Refutation of dogmatism

[Flagellum_Dei]

1.Condition of every experience is differentiation of I, that's subject, from non-I, that's object.
2.Thus we are given two entities: I and not-I.
3.Dogmatism claims that not-I has caused the existence of I and thus that objects exists on their own, and idealism - that I has caused existence of non-I in act of primordial differentiation, that is tathandlung.
4.But it cannot be comprehended how did non-I has created I. For in experience there can't be given a rise of new consciousness from objects. Although one can say that neurobiology has proved this, he will be wrong; for it only proved that some cells can give existence to objects which acts like a subjects, but it never can prove that they're indeed subjects.
5.Yet it's given in experience, that mind can create object real to the subject and without existence independent of mind. It happens during dreaming and hallucinating.

Therefore, on the basis of empiric knowledge, it's proven that the mind precedes and creates the matter.

@Caesercel

 

[IWWorkER]

3.Dogmatism claims that not-I has caused the existence of I and thus that objects exists on their own, and idealism - that I has caused existence of non-I in act of primordial differentiation, that is tathandlung.

Why does one has to cause the other ?

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Why does one has to cause the other ?

It doesn't have to, in fact cartesian dualism claims their coexistence. But dualism is for some reason unpopular, while realism (dogmatism) and idealism are. Thus the battle is ongoing between these two.

 

[IWWorkER]

It doesn't have to, in fact cartesian dualism claims their coexistence. But dualism is for some reason unpopular, while realism (dogmatism) and idealism are. Thus the battle is ongoing between these two.

Honest answer

 

[cathuluelitist]

3.Dogmatism claims that not-I has caused the existence of I and thus that objects exists on their own, and idealism - that I has caused existence of non-I in act of primordial differentiation, that is tathandlung.

This is basically the radix of all of liberalism.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

This is basically the radix of all of liberalism.

I don't think so. There is a shitton of deterministic liberalism, like Helvetius' or D'Holbach's ones.

 

[cathuluelitist]

I don't think so. There is a shitton of deterministic liberalism, like Helvetius' or D'Holbach's ones.

I haven't read the work of either of those two but deterministic liberalism is just another form of dogmatism, with the only difference being that their dogmatism is just that the I is only a passive result of not-I which falls under the same category in my opinion. I find all these alterities in liberalism to just be choice architecture. They're all the same in nature.

 

[Caesercel]

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

-Karl Marx

 

[hierophant]

1.Condition of every experience is differentiation of I, that's subject, from non-I, that's object.
2.Thus we are given two entities: I and not-I.
3.Dogmatism claims that not-I has caused the existence of I and thus that objects exists on their own, and idealism - that I has caused existence of non-I in act of primordial differentiation, that is tathandlung.
4.But it cannot be comprehended how did non-I has created I. For in experience there can't be given a rise of new consciousness from objects. Although one can say that neurobiology has proved this, he will be wrong; for it only proved that some cells can give existence to objects which acts like a subjects, but it never can prove that they're indeed subjects.
5.Yet it's given in experience, that mind can create object real to the subject and without existence independent of mind. It happens during dreaming and hallucinating.

Therefore, on the basis of empiric knowledge, it's proven that the mind precedes and creates the matter.

@Caesercel

Book marked

 

[Wolfstorm]

Is your liver an object or a subject?
A cell of your body can't survive alone, like bacteria does, so the cell must form a hivemind in order to form a body. That's what we call the subtle body, which is the sum of subjectivities of your body cells. This body goes to the front of your consciousness when you are in survival mode, so it is said you act on instinct. This subject is unconscious, it is wired to survive first, even if it goes against the will of the ego-consciousness.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

A cell of your body can't survive alone

There's no cell outside of tought tho

This subject is unconscious

Subject is conscious by the definition. That's what it is - pure consciousness in opposition to outsideness.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

-Karl Marx

Sophistic proof. I didn't denied that there exists laws that are necessary for post tathandlung subject to remain itself; only transcendental I is free of them. Causality and other hallucinated laws are necessary for a transcendental unity of apperception. They're conditions of individualized freedom.

Tbh I'm just curious if realists have any better arguments supporting their views than idealists.