On Sun, 15 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 15/12/2024 11:11, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>
>>> Many materialist simply cannot understand it - to them the world is what
>>> they think it is and see it as, and therefore Kant is simply nonsense.
>>
>> Yes, I think we've established that this is why we keep talking past each
>> other on this subject. Were you at one point in the materialist camp, and
>> then you reached enlightenment, or did you always feel that the materialist
>> camp was unsatisfactory, and after Kant everything sort of clicked into
>> place for you?
>>
>
> I was firmly in the materialist camp. Id been taught science and that was the
> way I understood the world.
>
> Having to reluctantly dump that model in the face of the evidence was very
> hard.

What made you have to dump it?

>>>> According to critics like Peter Strawson, while Kant correctly seeks to
>>>> explore what we can understand about our experiences, he mistakenly
>>>> concludes that these limits are imposed by our cognitive faculties on a
>>>> reality that could be structured differently.
>>>
>>> That is exactly right, and to my certain knowledge it can be: Because
>>> Strawson cant do it doesn't mean it cant be done.
>>
>> This is true. I was curious about what you would say about Strawsons
>> argument.
>>
> Id never seen it before, but it was very comprehensible once I looked up the
> meaning of some of t he terms he is using.
> He4 sort of buys part of the argument but rejects the conclusions mainly on
> the grounds as far as I can tell that it doesn't get him where he wants to
> go.
>
> Which seems to me to be the certainty of the materialist's credo.
>
> He wants to know 'what's really there' and Kant says 'we cant ever know that'

I find myself in the position where I am a materialist, but, due to the finitude
of our brains, the speed of light, and other contraints, I find it unlikely that
we'll ever be able to know everything.

Since I'm also instrumentalist leaning, and a fan of empiricism, I fully admit
(and believe) that we can only infer what's inside a black hole, or what various
interpretations of quantum physics might or might not lead to, but we'll never
know for sure.

That, does however not exclude (for me) that we live in a material universe. I
think our limitations are due to the fact that we are material beings, living in
a material universe, and accepting those limitations are perfectly fine with me.

>>> Strawson seems to be a Beleiver. He wants there to be a simple objective
>>> reality that we can grasp. Kant says 'its there, but we cannot grasp it:
>>> It has to go through our processes of categorisation before it is
>>> intelligible to us'.
>>
>> I think the point is that, if we can never grasp it, we can never say it is
>> or anything about it, and I think that is why he argues it collapses into
>> idealism, or potentially, solipsism.
>
> That is his mistake. He is unable to grasps the difference between
> 'realism-materialness, Idealism and Transcendental Idealism, which is a
> hybrid
>
> To put it it a bastardised mathematical notation materialism is:
>
> P,C=f(R) - what we Perceive is ONLY a function of what's really there. Ans so
> is consciousness.
>
> Whereas Idealism is :
>
> P,R=f(C) - What we Perceive as Reality is simply an emergent property of
> Consciousness or Mind.

I think we've been over this, and I do reside soundly on Strawsons side when it
comes to the transcendent error.

I don't want to be rude, but I feel as if we are just regurgitating, so I'll
happily explore how come you "switched sides", and what prompted you to do it.
But when it comes to the arguments, we are at an impasse.

>> Thank you for your comments and explanation. I think I understand you better
>> now, and where the key-disagreement is.
>>
>
> Ultimately there is no real disagreement, in that in your world view you
> places things in a certain pattern. The transcendental deduction invalidates
> that pattern perhaps, but you - and Strawson do not want to take the leap to
> the logical conclusion because it is profoundly uncomfortable and deeply
> humiliating.

This is about the nature of reality, so there can be no humiliation. As stated
above, I think that Strawson does take TI to its logical conclusion which is
idealism, which is a dead end. You disagree. I have not been able to persuade
you, and you have not been able to persuade me.

There has not been a "meeting of minds" and enlightenment! This is sad!

> As a species, we don't know jack shit about anything.

I think this is a little bit dramatic, given the enormous progress of science,
improvement in quality of life, and general happiness. This is in fact a strong
proof of the materialist world view. ;)

Jokes aside, I understand that this is not what you mean.

> We discover we have metaphysical choices that are life changing., Religious
> conversion perhaps - but we have no idea why we ought to make those choices.

Happiness? Can there be anything else? I place meaning as something that
contributes to my happiness, and not happiness as a byproduct of meaning.

>> This is the truth! It seems to me that "magic" has collapsed into
>> pop-psychology
>
> It always was.
>
> Yesterdays black magicians are today's politicians, marketing executives and
> creatives. Weaving spells to enslave you, take your money, and control your
> behaviour.

I flipped through a book by Ramsey Dukes a week or two ago, and he makes the
exact same point. Maybe you read it? Maybe you are him?

>> At least that seems to be the justification I get when talking to
>> "occultists" and wiccans.
>
> I gave up on them both., They didn't understand what they were doing.

I think it is about hope, and them wanting there to be something more than the
material world. A sort of spiritual longing, and consolation (magic) they cannot
get in any other way.

> I remember popping into a little bookshop in my local town and meeting a girl
> who used to run an occult bookshop in London. I said hi and she said 'who
> sent you?'

Reminds me of politicial zealots! Run!

> I mean look at Putin. Classic psychopath in a society ruled by fellow
....
> He needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

This is the correct statement! I fear europe is repeating the same mistakes they
did with Hitler. The sooner he can be taken out, the better. I am surprised that
Ukraine has not started an assasination market and put a billion dollar in prize
money on his head. Maybe that would motivate someone in his inner circle?

> Nietzsche says 'be strong' I say 'fuck that, I want some peace'. I will be
> more or less invisible instead. :-)

Well, I think you exemplify what Nietzsche means with being strong. That does
not exclude moving to nature and wanting some peace. ;)

> But realism doesn't allow for this subjectivity. A realist believes in the
> truth of his ideas. That is supremely dangerous.

Of course it does! A realist must be clear about what can be known and what
cannot be known. What is objective, and what is subjective. I find it an
excellent tool for dividing up what can be known from what cannot be known, and
that brings clarity.

> The idealist magician believes his ideas form other peoples reality.
> Equally dangerous.

This is called mental illness. ;)

>> Maybe you stopped too soon? If not, you would have had a nice old age, with
>> many young women to support you! ;)
>
> Christ! One was bad enough. No support whatsoever. The only thing I agree
> with Nietzsche on is that 'all women's problems are solved by pregnancy'

Did you ever have children?

> The Zulu says 'women are strange cattle'
>
> They are dominated by hormones - more so than even men are. And they can
> sublimate them but never eliminate them.

This is the truth! I often explain why women do not make good leaders (on
average) and it comes down to hormones, being more empathetic, being less
psycho. Psycho men will gladly trample on others, and has no problem sacrificing
the few for the many. Women, by their brain structures and hormones have a much
harder time doing this. That means men have a natural advantage.

Some women master this, but they are likelier to get burned out, since they are
fighting against their biological setup.

It is funny to watch the smoke coming out of militant feminists ears! =D

> The current pretence is that we are all free and enlightened, but no, we are
> not. We are, just underneath, animals trying to mate, in a blind sort of
> urge.

Again I think it is more nuanced, but yes, there's plenty of animal left in man.
I agree with that, and this animal can be ruthlessly exploited.

> And no amount of lipstick turns that pig into an angel
>
> The best people are those who accept that as a truth and do not go into
> denial.