Demands to produce a physical circle are a little late Nom - such concepts are not the geometry of the supposed physical world. Rather than philosophy we have the same boring old exposition of psychology - namely the backlash effect. On Jun 29, 9:47 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually a "Nominalist" posits just the opposite... the "phenomenon > is Objective,,,, but the "Mind's" Idea or Concept is a Subjective > Noumenon....that has to be brought into a complete concordance of > understanding with the "Phenomenon"... through constant empirical > examination and, frankly, capacity to conceive it properly... > > (continued) > Actually, that's a little trite and simplistic......the point being > that all outside "objects" are in and of themselves Noumenon, things > in themselves, with their own "Objective" and immutable ways and rules > of being.... > what Kant and the Phenomenologists call.... Phenomenon.... is their > own Subjective and therefore not entirely understood notion of what > that Outside Objective thing is and how the hell it works..... > > Sometimes, I think the early beginnings of Conscious Primitive thought > must have been.... "Can I Eat it?.... and Can I Shit it out?" > On Jun 29, 12:08 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Chazwin..... > > > In another post here I brought up the old "scholastic" argument > > regarding "fallibilism" > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism > > > when it comes to the strictly "Real World of Matter and Physical > > "Objects"....Of course, I concede that any man or woman's "senses can > > be mistaken or deceived.... or that the Man or Woman in his or her own > > right may be incapacited in the mind to the make proper conclusions of > > sensory perceptions.... > > > But these Human and sensory failings can be corrected or accounted > > for.... get better sensory aids or tools to help... telescopes, > > microscopes hearing aids, radio etc..... all sorts of scientific > > tools...... > > > Get more people to observe the same object of investigation, with > > their tools and their "brains", and arrive at a most reasonable > > conclusion..... > > > I mean, there's always more to learn about most or all objects of > > investigation.... but most "known" knowklwdge remains intact... just > > added to in some way or another... > > > The caveat is when one is dealing in "human" considerations or social > > interactions, psychiatry... culture, politics, history.... etc...... > > There the result is not always, the same... people have a way of > > choosing between "doable" or sometimes even "undoable" options.... so > > there you can't predict a certain result..... > > > Basically.... I think Kant was ontologically misguided..... He thought > > that there were "Objective" Noumenon... but only "Subjective" > > Phenomenon........ > > > Actually a "Nominalist" posits just the opposite... the "phenomenon > > is Objective,,,, but the "Mind's" Idea or Concept is a Subjective > > Noumenon....that has to be brought into a complete concordance of > > understanding with the "Phenomenon"... through constant empirical > > examination and, frankly, capacity to conceive it properly... > > > On Jun 27, 9:00 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
