Essence of Apriori

[SolitaryWalker]

SW, in your mind, how would this universe and life have arisen from the noumenal realm? ?.

The noumenal realm by definition is a limitless homogeneous entity. The entity must be such that it entails an illusory perception of itself which manifests as the phenomenal realm or the world as we experience it. This is very similar to what Aristotle talked about when he spoke of his God as an entity that can only think about itself. Or in the case of Hegel, the absolute thought can think only about thought. In short, the phenomenal realm is is merely a manifestation of an illusory self-perception of the noumenal realm.

In terms of human knowledge, how exactly did this happen? We cannot know as the noumenal realm is by definition outside of the scope of our knowledge. What we can know is how the phenomenal realm first began to exist, irrespectively of its tie to the noumenal. In this regard shall defer to the physicists who have provided a Big Bang account of the origin of the universe.

Also, what would the existence of this noumenal realm mean for free will?.

What impact does the existence of the noumenal realm carry upon the notion of free will? It may be urged that all that occurs in the phenomenal realm is merely an illusory self-perception of the noumenal realm. Thus, the real action occurs in the noumenal realm and what is in the phenomenal is illusory representation of such action. Since the noumenal realm is outside of time, everything that has occurred, occurrs and will occurr is imprinted in the noumenal realm. This shows that there is no free will. Negation of free will is not problematic. It merely means that all of our actions are a necessary entailment of their antecedents which is a compelling thesis. Which basically amounts to a truism of all events have a cause. This shows that not one person is genuinely responsible for their actions. However, from this it does not follow that we must release all of our prisoners and decriminalize all viscious acts that hitherto led to a criminal penalty, simply for practical reasons. E.G, we do not wish to die or to live in a chaotic society.

i didnt read anything but the op but here you go

On point one, there is a difference between knowledge and the ability to understand. Understanding comes before knowledge. The potential to understand is what I think you are talking about here. I believe this comes down to brain function and exists within the contrasts of individual mind development. Physical factors that pretain to this cabability, I believe, are created within a complex system of events beginig at the point of conception through out development.

On point two, I would say that infants carry a strong tendency for both introversion and extroversion since on a physical level they are exaushted and overwhelmed when receiving too much external stimuli, im guessing this comes from their imature ability to process as they go. As far as the innate characteristics, this could go either way as well. At best it is certainly a mixture of capability as well as introduction. For example one may be capable of or have an understanding toward, but if the actual opportunity is never in existence within their world, certainly this knowledge would not manifest itself . This would lead the individual toward other interests which may or may not be as innate yet still comprehendable and result in the foundations for other interests and preferences to occur, as you stated with your sugar salt analogy.

To point three, we are all just a little pocket of bacteria that exists in a coexisting but differently functioning time within a larger context that is functioning indipendantly yet slightly connected to us

1)The ability to understand precedes knowledge for obvious reasons.
2)Infants demonstrate a strong tendency towards both extroversion and introversion? Why is that? It seems to me that because infants do not have a rich inner life and because of this cannot easily be independent from the external world, in order to survive they must demonstrate a strong tendency towards extroversion. However, this tendency is unlikely to be so strong that it would not possible to override such a tendency. At a later point when babies acquire a certain measurement of independence from the external world they may develop a tendency for introversion and override the initial tendency towards extroversion.

 

[Mycroft]

Could you describe what you mean by a self-perception? How is it that a thought thinks of itself?

Also, you'll pardon me for sounding pat, but if free will is an illusion, what impetus is there for any man to take responsibility for his actions and, subsequently, the course of his own life?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Could you describe what you mean by a self-perception? How is it that a thought thinks of itself??

The most clear-cut illustration of the problem I could give is, a thought (for Hegel) or the Will (for Schopenhauer), the substance (for Spinoza), whatever this infinite unfathomable essence is, is the only thing that exists. Thus all activity that there could be inevitably involves nothing other than this infinite substance.

Also, you'll pardon me for sounding pat, but if free will is an illusion, what impetus is there for any man to take responsibility for his actions and, subsequently, the course of his own life?

Practical purposes. We will always feel like we have to make choices, inevitably what happens in our lives is a result of what we think we chose. We will always be in a position where we think we must choose something and engage in the act. The fact that at the core our actions are merely a result of their antecedents will never be relevant to our practical endeavors. Thus, because taking resonsibility for our actions is a practical endeavor, the lack of the metaphysical free will is not relevant and therefore will not stop us from taking responsibility for our actions.

 

[Venom]

In short, the phenomenal realm is is merely a manifestation of an illusory self-perception of the noumenal realm.

Can we stop calling them different 'realms', when what you're actually describing is the difference between {...2, 3, 4...} and {infinity}.

was the whole point of this exercise to show that the universe arose out of infinity? I think everyone agrees there. what you or anyone is really disagreeing on is the use of accurate language. I have yet to see why the use of "separate realms" is the most accurate use of language (and no im not refereeing to lexical definition of "realm"). The use of realm brings a lot of linguistic superstition baggage with it.

the "noumenal level of perception" versus the "phenomenal level of perception" seems much more accurate. these statements make predictions on experience more accurately than the predicted experiences of "realms". "realms" imply that these are separate existences in extension, when in reality its one entity that is being viewed with different levels of perception.

What impact does the existence of the noumenal realm carry upon the notion of free will? It may be urged that all that occurs in the phenomenal realm is merely an illusory self-perception of the noumenal realm. Thus, the real action occurs in the noumenal realm and what is in the phenomenal is illusory representation of such action. Since the noumenal realm is outside of time, everything that has occurred, occurrs and will occurr is imprinted in the noumenal realm. This shows that there is no free will. Negation of free will is not problematic. It merely means that all of our actions are a necessary entailment of their antecedents which is a compelling thesis. Which basically amounts to a truism of all events have a cause. This shows that not one person is genuinely responsible for their actions. However, from this it does not follow that we must release all of our prisoners and decriminalize all viscious acts that hitherto led to a criminal penalty, simply for practical reasons. E.G, we do not wish to die or to live in a chaotic society.

determinism doesn't negate our free will. To most people, free will is getting to do what you want. Any other definition is carrying linguistic superstition along with it.

what is our will made of? our memories, abilities, experiences, desires (our "pattern" per se) etc. Therefore, our pattern, has desires. Only if our actions/thoughts were determined to be other than what our "pattern" desired, would our free will really be in jeopardy. Even though time has been determined, our will is actually followed and honored. Compare this to a libertarian view of free will and people kill their wives in one universe (irrespective of their "pattern") and in another universe dont kill (irrespective of their "pattern"). That would be a sense of time that is independent from its antecedent. Our antecedent is entirely made of "our pattern". thus, only in a world where our patterns weren't the antecedents would a true loss of freedom of will occur.





If someone does something bad because of their upbringing (or other experiences seen outside of control), those experiences are what make up their "pattern" and the pattern should be punished as such, because the pattern did what it wanted to do: something bad.

determinism is actually the only way we can have any semblance of actual responsibility (when contrasted with libertarian free will).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Can we stop calling them different 'realms', when what you're actually describing is the difference between {...2, 3, 4...} and {infinity}.

was the whole point of this exercise to show that the universe arose out of infinity? I think everyone agrees there. what you or anyone is really disagreeing on is the use of accurate language. I have yet to see why the use of "separate realms" is the most accurate use of language (and no im not refereeing to lexical definition of "realm"). The use of realm brings a lot of linguistic superstition baggage with it. ).

Yes, you may argue that they are the same, this is what Schopenhauer has argued. This is simply a double-aspect theory. The phenomenal world in essence is really the noumenal, just this essence has a different appearance from the appearance of the noumenal realm. The appearance of the noumenal realm is inaccessible we may say, thus we superimpose an appearance that is accessible. Thus, because the essence of the phenomenal world is identical to the essence of the noumenal world, they are identical.

 

[Venom]

Yes, you may argue that they are the same, this is what Schopenhauer has argued. This is simply a double-aspect theory. The phenomenal world in essence is really the noumenal, just this essence has a different appearance from the appearance of the noumenal realm. The appearance of the noumenal realm is inaccessible we may say, thus we superimpose an appearance that is accessible. Thus, because the essence of the phenomenal world is identical to the essence of the noumenal world, they are identical.

the original language used in OP = my former barrier to understanding

thanks for clarifying

 

[Mycroft]

Solitary Walker, how would you propose one attempts to visualize this noumenal realm and its relationship to the phenomenal? I still see no reason why this universe could not be, as Babylon Candle points out, an aberrant localized order in the infinite chaos and, hence, real and true to our experience of it. If you could describe how one ought to visualize what you propose, it would help me to better understand your stance I believe.

I agree that the issue of infinite regress must be addressed, but I disagree strongly with the assertion that we are will-less automatons, or what could be described as the ultimate "goldfish dreaming he is a man".

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Solitary Walker, how would you propose one attempts to visualize this noumenal realm and its relationship to the phenomenal? I still see no reason why this universe could not be, as Babylon Candle points out, an aberrant localized order in the infinite chaos and, hence, real and true to our experience of it. If you could describe how one ought to visualize what you propose, it would help me to better understand your stance I believe.

Its by definition unimaginable, however, we know it exists because only the existence of such an entity shows that the world as we experience could exist. (Otherwise there is the infinite regress problem.)

I agree that the issue of infinite regress must be addressed, but I disagree strongly with the assertion that we are will-less automatons, or what could be described as the ultimate "goldfish dreaming he is a man".

The assertion that free will exists is tantamount to a belief in magic. If you say we are free to do as we will, in effect you claim that we are not bound by the laws of nature.

 

[Mycroft]

The assertion that free will exists is tantamount to a belief in magic. If you say we are free to do as we will, in effect you claim that we are not bound by the laws of nature.

I know that you're an intelligent person and, as such, should know precisely what my rebuttal will be:

We are free to act according to our own judgment (or lack thereof) within the bounds of reality.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

We are free to act according to our own judgment (or lack thereof) within the bounds of reality.

Indeed, but this does not show that there is metaphysical free will. Or that deep down our actions are internally inspired and are not merely reactions to external stimuli.

Free Will is defined as freedom from extrinsic influences. You may think of such influences as metaphysical or practical. Hence, metaphysical free will is freedom from the laws of nature. (For instance,a neuron fires in a certain way and is supposed to incite a certain psychological activity in your mind, yet we have the will to do differently.) This is obviously absurd.

However, free will can also be thought of as freedom from direct, practical influences. For instance, if a man looses his job, he may be influenced to be depressed, yet he can choose instead to be resilient. This kind of belief in free will is indeed plausible.

 

[Mycroft]

However, free will can also be thought of as freedom from direct, practical influences. For instance, if a man looses his job, he may be influenced to be depressed, yet he can choose instead to be resilient. This kind of belief in free will is indeed plausible.

How do you reconcile this with your previous assertions? According to your theory, everything is, for lack of a better term, predestined.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

How do you reconcile this with your previous assertions? According to your theory, everything is, for lack of a better term, predestined.

Indeed it is. However, the psychological illusion that we can make choices is inescapable. Inevitably we will be put in a situation where we will have to engage in an activity that we regard as making choices.

For example, consider the case of the aforementioned man who has lost his job. He will necessarily act in a certain way because of his psychological dispositions and the external circumstances available to him. For instance, he will be resilient if he has the quality of resilience ingrained in his psyche and if his circumstances are not severe enough to prevent him from acting resiliently. All of his thoughts or psychological states are entailments of his previous psychological states of mind. One of such states of mind is his belief that he can make choices and his belief that at some point he is making a choice. Hence, the man was resilient because his psychological dispositions and external circumstanceswere such that resilience was a necessary entailment of his previous mindset. However, along the course of this activity he will have the belief that he has made a choice. Thus, because one will always have the illusion in mind with regard to his own ability and necessity of making choices, it is merely prudent that one also engages in the activity that we regard as taking responsibility for one's choices.

At the deepest metaphysical level, man has no free will at all. Yet when one confronts a situation where an ethical decision needs to be made, or a decision with regard to how one must live his life, one will inevitably rely on what he knows or thinks he knows. What one believes to know is that one has to make a choice, yet is completely unaware that one truly does not have such a choice to make. The crux of this doctrine is as follows, all actions have a cause.

The doctrine of practical free will is important strictly from ethical standpoint, specifically, with regard to self-help. For all that we know, we engage in activities that we think are to be regarded as 'choice-making', and those of us who take responsibility for our actions lead happier lives. The fact that all of our actions are a necessary entailment of previous occurences is not relevant. In essence, the choice is not between taking responsibility for our actions or not doing so, as inevitably, whatever we do is an entailment of previous occurrences, thus we do not have an earnest choice to make. The real question is whether or not we want to be in the position where we think we chose to take responsibility for our actions or in the position where we think we chose not to take responsibility for our actions. For instance, when a doctor takes responsibility for the well being of his patients, he did so because his psychological dispositions were such that it was impossible for him to do otherwise under the circumstances that he dealt with. However, he cannot avoid believing that he must make a choice of being responsible or of being irresponsible. If he ends up believing that he chose to be responsible his results will be different from the situation that would have ensued as a result of his current situation where he opted to be irresponsible.

If that is true determinism is true. If that is false, than magic is exists, or some things happen completely uncaused, or without any reason at all for their happening.

 

[Mycroft]

- The economy or "state" of any given man's psychology is the sum of the choices he has made.
- His external circumstances are the result of the choices he has made.
- The combination of the "state" of his psychology and his external circumstances determine what choices are truly available to him at any given juncture.

- While at the deepest metaphysical level everything is predestined, this is largely irrelevant to us in our day-to-day lives.

Would you say these are acceptable interpretations of your stance?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

- The economy or "state" of any given man's psychology is the sum of the choices he has made.?

The proper terminology would be the 'perceived choices'. His mindstate is an aggreggate of the impact all of the choices 'perceived choices' made.

- - His external circumstances are the result of the choices he has made.
- The combination of the "state" of his psychology and his external circumstances determine what choices are truly available to him at any given juncture.

- While at the deepest metaphysical level everything is predestined, this is largely irrelevant to us in our day-to-day lives.

Would you say these are acceptable interpretations of your stance?

That is correct.

 

[Mycroft]

Then again, you'll forgive me for sounding pat, but doesn't this give people cause to simply throw their hands up in the air and say, "Well, he couldn't help being a murderer, what can you do, right?"

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Then again, you'll forgive me for sounding pat, but doesn't this give people cause to simply throw their hands up in the air and say, "Well, he couldn't help being a murderer, what can you do, right?"

Correct. This certainly does not mean that one should not be punished for murdering.

 

[RaptorWizard]

RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Essence of Apriori thread:

SolitaryWalker asks if it is possible to have knowledge prior to experience. This could be possible if knowledge is innate, that is, if it is stored in our unconscious. If so, we could not only acquire knowledge, but also recover it. He defines knowledge as a true set of beliefs from which we can refer to choose. He also asks to ask to what degree one’s natural talents result from what is innate versus one’s influence from the external world. Newton saw the world as a dynamic machine of cause and effect, from which point A leads to B from which follows C to result in D and so forth. This view however cannot explain the source from which the first cause came, a question of how something could have come from nothing. Our minds translate the infinite realm into finite terms, which make such questions that impose limits incapable for explanation.

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting thread. I'll quote this even though it's very old:

Then again, you'll forgive me for sounding pat, but doesn't this give people cause to simply throw their hands up in the air and say, "Well, he couldn't help being a murderer, what can you do, right?"

Actually no, because this person is also so determined.

If the murderer is destined to kill, then justice is also destined to punish them (or not, as the case may be) If the murderer can't change then neither can you, and it is clear that we have a propensity to punish crimes regardless of whether it can be helped or not.

Hypothetically speaking, that is.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting thread. I'll quote this even though it's very old:



Actually no, because this person is also so determined.

If the murderer is destined to kill, then justice is also destined to punish them (or not, as the case may be) If the murderer can't change then neither can you, and it is clear that we have a propensity to punish crimes regardless of whether it can be helped or not.

Hypothetically speaking, that is.

Since that post I've actually become a determinist myself, so LOL I guess? You're absolutely right.

I've just generally come to think of things from two perspectives: the grand, metaphysical, "ultimate truth" perspective, and a practical, day-to-day perspective. From the former perspective, yes, I believe everything is going to play out the way it's going to play out. From the latter perspective, we should absolutely have institutions in place to deter people from being a menace to others, and to catch them if they choose to be so anyway.

Aside: SolitaryWalker, if you're out there lurking, you should come back! Your posts made me rise from my own dogmatic slumber, so your work here was not in vain.

The simple truth is that I've opted for the pursuit and application of empirical truth in my life, so it was hugely illuminating to have someone around to present important philosophical ideas and theses in a comprehensible fashion. (I.e., someone to present the philosophy rather than the science.) I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt that way.