[Serious] Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause

[Sal]

I honestly don't understand the difference in those two phrasings. It seems to me be entirely semantical. I mean, what is a difference between the view that, e.g., a chair existing as a Thing-in-itself (as envisioned by Kant) and existence itself? Seems like a divorce between what people see (a chair), and the ideal of a chair (internalized model of the chair). At least for Kant, he argued you could (and rightly so, IMO) never differentiate between subjective experience apart from a Thing-in-itself.

I have the same view about the trivial realization inherent in the anthropic principle: you only have human reasoning because there are humans around to think. Take humans away from the equation and only the Thing-in-itself remains (just no one around to say that).