ayy member that time Kant btfo primary qualities?
>>24926408huh? Kant literally wrote a 'proof' that a substance necessarily underlies all sensation in the analytic of principles. he never btfo primary qualities.
>>24926408he still thinks certain things fall under formal intuition
and he's right because that alarmclock worked last time
>>24926409herr Kant says otherwise> Long before Locke's time, but assuredly since him, it has been generally assumed and granted without detriment to the actual existence of external things, that many of their predicates may be said to belong not to the things in themselves, but to their appearances, and to have no proper existence outside our representation. Heat, color, and taste, for instance, are of this kind. Now, if I go farther, and for weighty reasons rank as mere appearances the remaining qualities of bodies also, which are called primary, such as extension, place, and in general space, with all that which belongs to it (impenetrability or materiality, space, etc.)---no one in the least can adduce the reason of its being inadmissible. As little as the man who admits colors not to be properties of the object in itself, but only as modifications of the sense of sight, should on that account be called an idealist, so little can my system be named idealistic, merely because I find that more, nay, all the properties which constitute the intuition of a body belong merely to its appearance. The existence of the thing that appears is thereby not destroyed, as in genuine idealism, but it is only shown, that we cannot possibly know it by the senses as it is in itself.
>>24926472Locke's distinction isnt based on an absolute definition of reality. it's literally just based on the observable nature of the difference between the two kinds of qualities, namely that one is generally the same and independently verifiable by different minds, and the other isn't. Looks like Berkeley, Hume, and Kunt were all filtered by this. Locke was a skeptic, he didn't make absolute claims, just a description of the mind.
>>24926528read it again
>>24926472
>>24926533learn to have a fucking conversation. You are genuinely insufferable. Ever since your first post I've been replying to your threads, and never once have you engaged with anything anyone says. Kill yourself.
>>24926540it's not my fault no one on here actually reads herr professor doktor Kant. i try to show yall but yall don't get it. but i persist. he perfectly understood Locke. he just btfo'd him that's all. he just shows they are not primary in the way Locke thought they were primary.
>>24926550read my fucking post again and you will understand how nothing I said contradicted Kant.
>>24926552yes it does. the primary qualities brought on par with secondary qualities by Kant. just as color and sound range my vary from human to human, the primary qualities are not universal to all possible subjects of experience but only humans as far as we know.
>>24926591Locke's distinction is made fully within and is valid within empirical reality. there are no claims about them being beyond mere appearance. you are inflating the distinction between primary and secondary qualities with the distinction between nominal essence and real essence.
>>24926597conflating *
In this thread: Anons forget the thing-in-itself
>>24926597> there are no claims about them being beyond mere appearance.he is an indirect realist. of course he does.
>>24926608can you quote where Locke said "I am an indirect realist"? No? I might as well say Kant was a realist since he said space was empirically real.
>And yet if you demand what those real essences are, it is plain men are ignorant, and know them not. From whence it follows, that the ideas they have in their minds, being referred to real essences, as to archetypes which are unknown, must be so far from being adequate that they cannot be supposed to be any representation of them at all. The complex ideas we have of substances are, as it has been shown, certain collections of simple ideas that have been observed or supposed constantly to exist together. But such a complex idea cannot be the real essence of any substance; for then the properties we discover in that body would depend on that complex idea, and be deducible from it, and their necessary connexion with it be known; as all properties of a triangle depend on, and, as far as they are discoverable, are deducible from the complex idea of three lines including a space. But it is plain that in our complex ideas of substances are not contained such ideas, on which all the other qualities that are to be found in them do depend. The common idea men have of iron is, a body of a certain colour, weight, and hardness; and a property that they look on as belonging to it, is malleableness. But yet this property has no necessary connexion with that complex idea, or any part of it: and there is no more reason to think that malleableness depends on that colour, weight, and hardness, than that colour or that weight depends on its malleableness...
>>24926627>>24926608well?
>>24926613> Take a grain of wheat, divide it into two parts; each part has still solidity, extension, figure, and mobility: divide it again, and it retains still the same qualities; and so divide it on, till the parts become insensible; they must retain still each of them all those qualities.oh look it's Locke ascribing primary qualities beyond sensible reality.
>>24926637the sensory qualities are not the only element or property of the body. That would objects aren't intuited in space at all, but are only pure sensations. Again, this has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not these primary qualities are mere appearance or not.
>>24926644>That would objectsthat would imply objects*
>>24926637>>24926644imagine the fish...
the subtitle is simple ideas from privations, though
>>24926644> the sensory qualities are not the only element or property of the body.no shit. the sensory qualities are the secondary qualities. my point is we only know the primary qualities insofar as they are connected to the sensible. Locke obviously overplays his hand when he asserts the primary qualities DO exist beyond their connection the sensible.
>>24926667He doesn't assert that and your quote doesn't show that he does. read the quote I posted > there is no more reason to think that malleableness depends on that colour, weight, and hardness, than that colour or that weight depends on its malleableness...
>>24926667>>24926674like if I posted a quote where Kant says that you can abstract away the sensation to conceive of pure space, would you then say that Kant is asserting 'space exists beyond its connection to the sensible'? no, space is only known after sensation appears within it.
or for that matter if I posted Kant's argument that there is necessarily the concept of a substance underlying all change, this would not fucking imply that this substance 'exists beyond its connection to change'.
>>24926674> The particular bulk, number, figure, and motion of the parts of fire or snow are really in them,—whether any one’s senses perceive them or no: and therefore they may be called REAL qualities, because they really exist in those bodies.oh look there he goes again lol well what do you know...
>>24926676he says the same thing about general logic. that doesn't mean there's such a thing as-
>>24926685Did you forget Kant's refutation of idealism? Kant also thinks judgements about the existence of things in space are objectively valid and real. Are you trying to push a subjective idealist interpretation of Kant? Kant would agree that the 'real qualities' exist whether any mind perceives them or not, just as the dark side of the moon exists. again, these qualities being 'real' is not the same as belonging to the REAL ESSENCE, which LOCK EXPLICITLY STATES IS UNKNOWABLE. try again.
>>24926694> Kant also thinks judgements about the existence of things in space are objectively valid and real.Empirically real.Why does transcendental idealism filter you guy so hard?
>>24926694> Are you trying to push a subjective idealist interpretation of Kant?Not subjective idealist. Transcendental idealist smfh.
>>24926694> Kant would agree that the 'real qualities' exist whether any mind perceives them or not, just as the dark side of the moon exists.No he would not. But we must THINK they do. Not that they actually do. Stop being filtered already.
>>24926700you are the one getting filtered by mixing up Locke's claims about empirical reality with a claim about the real essence dumbass. yes, I know that Kant said empirically real, that's my entire point. >>24926707>we must THINK they doLocke already said this.>First, it is usual for men to make the names of substances stand for things as supposed to have certain real essences, whereby they are of this or that species: and names standing for nothing but the ideas that are in men’s minds, they must constantly refer their ideas to such real essences, as to their archetypes... And yet if you demand what those real essences are, it is plain men are ignorant, and know them not.>Stop being filtered already.You are the one filtered, by Locke. /thread.
>>24926718then explain this>>24926637and this>>24926685oh wait you conveniently keep avoiding the obvious
>>24926724I already explained them. using that quote about dividing grains would be different than using a Kant quote about abstracting away sensation to say that Kant thinks space exists independently of the sensible. and again, qualities being real doesn't imply they are the real essence, which Locke explicitly states is unknowable. so if you're just going to keep rehashing your retarded reading of these Locke quotes without addressing why he still says the real essence is unknowable, I accept your concession.
>>24926718>>First, it is usual for men to make the names of substances stand for things as supposed to have certain real essences, whereby they are of this or that species: and names standing for nothing but the ideas that are in men’s minds, they must constantly refer their ideas to such real essences, as to their archetypes... And yet if you demand what those real essences are, it is plain men are ignorant, and know them not.i thought berkeley said that
>>24926730>would be differentwould be NO different*
>>24926732Berkeley thought there was nothing beyond that which you can sense or imagine and the soul or god that imagines them, so Berkeley would never have said that. but Berkeley was filtered by locke anyway.
>>24926737Abstract ideas are inadequate ideas, and the world runs on epicycles apparently
>>24926730you don't get. you simply have not achieved the standpoint of transcendental idealism. we truly are on different planes of intellect.> In regard to the latter, people have long since comforted themselves by the proverb, that "Poets are born and not made;" why, then, do they not extend this consolatory proverb to philosophy?
>>24926746Just admit you were wrong about Locke but you realized it too late and now your ego won't let you admit it.
>>24926759i will not admit i'm wrong when whether i'm wrong is not determinate. i will thoroughly reread Locke and get back to you to prove my supreme intelligence. thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>24926759i was wrong about Locke, I'm always wrong. you only reply when I'm wrong specifically. look man, they pay you, not me
>>24927259>>24927255Finally
