On Jun 16, 10:48 am, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Mon, 6/14/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 11439] Re: moon and mind > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:52 PM > > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is > > within > > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and > > that only my > > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus > > the > > existence of a real object outside me can never be given > > immediately > > and directly in perception, but can only be added in > > thought to the > > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, > > and thus > > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of > > the word, > > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can > > only infer > > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding > > the > > perception as an effect of something external that must be > > the > > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, > > that an > > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external > > objects of > > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by > > immediate > > and direct perception … . > > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > As far as understanding the phenomenon as a pure illusion > > it is worth > > noting that clouds directly above appear bigger that clouds > > that are > > viewed at the horizon, as they are several miles away. As > > the moon is > > most often seen with some clouds the comparison between > > small clouds > > to the moon against large clouds and the moon would answer > > the > > problem. > > =============== > G: > As for the moon illusion, it is the answer, however not rigorously > formulated. "Most often" is not often enough: the illusion persists > within cloudless skies in both events. > IMO, the brain had been during millions of years hard coded to the > visual perception structured as perspective. Horizon is the limit > where parallels apparently meet. The same object e.g.cloud is measured > as smaller when close to the horizon. When it's measured as equal, > it appears larger close to the horizon. Enough to draw two converging lines > and two equal squares one far, the other close to lines meeting > point. > > As for Kant: > Kant's ontology of the First Enlightenment rationalized philosophy > by banning Noumena (Dinge an Sich) from cognition and by being > accordingly derived from the cutting edge of his contemporary science, > i.e. from Newton's Model. However, this science was afflicted by > several dogmas: mechanistic fabric of "Reality", absolute time/space > and absolute certitude of cognition contradicting Cartesian uncertainty. > Newton dodged their refutal with his "hypotheses non fingo", but Kant > could not follow him there, as his job consisted precisely in making > hypotheses and sincerity of his ontology could be bought only at the > cost of truly reflecting its roots: from paradoxical science Kant > rigorously derived a paradoxical ontology. In spite of having banned > Noumena from cognition, he founded his Ontology in absolute time/space, > and other Noumena or "absolute categories of Pure Reason". > His irrational synthetic propositions a priori reposed in those > noumena in order to satisfy the dogma of certain, absolute science.
You seem to be confusing yourself. synthetic propositions are not irrational. The noumena are not banned but only hinted at by the phenomena. This is why the truth of the moon's size is not available to us, but the phenomenon of the apparent differences in sizes are. The noumenal world is a construct also; conceived as beyond perception but not 'banned'. Kant was right not to follow Newton's false assertion 'hypothesis non fingo' has he realised that Newton's laws, observations and interpretations of the world were indeed hypothetical. That is really the whole point. His absolute categories are not scientifically verifiable entities but 'psychological' ones. It is a simple anachronism to balance Kantian time and space off the Einsteinian space/time. Kant is showing the means to human perception and building an epistemology. This analysis demonstrates the falsity of trying to associate the members of the so-called 'enightenment'. An 'enlightenment' that was never recognised by those attributed to it by later intellectual historians. There was no "Enlightenment". It is a post hoc rationalisation by the like of Cassirer and others in the early to mid 20thC. It is probably the most ocnfused and misused word in historiography. > > Nearly nothing of Kant, with exception of ban of Noumena, keeps any > valifity for us. And, of course, of his method deriving rational > ontology from the concurrent scientific revolution. He was not writing for the scientific revolution - whatever that is. (another epistemologically meaningless notion). > > In his wake I tried to derive a rational ontology from the second > scientific revolution of extended relativity. Inter alia, it divorces > with the sempiternal obsession of founding ontology in "objects", > whether internal, external or what not. In accordance with Einstein's > physical reality I found my ontology in perceptual events out of > which are subsequently and mentally glued the "physical bodies". > > Taken out of context of the 180 pages of my recently published essay > it may seem controversial, but it cannot be reasonably discussed out > of this context. > > My essay is entitled: > > SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT > TOME I > Einstein's Physical Reality > and Relativistic Dialectic > > Its preview's link:https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1069314 > > It's available > inhttp://www.amazon.com/Second-Enlightenment-Einsteins-Relativistic-Dia... > > Cheers > Georges. > ============= -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
