Comment by haswell
8 months ago
I'm not sure upon what basis you think such a claim can be definitively made. Nor does declaring "Kant got this wrong" help the argument.
For sake of argument, let's say the simulation hypothesis is true. Would you acknowledge that the implications of such a thing being true would have vastly different metaphysical properties than other hypotheses, e.g. "consciousness is a fundamental property of existence and all matter is conscious"?
The mind is literally the only thing we can be certain exists. We've made so much progress scientifically mapping the territory available for us to explore, that I think many people have lost sight of the vastness of the gap between what we actually know and what we have yet to understand.
Forget about all that. Start with no presuppositions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic
Then you’ll find out the truth
This doesn't pass the smell test for me.
It seems like you've taken a system of reasoning that was built through careful consideration (Kantianism), called the conclusions it meticulously built 'presuppositions' and hand-waved it without making substantive counterpoints.
The problem then, of course, is that burning down previous philosophy and starting 'without presuppositions' will lead inevitably to conclusions again, which you can once again call presuppositions and hand-wave.
If you have no external assumptions you can’t be wrong
5 replies →
> Forget about all that.
On what basis? The metaphysical substrate matters and can’t be simply hand waved away.
Your position here closely resembles religious faith, and that’s a bit of a problem if your goal is to convince other people of its correctness.
Religious faith is when you forget everything and do philosophy without assumptions? News to me
Yes it must be waved away, since the categories of metaphysics themselves must be discovered
1 reply →