our full potential as the Human Entity from planet Earth…. We will always be Earthiens to the rest of the universe. Will they see us as fully evolved or as ignorant idiots believing in their vain imaginings….

Humanity can overcome out shortcomings, given enough time and a little bit of luck....
who knows in a million years we may be know as the keepers of the truth and the teachers of the universe....
~Bruno

and without any religious cannotations or need of faith in magic........

we are within existence (God)

all is provided for but we must retain absolute honesty when it comes to knowledge; otherwise we do nothing for the future; our future; the children; existence; GOD