Transcendental Knowledge?

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK Sho, I seem to be able to look at two objects and realize that I'm dealing with distinct "identities". I don;t recall having ever been informed of this concept or mulling it over, nor do I need to make an assumption that the things in front of me have distinct "identities". It's pretty plain to me, through sense. Again, in some other universe where something -could be- two things that would seem separate to us...hell, even in our own, I don't think I'd be comfortable claiming that this could not be ascertained by sense, even if -our- senses weren't up to snuff. Our senses may be rooted in whatever it is that allows us to use them, but our knowledge of that "whatever", the law itself- is rooted in the senses that allowed us to describe them. Without those senses the behavior may still be there, but we wouldn't know it, and certainly couldn't formulate any law about it.

[Mudhammam]

IDK Sho, I seem to be able to look at two objects and realize that I'm dealing with distinct "identities". I don;t recall having ever been informed of this concept or mulling it over, nor do I need to make an assumption that the things in front of me have distinct "identities". It's pretty plain to me, through sense.

I agree, but that raises my primary question: is rationality (or order, or a comprehensible Universe--take your pick) an intellectual process that starts and ends in your brain, or a feature about the Cosmos that your brain simply replicates in translating into apprehension?

[The Grand Nudger]

Rationality? I'd say yeah. What you've applied rationality to? I'd say no (as in that doesn't start and end in your brain.) In the same way, I can't load my kids into my idea of a car and drive them to Disney, for that, I need an actual car. Do actual cars exist and work in this universe? Yeah, but not because they are rational or can be described as such by me. What is rational refers to the behavior of a car in this universe, something is rational because of an observed behavior. That's my angle anyway, subtle but important thing, I think.

Reason is descriptive, not normative.

[Mudhammam]

Rationality? I'd say yeah. What you've applied rationality to? I'd say no (as in that doesn't start and end in your brain.) In the same way, I can't load my kids into my idea of a car and drive them to Disney, for that, I need an actual car. Do actual cars exist and work in this universe? Yeah, but not because they are rational or can be described as such by me. What is rational refers to the behavior of a car in this universe, something is rational because of an observed behavior.

Reason is descriptive, not normative.

Fine, for now. I'll have to think that through a bit. I'm giving my brain a much needed rest (and going back to my philosophy book).

[The Grand Nudger]

Hahaha, I just thought of a very simple way to put this. You don't need reason to use your senses, and nothing about what you sense has to be rational (think about the nutjobs who talk to Elvis through their shoes...does the universe even need to be rational for such a sense experience? Meh, I think not).....but you -do- need to use your senses to use reason.

[One Above All]

I would recommend reading The Critique of Pure Reason, though I fear you might not get too far... (it's a genuinely difficult book to comprehend, but then when we're dealing with concepts attempting to cut through the very heart of conceptual understanding, we shouldn't expect it to be anything but challenging).

With a title like that, I wouldn't get past the cover.

[bennyboy]

Hahaha, I just thought of a very simple way to put this. You don't need reason to use your senses, and nothing about what you sense has to be rational (think about the nutjobs who talk to Elvis through their shoes...does the universe even need to be rational for such a sense experience? Meh, I think not).....but you -do- need to use your senses to use reason.

I have a question for you. Would you say, as Buddhists do, that the mind is itself a sense? How about that part of the mind which we call imagination?

---

...I have no idea what the hell you just said. I think I'd rather read the wall of text.

Seriously, can't people whose regularly employed vocabulary contains words such as "transcendental" be clear about anything?

I would recommend reading The Critique of Pure Reason, though I fear you might not get too far... (it's a genuinely difficult book to comprehend, but then when we're dealing with concepts attempting to cut through the very heart of conceptual understanding, we shouldn't expect it to be anything but challenging).

With a title like that, I wouldn't get past the cover.

I know how you feel. Something like this, right?

[Mudhammam]

Hahaha, I just thought of a very simple way to put this. You don't need reason to use your senses, and nothing about what you sense has to be rational (think about the nutjobs who talk to Elvis through their shoes...does the universe even need to be rational for such a sense experience? Meh, I think not).....but you -do- need to use your senses to use reason.

So, I have concluded that you're correct that logical axioms have their root in common sense, and can only be determined rational or irrational to the extent that they are internally consistent within their formal systems, and true or false as facts about the world insofar as their correlates in experience can be demonstrated... that being said, is it possible to know if such judgments as I have stated them (a) have any bearing on the nature of reality at large, or (b) are only restricted to the relationship between the knower and the known? It seems to me that the difference between realism and idealism boils down to how that question is answered. Or © is the distinction of (a) and (b) a false dichotomy? or (d) have I totally gotten the two positions wrong?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a question for you. Would you say, as Buddhists do, that the mind is itself a sense? How about that part of the mind which we call imagination?

I don't know if I'd say that, no, but I understand why people do. If we were considering it a "sense" then it's not quite like the other 5. The other 5 seem to be referencing external inputs, I don't know how mind would fit with them. What is the method it uses to sense, and what is it sensing (same questions for imagination, obviously)?