Is the basic premise of transcendental idealism still valid?

In any case I think most professional philosophers will be happy to admit there is a bedrock state of affairs while acknowledging we have an epistemic big problem. Full denial is something most wouldn't dare do in public for obvious reasons. Look what happens to Fresco in a Philosophy forum...go figure if openly speaking to the masses...laughter would fill the room pretty quickly.

...I can picture it already:

..."I am telling you guys we do not exist"...

...hehehe !

My division of themes a,b,c implies no consensus. We can perhaps only identify a common iconoclasm towards traditional analytical philosophy. The word "right" is inapplicable to such iconoclasm which indicates that philosophy has shifted away from attempting to make authoritative claims about ontology and epistemology.

Ontological claims are epistemic statements...good try...another thing entirely is to refuse ontological ground entirely as unspecific as it may be. You wont find that a lot except perhaps amongst you groupie gang.

...you or whatever other groupie dumb azz down voted the thread just after my previous comment is beyond stupidity ! Advise ought to look at what transcendental hints at before your poor little worm mind mixes up and stops working. Fed up with idiocy !

You have to admit Fresco's views do a pretty good job of describing monotheistic religions, with the whole "Words create social illusionary realities" bit. Beyond that, my mind draws the biggest blank on what idealists are describing.

I suggest we take care with that word "illusion".

Note that "reality" is another word. It is used in negotiations of "what is the case". Obviously our common physiology empirically implies much agreement in such matters, but social and psychological needs tend to differ with respect to the focusing of active perception. A community of "believers" have no need to discuss "the reality of God". It is embedded in their mutual vocabulary. The word "illusion" is lifted by dissenters out of the empiricism of its physiological domain and applied in the social domain, hence the futile disputes about "evidence".

...I wonder if we can agree on what is a "word"...I am going red of laughter here...

...you ought to think better on what Fresco REALLY advocates...as far as I remember he believes MINDS create stuff...

...while I think minds MUST always be superseded by that which is.
For instance Fresco belief requires a mind to invent create a mind which is a contradiction in terms. Even if the only thing real were minds, (I don't even remotely believe it) minds would be required to be eternal as you cannot create a mind with a mind that does not exist yet. The substance and eternity of these uncreated minds itself would be mindless...stuff. THING ! First cause would not be mental...

All properly weighted and measured Fresco does the reification of a classical God while I prove it cannot be !

A "word" is a unit of transactional social exchange like a banknote. Its semantic value is contextual. A child learns the word "red" as part of an activity exchanges with its carers involving human vocal behavior. It becomes internalized as an abstract generalized unit of "thought" which denotes perceptual/transactional expectations. "Thoughts" co-ordinate actions.
(NB Zulu children, for example, have no transactions which differentiate between what we call "blue" versus "green". Consequently there is only one word to denote both - luhlaza)

EDIT. I have never said "minds create stuff". I have said that humans have a social domain involving transactions via language. Languaging is a form of behavior which co-ordinates actions as does vocal behavior in other species.

My question is simple can we negotiate that definition or not ? And does negotiating it changes what a word is or not ?

...I rest my case.

PS - yes you did said so on several occasions in this forum on the past. Moreover you imply it right now when opposing thing, object, stuff, with an activity, negotiating meaning, that requires mental properties, like intention or awareness...don't dodge your own past its not beautiful.

You can attempt to negotiate the meaning of "word" but ultimately you need to go outside " human language involving words" in order to make a case, just like you need to cite the whole of human economics to understand "money". Maturana for example points to his "visceral feelings" about the continuum of all we call "life". He sees languaging as one type of behavior involved in structural coupling (resonance) between biological systems.

Man answer the damned question, is first cause subject to negotiation ? and how can you believe such nonsense ?

If you don't believe in first cause you must deal with infinite regression and if you don't believe in causation at large you are shooting your very own idea of "negotiation" in the classical meaning the word has which requires awareness and intention...mental properties that require CAUSE !!!

The entanglement of subject and object is irrelevant when you look at the process itself as a thing not subject to anything else ! The world is order not infinite negotiating chaos !

If you are going to play silly games about what you think I am "dodging" the conversation will be terminated. But if, for example, you care to read Maturana who significantly rejects "information theory" approaches to cognition, you may have something pertinant to say to me. Otherwise you are just rationalizing your own failure to understand that significance by projecting rubbish as if it came from me. I am not saying Maturana is perfect but his alternative to the failed paradigm of information theory in cognition is well worth consideration.

NB. Like Hume, I don't do "causality".

I have brought forward simple direct straight questions. Answer them please. Play honest or GTF out ! Your insolence coming from where you stand in reasoning right now is what is not acceptable nor does it deserve any respect. JLNobody on the other hand has a very different approach. I don't condone with dishonest dodging as you might have notice by now.

You are well aware that my debating IS ALWAYS honest ! Unlike you I am not here for herd politics or for making a name for myself...all I care is with matters of fact and learning more about the world.

The problem I have with that, Fil...and I'd appreciate your comments on this...is that except for MY mind, I cannot start with "mindS."

I do not know if there is anything "out there" including other minds...although there certainly seems to be. But I often ask theists "how do you know you are not deluding yourself"...and I must in turn ask myself, "When supposing there is all this other stuff (other than MY mind)...how do I know I am not deluding myself?"

My answer always comes back, "I cannot know that."

Obviously this is a good time to mention I do not share the disdain many here have for solipsism.

I meant "minds" as generalisation of what mind as a concept is on about.
Yes you can't start with minds without turning mind itself into a mindless thing...

The topic is very actual if you think about contemporary neuroscience and free will debates.

How can I sum it up in a more succinct way ?
...there is no freedom for first cause. Its not mental.

I suppose that's a problem with the original query, which suggests that "contemporary philosophy" is monolithic. I just wanted to make sure you didn't see it that way as well.


If they make no authoritative claims, then you're right, they can't be right.

Not to mention "whogivesa".

My own perception of reality is operative when I decline to run across I-5 at rush hour.

This is a rough translation of a more elaborate reflection of one of the 20 best writers of the past century, I think it fits the occasion...
"Those who live don't think much and those who think don't live enough." Fernando Pessoa.