I'll take a stab at it. If you deny consensus reality, then you *will* probably be declared insane. So you must at least give lip service to the claim that Solipsism is a flawed philosophical view. Is that a good enough response? It shows by implication nothing regarding my viewpoint since I have been declared insane...
Lonnie Courtney Clay On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:41:34 AM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > In what way is Kant justifiably called a Subjectivist or Idealist? > > 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. > > Given this statement, how is any position which asserts a Realist > position ever justifiable? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/7OaV-AzhxdYJ. 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.
