Reply
Wed 15 Jun, 2005 02:38 pm
Is it a form of solipsism(that reality only exist in our mind)?
Re: What is transcendental idealism?
Ray
I think the expression "transcendental idealism" was used, the first time, by Kant in his Critique of the Pure Reason.
He defines it, this way: "everything that we perceive in space or in time and so, all objects of a possible experience to us, are just phenomena: that means, only representations that, as such, have, outside our mind, no existence that could be founded in itself."
But that has nothing to do with solipsism (indeed, in the same work, Kant makes a strong refutation of solipsism). What he means is that, since we can only perceive things in space and time - but we cannot perceive space and time in themselves - space and time are human conditions, a priori to all experience. Assuming that ultimate reality has nothing to do with time and space, it is impossible to us to reach that ultimate reality.
So, things exist, but we can only perceive them within certain conditions that are in us, not in things. These conditions are space and time.
I have some doubts about Kant's conception of time and space, but I think it was decisive the idea that our experience of things is not like a reflection in a mirror, but an interaction. If our experience was that reflection, then Hume's skepticism would be right, and science impossible. That was the point that worried Kant most of all (he had been a physician and wrote the Critique only at 57, exactly after reading Hume's Treaty).
With his theory, Kant wanted to assure a basis for knowledge, although he had to reduce it to "human knowledge". Reality is the way we represent external stimulus, building them according to our human experience conditions. That is why he said that he had made a second "Copernicus revolution".
Quote:Is it a form of solipsism(that reality only exist in our mind)?
I suposse It should exist an objective reality but if we aren´t able to discern what an absolute is we live under subjective impressions which help to form our own reality. Our mind acts as a filter which selects what our brain whises. There are so many realities as people there are.
We don´t live the reality; we live a reality. Our facts are made from the external enviroment and like this we act.
Yes, that reality only exists in our mind. And time and space should be considered so they are modelling reality; in fact we belong to space.
Thanks Val.
Quote:I suposse It should exist an objective reality but if we aren´t able to discern what an absolute is we live under subjective impressions which help to form our own reality. Our mind acts as a filter which selects what our brain whises. There are so many realities as people there are.
We don´t live the reality; we live a reality. Our facts are made from the external enviroment and like this we act.
Yes, that reality only exists in our mind. And time and space should be considered so they are modelling reality; in fact we belong to space.
This would depend on what you mean by reality right?
Our "perception" of reality is probably not quite the same as one another, but the perception would be just that, how reality is sensed. So reality do exist independently but we perceive it to the limit of our senses.
Quote:Our "perception" of reality is probably not quite the same as one another, but the perception would be just that, how reality is sensed. So reality do exist independently but we perceive it to the limit of our senses.
It´s what I said; there are so many realities as people there are. However, despite there is an objective reality we won´t be able to know it so our rigid limits impede to reach what reality is, what it´s the true. We can´t take our senses off; if reality depends on our senses we can have many of them along our life,
Spot on man.You're hopeless English only adds to my admiration.
Well, I think it's better to distinguish between reality and perceptions of reality. No matter; all perception of reality is a result of interactions with the objective reality, so it is in a sense a reflection of a portion of reality.
I wouldn't include emotions in this perception category. Emotional and sense experiences should be distinguished.
Priamus
Quote:It's what I said; there are so many realities as people there are.
But don't forget we all have a similar sensorial system, similar DNA, similar brains.
And we become rational entities with education, and that involves a common language.
We think reality in a certain way, according to a common system of references. We all accept, for example, the idea of causality. Or, the idea of causality is not in our perceptions, it is a concept that we use to unify experience.
Since concepts are expressed in language - any kind of language, including science - we can say that our experience, almost since birth, is unified under a set of semantical relations that don't depend on the individual experience.
Interesting debate. It got wondering what the relationship is between subjective and objective reality?
In a way they are like mirrors. Seems to me that everything subjective has been objective at on point. The objective reality affects the subjective, this I think we agree on. But the subjective also affects the objective. We have the power to make our subjective realities become objects for others to include in their own subjective realities. The desire to build a house turns into a house, and all travelers from this day see a landmark where there used to be none.
But when it comes down to it I don't really believe that there are such things as subjective and objective reality. It is a wordplay as far as I'm concerned, although not an entirely vain one. It has it's purposes.
The thing is that we, our bodies, egos, brains and minds are objects in this world. We are part of the objective reality. Thus subjective reality becomes "reality's sense of reality" or something like that. We are homo sapiens sapiens, primates born out of the earth, our picture of the world is painted by the world, both before our eyes and behind them.
A giveaway is our frequent disagreements. We are not always able to unite our subjective realities without much argument. This is because "subjective reality" is in essence nothing more than our adding the sums without posessing all the numbers.
But this strife is evident in all of evolution, in the way every eco system automatically and not always peacefully maintains it's balance. Here we see that the total system is in reality the combined influences of everything in it. If we call all these things, by virtue of their influence, subjects, then the objective reality is the sum of all subjects.
Ray
Quote:Well, I think it's better to distinguish between reality and perceptions of reality. No matter; all perception of reality is a result of interactions with the objective reality, so it is in a sense a reflection of a portion of reality.
I wouldn't include emotions in this perception category. Emotional and sense experiences should be distinguished.
Ok, I agree about perceptions cause under them we make our reality that we matter and understand. But we need emotions to forge what we consider it must be like that; emotions are the psicological response to that reality.
Val
Quote:But don't forget we all have a similar sensorial system, similar DNA, similar brains.
And we become rational entities with education, and that involves a common language.
We think reality in a certain way, according to a common system of references. We all accept, for example, the idea of causality. Or, the idea of causality is not in our perceptions, it is a concept that we use to unify experience.
Yes, I agree whith this idea although it´s extremely difficult. To unify experiencies should mean to unify the realities we are talking about; we would need to unify concepts first.
I suppose causality concept shouldn´t be in danger while everybody thinks the same, although science doesn´t clarify this concept. I mean, causality can survive while we stablished an order of how things happen (a cause could be an effect or the other way around).
Cyracuz
Quote:A giveaway is our frequent disagreements. We are not always able to unite our subjective realities without much argument. This is because "subjective reality" is in essence nothing more than our adding the sums without posessing all the numbers.
I agree also. Maybe the disagreements you say is the result of all those perceptions. Anyway, the disagreements have contributed to human evolution (wars have been the worst)
Priamus, your comment about wars set me thinking. We are not the only species to have this internal strife. All animals have it. When a pack of predators don't have enough food or habitat they take it out on eachother. It is in principal the same as when we go to war. Or maybe that last sentence should be a question. Is the principal the same?
Well, I wouldn´t say it´s the same although evidently they have to hunt or to kill for perpetuating their species.
What would it be the difference?
Animals kill because they need it; but, Do they know what it´s to kill? They are unable to distinguish between good or bad; humans know it and we have clear these concepts. So, wars are not needed for our own evolution and surviving.
Animals defend their own territory; however, only the strongest animal becomes the leader to fight (generally it isn´t a bloody strife).
Of course I am not going to discuss when a country invades another; It is a general idea.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace