On Jun 25, 8:55 am, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > I'll take a stab at it. If you deny consensus reality, then you *will* > probably be declared insane.
Whose consensus? Surely every Protestant denied the Catholic consensus; the muslim denies the Christian; the Hindu the Buddhist ad infinitem. There is no "consensus" reality. Surely that is simply the false claim of the objectivist. Given what Kant has shown, should we not treat with utter suspicion any one who tries to claim that their position is objective? Is that not the howl of the totalitarian? > So you must at least give lip service to the > claim that Solipsism is a flawed philosophical view. Is that a good enough > response? It shows by implication nothing regarding my viewpoint since I > have been declared insane... The moment I agree with your position we then share a consensus. But it might be just us two that shares this point of view. If 10 others disagree, does that make us mad and them sane? And if society tells us that x,y, and z simply is the truth ought we not to challenge that? > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:41:34 AM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > In what way is Kant justifiably called a Subjectivist or Idealist? > > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within > > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my > > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the > > existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately > > and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the > > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus > > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, > > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer > > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the > > perception as an effect of something external that must be the > > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an > > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of > > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate > > and direct perception … . > > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > Given this statement, how is any position which asserts a Realist > > position ever justifiable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
