No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

I have been meaning to read a work ABOUT Spinoza but keep putting it off for more immediately rewarding works. Spinoza is, as I remember, a non-dualist insofar as he has been labelled a psychophysical monist; his theory is termed "psycho-physical parallelism". I've read that he sees the unitary universe as consisting ultimately of a single "substance" which cannot be known directly. Reminds me of Kant's thing-in-itself (noumena). He argued that of this Subtance's infinte attributes all we can know are its physical and mental (matter and mind) manifestations. Since mind and matter are aspects of the same substance, what happens to mind affects matter and what affects matter affecs mind. This interchangeability qualifies his general position as an example of Metaphysical MONISM. Please me know if your reading of Spinoza leads to the same interpretation.

it is twyvel's "blatantly obvious" and fresco's "self-evidence

I am not sure to what extent Kant's "think in itself" (noumena) differs from Spinoza's "substance." In the former we can only know its manifestations in phenomena; in the latter, we can only know a few of its "infinite attributes."

I'm uncertain of "exactly" what you've said here, but be certain that Kants philosophy of things in themselves is just his opinion, an opinion that denies the validity of our senses and doesn't necessarily mean we can only know a few of an objects attributes, it explicity states that we can only know the appearances of them and NEVER know the things in themselves as they aren't detectable by the senses, IOW, even as science and technology improves we'll still have minimal access as the senses aren't the arbiter of truth...when in fact they are.

Is Kant dumb, of course not....is he right, IMO opinion no.

[Kant didn't deny the validity of the senses. Indeed, his concession that noumena were unknowable was based on the belief that the only things we can "know" empirically (as contrasted with logically) are through our sense perceptions

Logic must be "valid" by definition--in order to be correct. But truth is more a matter of a proposition about the world that is borne out empirically or pragmatically.

this is hardly grounds to then suggest that we can't "know" an object fully

If he didn't deny the validity{I should say scope} of the senses, then where did "things in themselves come from"..A=Kants own arbitary assertion due to the limits he placed on the senses as a source of knowledge.

The only way we'll ever fully know anything about objects is via the senses, so there's no things in themselves, only the things we know via our senses....if our scientific knowledge/instruments update, we'll still be using our senses to know the new info.

If you or Kant want to believe in a supernatural realm, that's fine, but that belief can only be of a logical necessity/inference, ie, you have no empirical evidence, but this is hardly grounds to then suggest that we can't "know" an object fully regardless of how precise our instrumentation becomes.

Time to give up on good ole Plato Joe and stop worshipping philosophers who were a part of the history of philosophy, but are no longer epistemologically relevent.

Quote:

this is hardly grounds to then suggest that we can't "know" an object fully

Our inability to know an object fully is precisely what quantum mechanics tells us. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle encapsulates this.

Kant believed that sense perceptions are valid insofar as the object of those perceptions was sensible. Far from being an arbitrary assertion, I think this is eminently reasonable. In contrast, the noumena, according to Kant, are insensible, i.e. not subject to sense perception. Consequently, Kant maintained that the senses cannot form perceptions of that which they cannot perceive. The noumena, which are insensible, are thus knowable only theoretically.

Kant would simply reply: how do you know that what you sense is all that there is?

I certainly never said that I agreed with Kant. I merely implied that my understanding of Kant was better than yours.

You discuss Kant and then you criticize me because my discussion of Kant is irrelevant? Truly, David, it is to laugh.

"logic" itself which is similarly not "context neutral" as some respondents seem to suggest.

Btw, science*, especially physics isn't about Absolute Truth, it's about the most effective methods/models that support the metaphysical disposition of the most influential science popularizers, and those popularizers are mathematically obsessed as per the primacy of consciouness, ie Kants belief in mental categories that create order, and thus reality, rather than consciouness merely reflecting exactly what it senses.

I like the sound of all this Joe, but if that's all he's saying, then why did he also stress the notion of things in themselves, seemingly implying that HE knew/suspected that their essence was not available to us, and would never become available by virtue of the limitations of the senses WRT to objects.

I agree the supernatural is just a concept, and I don't necessarily write it off, and God is entitled to live there...at least until someone explains the origins of matter and forces to me.

Quote:

Kant would simply reply: how do you know that what you sense is all that there is?

David Henry boasts: because that which exists can only be known via our senses, existence being of a physical* quality{ascribing physical qualities to God is not on in my view}.
*mental entities exist as concepts.

I'm saying that kant has heavily influenced people into believing that consciousness has primacy and that this has restricted rational progress in physics and it would be a good idea to investigate some of the views held by those who advocate the primacy of existence*, ie, Objectivist scientists.

*the primacy of existence doesn't equate to accepting an eternal universe IMO, athough this is what Objectivists assert.

fresco wrote:

"logic" itself which is similarly not "context neutral" as some respondents seem to suggest.

Are you saying there are different forms of logic, IOW, 2+2 can=5 in another "logical" system...???????????????