Sounds like you are a hopeless realist that thinks your senses give you a hot-line to reality central. They don't!
On Jun 26, 7:51 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Chaz.... > Frankly, I consider Kant to have been the first of the > Phenomenologists.... before Husserl, et al.... > As a Nominalist-leaning person, myself.... Phenomenologists are the > bane of my existence, I find that I have nothing that I agree with in > common with them, epistemologically... our "views" are diametrically > opposed.... > I think we've had this discussion.... or parts of it.....before.... > > Maybe you've seen that, when it comes to Kant's > terminology....phenomenon and noumenon, especially....and the > resulting Kant notions of the "essences" of knowledge..... > > Well... that's just "spaced-out" Mumbo-Jumbo.... like being on a > constant "drug-high".... when it comes to experiencing "things"..... > > That's my own opinion , of course... and I've put it in a very > "aggressively" critical, "common-language" form.... just to get you to > think about it > > On Jun 25, 3:41 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> 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.
