Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Londoner wrote:
Spectrum wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Kant discuss the whole issue in phases and did not finalize the 'noumena' as a concept.
Kant has used noumena is a 'limiting concept' in the sensibility phase because the noumena begins where the phenomena is supposed to end. The noumena is used as a limiting element to stop the infinite regression else it will be 'till the cows come home'. This is only a temporary measure.

As a final point, Kant went on to cover everything [metaphysics] and state the noumena is an "idea" in the philosophical sense and conclude there is no thing-in-itself.

A 'concept' is associated with an empirical-thing [humans] or empirical-possible-thing [human liked aliens ] and the average intellect/reason.
An idea [philosophical -Kant] as generated by Pure Reason is beyond the empirical and not empirically possible, e.g. God, soul.
As far as I can understand that, it sounds more like Fichte than Kant, at least how Kant is normally understood.

In such a formulation I do not see what the word 'empirical' would mean.
Three years ago I think we had some discussion on Kant where I have his full ideas on the tip of my fingers. But at present I still have a good grasp of the general idea of Kantian philosophy.
wiki wrote:Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote:
Fichte who, because the thing-in-itself had just been discredited, at once prepared a system without any thing-in-itself. Consequently, he rejected the assumption of anything that was not through and through merely our representation, and therefore let the knowing subject be all in all or at any rate produce everything from its own resources.
Note Kant never asserted the noumena nor thing-in-itself existed per se. Kant merely used both noumena and thing-in-itself to limit knowledge empirically and by reason. Then Kant reasoned at a higher level and argued away the existence of any reified noumena and the thing-in-itself. This is how I am able to relate the idea of the thing-in-itself with psychology and evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

As Schopenhauer stated, Fichte OTOH ignored the point re noumena and thing-in-itself totally from his starting point. Fichte focus was on the self, i.e. the subject only and no further.

If you disagree, you'll have to reread Kant [original CPR] again and get a refresher on his ideas.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote:[

Note Kant never asserted the noumena nor thing-in-itself existed per se. Kant merely used both noumena and thing-in-itself to limit knowledge empirically and by reason. Then Kant reasoned at a higher level and argued away the existence of any reified noumena and the thing-in-itself. This is how I am able to relate the idea of the thing-in-itself with psychology and evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

As Schopenhauer stated, Fichte OTOH ignored the point re noumena and thing-in-itself totally from his starting point. Fichte focus was on the self, i.e. the subject only and no further.

If you disagree, you'll have to reread Kant [original CPR] again and get a refresher on his ideas.
Regarding Fichte, everyone quotes the (disapproving) Schopenhauer comment on him:

For this purpose, he at once did away with the essential and most meritorious part of the Kantian doctrine, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and thus that between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself.


Isn't that what you are saying Kant did himself?

So perhaps one of us will have to do the rereading. You express a certainty about what Kant meant (assuming he had a clear position) that isn't shared by most readers, not just me and Schopenhauer..

You write Kant 'argued away the existence of any reified noumena. But you can't first use noumena ('reified'?) to 'limit knowledge' and then 'argue them away', That would be like using a hammer to drive a nail and then deny the existence of the hammer. Sounds more like Wittgenstein than Kant.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by The Beast »

“Realism cannot be realistic”
Kant antithesis:
“An absolutely necessary being does not exist, either in the world, or out of it- as its cause”
As Kant reason, the thesis and the antithesis extensively, he explains that it is to improve the understanding. Is it Realism as the Aristotelian realism? Would this be then a question of substance and its definition?
Contemporary Realism is, of course, post Kantian. In Kantian times a priori is a theoretical deduction based on experience and a posteriori is the deduction based on empirical observation (from known facts).
Prothero
Posts: 51
Joined: June 13th, 2017, 7:40 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Prothero »

Londoner wrote:Regarding Fichte, everyone quotes the (disapproving) Schopenhauer comment on him:

For this purpose, he at once did away with the essential and most meritorious part of the Kantian doctrine, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and thus that between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself.


Isn't that what you are saying Kant did himself?

So perhaps one of us will have to do the rereading. You express a certainty about what Kant meant (assuming he had a clear position) that isn't shared by most readers, not just me and Schopenhauer..

You write Kant 'argued away the existence of any reified noumena. But you can't first use noumena ('reified'?) to 'limit knowledge' and then 'argue them away', That would be like using a hammer to drive a nail and then deny the existence of the hammer. Sounds more like Wittgenstein than Kant.
Even a cursory review of Kantian scholarship reveals there is more than one line of thinking on this. There are the two world views, the dual aspect views and the idealist views. Of course people who take the time come to one view or the other and then defend that and regard it as the correct view. Kant himself was not much help giving one impression if one statement and the other impression in another area or in a later edition. There is confusion about his meaning regarding "transcendental objects", "thing in itself" and "noumena". Some interpretations the two world camp is essentially realist while placing severe limitations on our ability to "know" the independent real.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Londoner wrote:
Spectrum wrote:[

Note Kant never asserted the noumena nor thing-in-itself existed per se. Kant merely used both noumena and thing-in-itself to limit knowledge empirically and by reason. Then Kant reasoned at a higher level and argued away the existence of any reified noumena and the thing-in-itself. This is how I am able to relate the idea of the thing-in-itself with psychology and evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

As Schopenhauer stated, Fichte OTOH ignored the point re noumena and thing-in-itself totally from his starting point. Fichte focus was on the self, i.e. the subject only and no further.

If you disagree, you'll have to reread Kant [original CPR] again and get a refresher on his ideas.
Regarding Fichte, everyone quotes the (disapproving) Schopenhauer comment on him:

For this purpose, he at once did away with the essential and most meritorious part of the Kantian doctrine, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and thus that between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself.


Isn't that what you are saying Kant did himself?

So perhaps one of us will have to do the rereading. You express a certainty about what Kant meant (assuming he had a clear position) that isn't shared by most readers, not just me and Schopenhauer..

You write Kant 'argued away the existence of any reified noumena. But you can't first use noumena ('reified'?) to 'limit knowledge' and then 'argue them away', That would be like using a hammer to drive a nail and then deny the existence of the hammer. Sounds more like Wittgenstein than Kant.
My point was, Fichte just ignored the thing-in-itself, while Kant brought in the noumena and thing-in-itself then explain them away with justifications.

It is just like scientists discussing hallucinations then explaining what are hallucinated are not reality.

The noumena and thing-in-itself are like hallucinations [empirically based].
Kant recognized humans are reifying the impossible and the non-existence of reality, example, soul, God, then he explained why there are merely mental thoughts and not real things.
But you can't first use noumena ('reified'?) to 'limit knowledge' and then 'argue them away', That would be like using a hammer to drive a nail and then deny the existence of the hammer. Sounds more like Wittgenstein than Kant.
It is not easy to understand Kant's philosophy.
In this case Kant is very systematic and discuss the problem in a step by step manner.

First Kant deliberated on the 'known' and place the noumena as a limit to it before the 'unknown'.
Next Kant reconciled the noumena as the thing-in-itself [unknown].
Then Kant proved the thing-in-itself is merely a thought [psychological] that has no substance in reality.

Here is a parallel but cruder example from Russell;
Bertrand Russell wrote:All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.
In this case just after definite knowledge [known] and at the edge of the "no man's land" lies the "noumena" and when this noumena is stretched to be dogma by theologians, e.g. the ontological soul, god, that would the idea of the thing-in-itself.

I suggest you re-read up Kant's CPR.

-- Updated Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:42 pm to add the following --
[b]Prothero[/b] wrote:Even a cursory review of Kantian scholarship reveals there is more than one line of thinking on this. There are the two world views, the dual aspect views and the idealist views. Of course people who take the time come to one view or the other and then defend that and regard it as the correct view.
Kant himself was not much help giving one impression if one statement and the other impression in another area or in a later edition. There is confusion about his meaning regarding "transcendental objects", "thing in itself" and "noumena".
Some interpretations the two world camp is essentially realist while placing severe limitations on our ability to "know" the independent real.
This is a relevant point.

It is not easy to understand Kant's philosophy and whilst Kant is very systematic and rational in his approach, the way he write it [in German, made worst by translation] is not very helpful. His one sentence can occupy half a page. This is why I had to spend 3 years FULL TIME reading and researching Kant because I knew there is something solid in his philosophy from the base of my Buddhist background.

Those who read and research Kant's philosophies often end up in various camps with varying degrees of understanding his philosophy. Kant recognized antinomies [unresolvable dualistic views] are inevitable in philosophical discussion and he provided means to reconcile them but not many understood his work in this.

Prior to Kant, I did full time research [> 3 years] on Buddhist philosophies and this has enable me to understand the full picture of Kant's philosophy. Buddhist philosophies are not well organized intellectually while Kant's presentation is logically rigorous and the two complement each other to enable the full picture of reality to emerge.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote: .....Prior to Kant, I did full time research [> 3 years] on Buddhist philosophies and this has enable me to understand the full picture of Kant's philosophy. Buddhist philosophies are not well organized intellectually while Kant's presentation is logically rigorous and the two complement each other to enable the full picture of reality to emerge.
It may be that your own reading of Kant has allowed you to form what may be valuable philosophical insights, but I do not think it was what Kant himself meant. Personally, I come at Kant from a different, more western, direction, but neither of us should resort to the 'argument from authority'. What Kant himself thought is 'history of philosophy'; what matters is what we can each take from Kant.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Londoner wrote:
Spectrum wrote: .....Prior to Kant, I did full time research [> 3 years] on Buddhist philosophies and this has enable me to understand the full picture of Kant's philosophy. Buddhist philosophies are not well organized intellectually while Kant's presentation is logically rigorous and the two complement each other to enable the full picture of reality to emerge.
It may be that your own reading of Kant has allowed you to form what may be valuable philosophical insights, but I do not think it was what Kant himself meant. Personally, I come at Kant from a different, more western, direction, but neither of us should resort to the 'argument from authority'. What Kant himself thought is 'history of philosophy'; what matters is what we can each take from Kant.
I wonder what you get the idea "What Kant himself thought is 'history of philosophy';"

Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason and Prolegomena stated the purpose of his CPR are;

I
  • t [CPR] will therefore decide as to the Possibility or Impossibility of Metaphysics -in-General, and determine its Sources, its Extent, and its Limits all in accordance with Principles. Axii

    It is upon this enquiry, which should be entitled not a Doctrine, but only a Transcendental Critique, that we are now engaged. Its [Transcendental Critique] purpose is not to extend Knowledge, but only to correct it, and to supply a touchstone of the value, or lack of value, of all a priori Knowledge. B26

    It is a Treatise on the method, not a System of the Science itself. But at the same time it marks out the whole plan of the Science, both as regards its Limits and as regards its entire internal structure.

    Our Present Duty is to obtain insight into the Transcendental Employment of Pure Reason, its Principles and Ideas, that we may be in a position to determine and estimate its influence and true value. B376


Any one can take bits and pieces from any one's philosophy but the main point is for one to understand the main purpose of a philosopher's writings.
Kant CPR is actually one thorough big step by step logical argument with a conclusion. What is critical with Kant is his conclusion within the CPR.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote:
I wonder what you get the idea "What Kant himself thought is 'history of philosophy';"
I mean that knowing what Kant might have intended by his writings at various points of his career is of interest if we are studying Kant the historical figure - writing a biography or a 'history of thought'.

But if we are interested in doing philosophy, we are interested in what we can get from Kant.
Any one can take bits and pieces from any one's philosophy but the main point is for one to understand the main purpose of a philosopher's writings.
Kant CPR is actually one thorough big step by step logical argument with a conclusion. What is critical with Kant is his conclusion within the CPR.
On the contrary, one is not obliged to swallow everything Kant said as if he was the Messiah. Philosophy did not start or finish with Kant.

As to what you believe to follow from Kant's argument (as far as I can understand what that is) I can only point out that you are very much in a minority, possibly of one.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

Londoner wrote:
Spectrum wrote:
I wonder what you get the idea "What Kant himself thought is 'history of philosophy';"
I mean that knowing what Kant might have intended by his writings at various points of his career is of interest if we are studying Kant the historical figure - writing a biography or a 'history of thought'.

But if we are interested in doing philosophy, we are interested in what we can get from Kant.
I had read Kant thoroughly, analyzed his CPR word by word and sentence by sentence plus noting all the nuances. What Kant had presented is a very solid foundation for knowledge and philosophy. This is why I fall back on Kant in most of my philosophical arguments.
What Kant lacked was merely his timing where he did not have access to the neurosciences, neuro-psychology and the later advances in the other Sciences.

One will note, all the philosophers who deviated from Kant main core philosophy is due to a psychological issue [related to the existential crisis]. Schoppenhauer rejected the thing-in-itself and fell for a reified Will.

Most who disagree with Kant are victims of a zombie parasite [neural algorithm] that compel them subliminally to reify something final. They just cannot handle 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' like the Buddhists do.
Any one can take bits and pieces from any one's philosophy but the main point is for one to understand the main purpose of a philosopher's writings.
Kant CPR is actually one thorough big step by step logical argument with a conclusion. What is critical with Kant is his conclusion within the CPR.
On the contrary, one is not obliged to swallow everything Kant said as if he was the Messiah. Philosophy did not start or finish with Kant.

As to what you believe to follow from Kant's argument (as far as I can understand what that is) I can only point out that you are very much in a minority, possibly of one.
What is the view of Kant that I hold as the only one person who had such a view?

There are various camps on the main ideas of Kant.
Example;
wiki wrote:Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself.
1. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise.
2. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two "sides" of the same thing.
There are many who supported each of the above views. I support the "dual aspect view" along with many others.

On the subject of Morality most who read Kant labelled his morality and ethics as deontological whereas I view his moral views as framework and system based which again is supported by many others.

There are also many who have made comparisons and find parallels between Kant's philosophy and Buddhism. I am not the only one into this.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by The Beast »

I think that the A in atheism stands for antimony of theism.
Time and Space are perceptions… or hallucinations. The noumena might have originated from such. The noumenon experienced the noumena much like energy becomes matter. The question of the Will is then a question of definition. In the case of Kant, it is an intuition and not a will. The Noumena in the thing in Time and Space or the thing itself because in Kantian terms Time and Space are abstractions. The noumena has elements a priori and Kantian reasoning. We are the noumenon which is a spectrum of noumena. What was the first experience it is beyond the scope of reasoning as Kant goes from intuition to a priori. Kant came close to define the noumena a phenomenal all without a will. The question of thesis is the question of the existence of a will.
If Time and Space are hallucinations, then a Will in the noumenon will always imply a will in the noumena…or a Will in Time and Space before noumenal terminology which in Kantian terms is beyond sensibility or intuition. Im not sure whether Kant want it to say that Time and Space are abstractions of noumenal origin. (circular reasoning). As is the distinction of senses, understanding and reason in the Trinity of whatever the I call the label or the open definition of the noumenon… or why there is an Ethics.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

The Beast wrote:I think that the A in atheism stands for antimony of theism.
Time and Space are perceptions… or hallucinations. The noumena might have originated from such. The noumenon experienced the noumena much like energy becomes matter. The question of the Will is then a question of definition. In the case of Kant, it is an intuition and not a will. The Noumena in the thing in Time and Space or the thing itself because in Kantian terms Time and Space are abstractions. The noumena has elements a priori and Kantian reasoning. We are the noumenon which is a spectrum of noumena. What was the first experience it is beyond the scope of reasoning as Kant goes from intuition to a priori. Kant came close to define the noumena a phenomenal all without a will. The question of thesis is the question of the existence of a will.
If Time and Space are hallucinations, then a Will in the noumenon will always imply a will in the noumena…or a Will in Time and Space before noumenal terminology which in Kantian terms is beyond sensibility or intuition. Im not sure whether Kant want it to say that Time and Space are abstractions of noumenal origin. (circular reasoning). As is the distinction of senses, understanding and reason in the Trinity of whatever the I call the label or the open definition of the noumenon… or why there is an Ethics.
Kant view ultimate Time and Space as pure intuitions and not as merely empirical concepts.

The noumenon to Kant is never a thing, it is merely used as a limiting factor to the phenomenon. There in nothing ontological beyond the phenomenon. What you are trying to get at is there is something beyond the phenomenon, i.e. the Will.

The noumenon is used to contrast against the phenomenon.
To contrast all of reality, Kant used the thing-in-itself as a limiting factor.
You are also implying there is something beyond all of reality, i.e. the Will.

As far as Kant is concern there is no thing beyond phenomenon and all of reality. Whatever is proposed beyond phenomenon and all of reality is an illusion, illusory, e.g. WILL, God, Soul and the likes.

The basis why people ended up with the idea of a reified Will, God or soul is due to an inherent psychological existential crisis within the human brain and mind. There is no such issues from the brains and minds of non-humans [animal kingdom].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by The Beast »

We have agreed on the spectrum of reason emerging from crude to refine. It is in the refine process that “judgement” is then more refine than in crude realities. In crude processes reality is derived from the intuition of the noumena. In refine process, reality is again a spectrum of judgements of which refine judgement is a function. Judgement is then a spectrum based upon senses, understanding and reason. I’m not sure that psychological is Kantian terminology and crisis is a Kantian reality. I do not think he used it once. I do understand the constriction of your limiting factors and your desire to extent your sensibility. I do the same. Kant never used Free Will to describe the refine judgement and I do. I do not have any limitations to say that in the function of senses hallucinations come from disease and that old age is not a disease. It is true that disease is transmitted from generation to generation and that the mind is pray to multiple conditionings of which a God sense conditioning is a good one to the other senses. As intuition is transmitted from senses to understanding it is good to have more sense. Here is another one: moral sense. I use my freedom sense to limit all the other senses. I have the intuition that it is easy for me and so easy for you.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

The Beast wrote:We have agreed on the spectrum of reason emerging from crude to refine. It is in the refine process that “judgement” is then more refine than in crude realities. In crude processes reality is derived from the intuition of the noumena. In refine process, reality is again a spectrum of judgements of which refine judgement is a function. Judgement is then a spectrum based upon senses, understanding and reason.
Yes, judgement is a spectrum based upon senses, understanding and reason.
As above, the spectrum of reason is from crude to refine.

Your judgment of the existence of a Will underlying all of reality is based on the primal impulse of reason at the crude level, i.e.
  • things cannot come from nothing.
    Therefore all things must be driven by something, i.e. the Will.
As I had stated this impulse to reify something out of no thing is purely psychological as compelled by an existential crisis.
I’m not sure that psychological is Kantian terminology and crisis is a Kantian reality. I do not think he used it once.
Kant did not express it as psychological as such a subject was not available during his time. But the implications of his theories of reifying a Will, God or soul is due to psychological elements.

This is what Hume did where our sense of reality [by induction] is due to constant conjunctions, habits and customs which is basically psychological within human beings themselves.
I do understand the constriction of your limiting factors and your desire to extent your sensibility. I do the same. Kant never used Free Will to describe the refine judgement and I do. I do not have any limitations to say that in the function of senses hallucinations come from disease and that old age is not a disease. It is true that disease is transmitted from generation to generation and that the mind is pray to multiple conditionings of which a God sense conditioning is a good one to the other senses. As intuition is transmitted from senses to understanding it is good to have more sense. Here is another one: moral sense. I use my freedom sense to limit all the other senses. I have the intuition that it is easy for me and so easy for you.
I am not fresh at present with Kant's view of Free Will, but whatever that is Free Will, to Kant it is always qualified to the human conditions and a Will free or otherwise do not exists ontologically and independently by itself.

I agree with moral sense or rather intuition but this is based on refined reason of the highest level.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by The Beast »

Realism cannot be realistic.
The concept of pure reason is worth exploring as it arises from experience. The experience produces knowledge. Who is the experiencer? The matter of my body recycles many times in a lifetime. What I experience now with my senses has nothing to do with the senses of years ago. It is many different sets of senses acquiring knowledge the same way we acquired the knowledge of countless generations preceding us… by memory. One memory outside in culture the other a personal memory shared by all the instances of me. The Experiencer of countless generations exist because I exist. The question is whether I and the experiencer are the same experiencer. Non-locality realism is applied: if I do not exist then the experiencer does not exist. Do the experiencer provides a different realistic view of Time? The same we say dog years in human years we could say human years in Earth years; Earth years in Universal years; Universal years in Eternity years. For something close to Eternity, the Universe is an explosion that happened from point A to point B. The experiencer is what goes from alpha to omega. In our idea of Time, we are in transit.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

The Beast wrote:Realism cannot be realistic.
The concept of pure reason is worth exploring as it arises from experience. The experience produces knowledge. Who is the experiencer? The matter of my body recycles many times in a lifetime. What I experience now with my senses has nothing to do with the senses of years ago. It is many different sets of senses acquiring knowledge the same way we acquired the knowledge of countless generations preceding us… by memory. One memory outside in culture the other a personal memory shared by all the instances of me. The Experiencer of countless generations exist because I exist. The question is whether I and the experiencer are the same experiencer. Non-locality realism is applied: if I do not exist then the experiencer does not exist. Do the experiencer provides a different realistic view of Time? The same we say dog years in human years we could say human years in Earth years; Earth years in Universal years; Universal years in Eternity years. For something close to Eternity, the Universe is an explosion that happened from point A to point B. The experiencer is what goes from alpha to omega. In our idea of Time, we are in transit.
It seem you want to argue for an individual experiencer who experience and at the same time there is a permanent ultimate of the experiencer, i.e. WILL or God. This is based on Pure Reason.
Your individual experiencer is I presume is the "I AM" in ' "I Think" Therefore "I AM" '.

Based on basic reason, for every experience there must be an experiencer [subject - object].
On the same basis, there is no experience without an experiencer.
Point is there cannot be a permanent "I AM" or experiencer.
Since on death, there is no more experiences and thus no more experiencer.
Therefore there is no permanent 'I AM" or 'soul' after physical death.

Point is an experience and experiencer emerge spontaneously. There is no permanent experiencer waiting independently to experience whatever.

There are various philosophies [Eastern and Western] and philosophers [Hume, Kant, and others] who do not support the permanent existence of a self or soul after physical death.

One point to note is, a person's pursuit of a WILL, God in a pantheistic or theistic approach is due to one's psychology. Deal with this and there will be equanimity.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021