John Page

I case my post wasn't clear, I'm in agreement here. However, we can intellectually know about the Ding an Sich otherwise we wouldn;t be able to have this dialog.

Cheers, John

rubbercok3000

Hey guys thx for all the input. I will let you guys know how my grade goes on my paper. I have used a lot of the ideas stressed here.

Keith Russell

John said:
I case my post wasn't clear, I'm in agreement here. However, we can intellectually know about the Ding an Sich otherwise we wouldn;t be able to have this dialog.

That's just silly.

By that logic, unicorns are real, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use them as an example.

Keith.

John Page

No its not, some intellectual knowledge does not appear to have a material corrollary.

Are you saying the concept of the-thing-in-itself is silly?

Cheers, John

Wiploc

I haven't read him, but my reaction is that all we can say bout "the way things really are" is that they are such as to be perceived in the manner that we perceive them. Since we necessarily perceive with our perceivers, that's as close as we can ever get to, you know, a possible "underlying truth."

Therefore, it doesn't matter if there is an underlying truth, any more than it matters if the world was created ten minutes ago with all of our memories intact, or whether you are the only person and you are just imagining all of the rest of us. These are sterile ideas that intrigue briefly but fail to lead anywhere.
crc

Farren

John, I think you miss his point. The point is we just because we can concieve of something and discuss it doesn't mean that we intellectually "know" of it, just that we accept its existence for arguments sake.

John Page

Ummmm... perhaps you could clue me in, how is everything beyond actual experience not intellectual knowledge?

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John, this entire issue is semantic.

It hinges entirely upon what we mean by 'knowledge'.

I use the word 'knowledge' to mean verifiable information about reality, about existence.

One can thus have no 'knowledge' (again, as I use the term) of 'unicorns'--or 'God'.

But, I am going to be misunderstood by anyone who uses the word to mean something different, until we compare our definitions...

Keith.

LHP Adept

I would answer you, but I have no way of knowing whether my perception of your question is at all similar to the true reality of your question, nor whether your understanding of my answer would in any way resemble what I intended to convey.

Keith Russell

LHP, LOL.

Keith.