Critique of Pure Reason/ "Real Predicate"

Eclectic Mystic

Well-Known Member
Messages
361
Reaction score
0
Points
16
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?
 
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?

God created existence: who created God.

that is why it is incomplete...


see the yin and yang and comprehend the analogy of what the cycle means

in which; when one extreme reaches its pinnacle it births the seed of its opposite.


so then know what mankind has done within existence; mankind created words


a mental twist as food for thought
 
bishadi,

so to you, God and existence are two different things?


the thread was on Kant's Predicate argument.

and to observe how current paradigm suggests

God created existence... then the argument is then 'who created God'..

But to answer your question: No, existence in total, the trinity (MET) is God.

we live within existence we (people) define was we experience; and created the words and terms of what defines God.

remember to some, God is some dude sitting on a thrown waiving a magic wand. Some even suggest he looks .......just.. like.... Zeus with a bolt of lightening in his hand.

In a frame of observing as many renditions as can be, an any new ones if you can find them, thank you, that to return to the universal questions keeping a mind on each rendition; then there is only one answer that fits most all of them as to 'what is God'

so in answering your question you have a fair assessment to observe as the summation is held while remaining true to honesty, humility and absolute compassion before making the suggestion.

what it does is allows you to see 'him' in everything and know you can always interact with God within your mind (knowledge) and heart (conscious experience); we are One with existence, always.

strike up a conversation with him but if you 2 start arguing, gonna have to separate ya..... giggle giggle.

smile .........it's all good
 
i know the word "God" was created and i know that kant can't find the answer in his logic, but my question was if do you think that that something (God) that created existence, was in turn created by something higher. or do you think it always was? first and last, so to speak. i want to know what you think. kant i can care less about. he's not around for me to ask him. but you are, though.
 
i know the word "God" was created and i know that kant can't find the answer in his logic, but my question was if do you think that that something (God) that created existence, was in turn created by something higher. or do you think it always was? first and last, so to speak. i want to know what you think. kant i can care less about. he's not around for me to ask him. but you are, though.

are you ready?

take a seat; we are within existence agreed?

We experience and convey by learned words and previous ideas used to share thoughts of mind. And back in history many ideas and questions were asked.

Questions such as; what is life? , what is that hot red thing in the sky?, as well, why didn't our dad wake up?

Certain phenomenon were held as from God or the 'great one' or how ever one wishes to define, that something, someone, or some 'other' was controlling what we don't know.

Then communities developed, rules of association as well conflicts and wars occurred.

Rules were usually based in compassion. And then often since rules were broken questions may have arrised such as who sets the rules? Well some may say, "the same He who turns the red hot thing in the sky and takes bites out of the white thing of the coming dark sky. He is that HE.. "

As time passes, the White thing in the sky is called the moon and the 'bites out of it' are the shadow from the earth.

Knowledge evolved, both changing the comprehension, feelings and understnading of the people but thereby the people can experience more interrelation from the knowledge of the past. meaning the only way you and I know about the moon is by the words left from the previous generations learning, reasoning and innert intent to know.

so that progression is a part of consciousness;

in recognizing the care to comprehend and then share. We associate the knowledge with words to what we experience. So in a sense, entangling more mass.

Than to follow any pattern of progression... i.e... the golden ratio... eventually the pinnacle of mankind is to know what makes it exist.

Now realize if we be nothing but monkey see monkey do kind, than never could a child mix 2 colors and make a new shade, unique to their experience.

Meaning mankind can 'create' in many fashions;

in the physical (see airplanes) as well in associations create a response ( a lie ) as it is true, that words are the 'creation' of mankind within existence.

so the last phase is simple; the equality of mind is when the knowledge of understanding enables mankind to comprehend its life upon mass all within their ability to create.

That is when existence understands itself which enables the collective conscious to beget the beginning,

and that hasn't happed yet.
 
What you want to do is look up transcendental apperception.

Chris

now imagine if what a person believed was true and substantiates in natural application rather than beliefs in theological magic

ie... phenomenon would be a term only of historical application as 'they' would no longer be of scientific descriptions

simply imagine if each person born was given an owners manual when falling on our heads
 
Hi Eclectic Mystic —

Can anyone tell me if I'm misinterpreting this?
With Kant ... difficult to say ... no-one's entirely sure whether they read what Kant meant to be read, or if it's right ...

When Kant suggests that existence may not be a real predicate ...
As I understand it, what Kant means by a 'real predicate' is that which is properly (really) an attribute (predicate) of a thing, as compared to that which is presupposed.

I say: "I have a car."
You say: "What model is it? What colour is it? How big is it? How fast is it? How economical ... "
All your questions are predicates of the car ... you want to know about the car, so you ask about its attributes.

I say: "I have a car."
You say: "Does it exist?"
Not a standard question ... because you assume the car exists when I say I have one. Existence does not belong to the car, it's in the nature of things ... (If you know me to be a compulsive liar, then that is something else ... but again, 'does it exist' rather questions me, is what I am saying true ... )

So Kant would say that when someone makes a statement about an object, the 'fact' that the object exists is a given, it's not a predicate of the object. If it doesn't exist, it can't have any predicates, and if it has predicates, then it must exist, but existence of a thing is not a 'real' or 'proper' predicate of a thing ...

+++

So according to Kant, when he was discussing the Ontological Argument, the statement "God exists" is not a question of logic. "My car exists" is a logical statement, true if I have a car, false if I don't, but accessible to the logical process of determination — exisence is not in question, the actuality of the car is. Therefore if we say "God exists", existence is not in question, we know existence exists (avoiding existential arguments) the actuality of God is in question ... but 'God' according to the accepted definition, transcends the logical/empirical order.

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?
Even then, not quite. Again, the predicates of a thing do not define the thing absolutely. A car is red, does not mean all red things are cars, or all cars are red. So 'love' etc., does not prove God ... I love, and I am not God.

When we say "God is love" that is not a logical argument, its an argument from faith, based on Revelation ... we can know nothing of the nature of God, other than that which God chooses to make known, because His nature transcends our nature.

There was a TV sci-fi show called "Lexx" — the script writers had ten rules, one of which was "there are no beings in the universe more intelligent than man" ... why? Because if there were, how would the script writer know what they might say? In the same way, how can we say anything about God, if we say that the Divine nature transcends — and transcends utterly — human nature? Only by what that nature chooses to reveal of Itself.

Thomas
 
Hi Bishadi —

God created existence: who created God.
that is why it is incomplete...
No, in a Christian context that is a false argument, as by definition God is that which is, and is not created ... so if you're talking about pagan deities, the question is acceptable, but if you're talking about God in the Abrahamic sense, or the Brahminic sense, then no, you're working to an erroneous definition of the object.

Thomas
 
are you ready?
OK.

take a seat; we are within existence agreed?
OK — provisionally — you're assuming a lot, as the nature of existence is not a given, but assumed. How we come to exist is a matter of prior inquiry. How we come to know we exist is another line of prior enquiry. Why do we exist? How do we exist? What caused us to exist? How do I know I exist? How do I know this is not all a projecxtion of my mind?

'Existence' is an abstract concept, describing a state of 'is-ness', but it does not answer these prior questions.

If a thing is, it exists, if a thing is not, it does not exist (although it might have, and perhaps it will, but not presently) 'Existence' itself is not a power, nor a presence, nor even a medium ... in fact 'nothing' can exist as equally as 'something' ... Existence then is not a thing, it has no attributes of itself ...

We experience and convey by learned words and previous ideas used to share thoughts of mind. And back in history many ideas and questions were asked.
OK.

Questions such as; what is life? what is that hot red thing in the sky?, as well, why didn't our dad wake up?
OK.

Certain phenomenon were held as from God or the 'great one' or how ever one wishes to define, that something, someone, or some 'other' was controlling what we don't know.
OK.

Then communities developed, rules of association as well conflicts and wars occurred.
OK. Great art was made. Great science was done ... let's not be all negative ...

Rules were usually based in compassion. And then often since rules were broken questions may have arrised such as who sets the rules? Well some may say, "the same He who turns the red hot thing in the sky and takes bites out of the white thing of the coming dark sky. He is that HE.. "
Well ... OK ... but I would say rules were first based on utility and pragmatism, rather than compassion, that came later ... but I nit-pick ...

As time passes, the White thing in the sky is called the moon and the 'bites out of it' are the shadow from the earth.
OK.

Knowledge evolved, both changing the comprehension, feelings and understanding of the people but thereby the people can experience more interrelation from the knowledge of the past. meaning the only way you and I know about the moon is by the words left from the previous generations learning, reasoning and innert intent to know.
OK. So they refine their argument and their questions about God.

so that progression is a part of consciousness;
Is it? I would say consciousness is apart from and prior to knowledge ... you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ... Your also putting a narrow and artificial value on things according to your own measure ... the cleverest man in the world crashes into the jungle, is injured, and is found and cured by an 'ignorant' and 'superstitious' native ... what value all your learning now? We know more material facts about the moon, but there might well be poetry written about the moon millenia ago, that's never been bettered ...

... and I notice wisdom is absent in your schemata ... I'd trade all the knowledge in the world for a spoonful of wisdom, and I bet the world would be a better place for it.

but I digress ... and this still allows for man to ask questions about the nature of God.

in recognizing the care to comprehend and then share. We associate the knowledge with words to what we experience. So in a sense, entangling more mass.
OK. But what do you mean by mass? Knowledge has no 'mass' in any objective sense? Or like the man who thought so much, in the end he didn't know what to think ... ?

Than to follow any pattern of progression... i.e... the golden ratio... eventually the pinnacle of mankind is to know what makes it exist.
OK. BVut you won't find the answer in your line of questioning can you, because you've accepted existence as a kind of limit on what can be known?

Now realize if we be nothing but monkey see monkey do kind, than never could a child mix 2 colors and make a new shade, unique to their experience.
OK.

Meaning mankind can 'create' in many fashions;
OK.

in the physical (see airplanes) as well in associations create a response ( a lie ) as it is true, that words are the 'creation' of mankind within existence.
OK. What you're saying is 'language' is a means of communication between sentient beings ... and furthermore language can encompass empirical data, and intellectual speculation. But because man can lie does not mean he does not tell the truth ...

so the last phase is simple; the equality of mind is when the knowledge of understanding enables mankind to comprehend its life upon mass all within their ability to create.
Sorry ... that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I can understand a notion of 'perfection' as understanding that is equal to its object — ie the truth of a thing can be known — if what you're saying is once you understand aerodynamics you can make aeroplanes that fly, then OK.

That is when existence understands itself ...
No ... that's a jump which does not logically follow? I can understand that the more man learns about the world, the more he understands himself as an existing being in the world ... but for 'existence to understand itself' you're implying existence has its own individual and rational nature ... which you have not demonstrated? And you'rew also suggesting that existence can be known, therefore contained, therefore has limits ... you still haven't answered the question of God, a God which is not contained within the existing order.

which enables the collective conscious to beget the beginning, and that hasn't happed yet.
What do you mean by 'beget'?

+++

You seem to follow a strictly 'Bishadi' line of argument and ignore anything that doesn't fit within your schemata.

The Greek philosophers, for example, question the very nature of existence, of being itself, and there are philosophies which refute the idea of knowing objective reality with any objective certainty ... so if you're talking about the evolution of knowledge, you must allow for the fact that some schools of knowledge would insist that you cannot posit your system as the only system ... and posit other possibilities, as today man posits the idea of multiple universes — multiple modes of existence. In philosophy there are over a score of arguments for the existence of a deity ... not proofs, but neither can they be answered satisfactorily in such manner as to rule out a deity.

Question: Existence itself has not been shown to be the cause anything, has it?

Thomas
 
Hi Bishadi —


No, in a Christian context that is a false argument, as by definition God is that which is, and is not created ... so if you're talking about pagan deities, the question is acceptable, but if you're talking about God in the Abrahamic sense, or the Brahminic sense, then no, you're working to an erroneous definition of the object.

Thomas

the thread in on Kant's .......... real 'predicate'....

but we all can see your " NO "..... and of course your beliefs over anything else... a firm believer of magic... we all see they

but let's explore why Kant can't find his perfect answer, logically

let's read your other posts now
 
Thomas post ...
'Existence' is an abstract concept, describing a state of 'is-ness', but it does not answer these prior questions
are you defining GOD or existence?

If a thing is, it exists, if a thing is not, it does not exist (although it might have, and perhaps it will, but not presently) 'Existence' itself is not a power, nor a presence, nor even a medium ... in fact 'nothing' can exist as equally as 'something' ... Existence then is not a thing, it has no attributes of itself ...
Yep… sounds like you defining God…..



Originally Posted by Bishadi
so that progression is a part of consciousness

then you said


Is it? I would say consciousness is apart from and prior to knowledge ...


Not a word ever known unless someone of consciousness experienced and created the definition to the idea/experience…… so all knowledge was consciously derived.

you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ...
Just common sense


Your also putting a narrow and artificial value on things
Perhap broadening the playing field in which the knowledge ‘from the Indians’ can also be honored


... and I notice wisdom is absent in your schemata ...
Wisdom shares ‘leave the door ajar’.. trust God not man


Knowledge entangles more mass. We be mass…. Many in church because words entangled their minds to that ‘collective association’… so much of that mass, is walking around with the same ‘energy’ upon their mind… which all came from words

OK. BVut you won't find the answer in your line of questioning can you, because you've accepted existence as a kind of limit on what can be known?

no limit… Genesis
22</SPAN>And 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,' –

which is what this says
Originally Posted by Bishadi
so the last phase is simple; the equality of mind is when the knowledge of understanding enables mankind to comprehend its life upon mass all within their ability to create.

And you say

Sorry ... that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I can understand a notion of 'perfection' as understanding that is equal to its object — ie the truth of a thing can be known — if what you're saying is once you understand aerodynamics you can make aeroplanes that fly, then OK

For mankind (each of us) to comprehend ‘life’ then we can live as intended; able to create life by choice.

Originally Posted by Bishadi
That is when existence understands itself ...

And you

No ... that's a jump which does not logically follow? I can understand that the more man learns about the world, the more he understands himself as an existing being in the world ... but for 'existence to understand itself' you're implying existence has its own individual and rational nature ... which you have not demonstrated?
It does… there is nothing we cannot understand. Them limitations are from oppression taught by people who ‘gave up’…

But that demonstration will unfold by a paradigm shift in comprehending how ‘atoms and energy’ work. There is a specific function as to how mass, energy and time; the trinity associate based on observing energy as light upon mass and maintaining the properties as relevant… i.e.. entanglement
 
the thread in on Kant's .......... real 'predicate'....
Yes, but asked in reference to God. Did Kant believe in God? Yes.

but we all can see your "NO" ... and of course your beliefs over anything else ... a firm believer of magic ... we all see they
Don't assume that everyone else seeks to misrepresent my beliefs or my position ... I'm sure they can see through your attempts.

Thomas
 
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?

I'm not familiar with this by Kant, but I would be inclined to disagree.

I frequently use the term "G-d is," and I use it to denote that G-d exists. What is more, to state emphatically that G-d is (insert "predicate" of choice) is to try to limit the limitless, to try to narrow the boundaries of the infinite.

Not that it can't be done, but that it just doesn't fully convey the essence. But that is a limitation of language, not of G-d. It also serves to betray the limitations imposed by the human mind.

My two cents. :D
 
Not a word ever known unless someone of consciousness experienced and created the definition to the idea/experience…… so all knowledge was consciously derived.

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."
 
are you defining GOD or existence?
I did say existence ... yes, definitely existence ...

Yep… sounds like you defining God…..
No, If I were defining God I would be talking about transcendent and meta-principles — metaphysics, not physics — here I'm talking physics. God and existence are two very different things.

You must try and get away from the notion — which you seem to assume of everyone else — of thinking God as some Olympian inhabitant. The Greeks left that image behind a long, long time ago, and so have the rest of us.

... But I assume by these diversions you are avoiding answering the original question — existence in itself is not causative of anything, therefore does not explain the existence of things, nor their movement ... does it ... existence doesn't explain itself.

I said:
you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ...
You say:
Just common sense
Not really ... common sense says don't confuse things ... 'mass', 'time' and 'energy' are quantitative measures, whereas 'existence' is qualatitive ... you're assuming it's common sense to say a thing is just the confluence of its attributes ... whereas common sense has come to understand that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts'.

Wisdom shares ‘leave the door ajar’.. trust God not man
So 'wisdom' is only ever a divine quality ... and man should avoid it?

+++

It does… there is nothing we cannot understand.
Hurrah! Do you not see that unless you already know everything there is to be understood — that statement comprises an act of faith.

There is a specific function as to how mass, energy and time; the trinity associate based on observing energy as light upon mass and maintaining the properties as relevant… i.e.. entanglement
I'm sure there is ... but that's neither what this thread, Kant nor I was talking about, is it?

Mass, energy and time are predicates of existence, but Kant is arguing that existence itself is prior to its predicates ... eg mass, energy and time it doesn't explain why the world exists or what caused it ... mass, energy and time do not cause existence, they are attributes of it.

Which is where we differ, your triune MET explains how things work, but not why; nor whether there is a reason, purpose or point to it all.

Thomas
 
Back
Top