Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Prismatic,

I repeat, where does Kant state this?

The point is thematic, transcendental ideas are without empirical elements.
Here is one quote
[quoted umpteen times]
to support my case, note ‘no Empirical premisses’ and ‘no Concept’. Note in […] are mine.

Prismatic,

You claimed that;

Kant did not specifically state this, that is my point. You have interpreted this from your reading of Kant, and you should make that clear, rather than asserting that others are wrong as though it was a matter of fact, and not a matter of your interpretation. I’m not going to go into why I think you have interpreted what Kant said incorrectly as that would be like trying to climb Everest.

Prismatic,

You introduced the term “conceptualization”? :-k

It is not wrong to use the the term ‘conceptualizaton’ in the context I have presented based on past posts and the quote above. It is just I have to explain the basis why I used the term.

As explained the term ‘conceptualization’ in this case refer to the inclusion of empirical concepts to differentiate from idealizations that do not include empirical concepts.
‘Idealization’ is also a term I introduced.

The point is there is a lot of deep nuances in the deeper layers when discussing Kant.

Principle of Charity needed in the above.

You are wrong in not differentiating empirical-concepts [conceptualization] from philosophical ideas [idealization]. That was my original point.

This differentiation is critical because;

  1. empirical-concepts [conceptualization] lead to real empirical/physical things, while,
  2. philosophical ideas [idealization] lead transcendental illusions, e.g. God, which is impossible to be real.

Kant’s proof for 2 is very extensive, philosophically deep and very complicated to grasp.
If you want to understand it, you’ll need to read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

Prismatic,

I don’t think so. In terms of what Kant thinks about the these terms or the dictionary definitions of these terms? From my perspective idealisations are necessarily based upon concepts. When we idealise, we add attributes to concepts that may not necessarily be there. In my view, conceptualisations can be idealised, and idealisations can be conceptualised. As such you can claim that God is an idealisation or transcendental idea, but idealisations relating to God are based upon a concept or even many different concepts relating to empirical things.

You need reference(s) for this. Where does Kant make this exact demarcation? Also, I think it was me who introduced the term “conceptualisations” to this discussion.

It is your responsibility as the one making the claim to explain why this is the case. This strikes me as an equivocation to avoid the necessary fact that Kant does not claim, as you have;

You claimed this. And now you’re telling me that I am wrong as though you are in possession of a fact, but it is just your interpretation. As I quoted Kant directly;

You cannot argue with this. I don’t even know why you are trying to.

I mentioned there are loads of nuances which I am not going into.

Note the idealization of a “square-circle” is based on the concept of ‘square’ and ‘circles’ which individually can be empirical when observed.
But a “square-circle” as a contradiction is merely a thought which emerged from idealization of an illusion.
As such there is an algorithm* in the mind that twisted concepts into transcendental ideas.
In this case Kant used the terms ‘pure concepts of the Understanding.’
*Note in B397

[quote above]
Kant mentioned there a syllogism which distort logic.

“Conceptualization” [my term] is the establishment of empirical concepts that are can be empirically verified to be real. E.g. a square is an empirical concept that can be verified to be real when observed.

“Idealization” do rely on concept(s) [nb: nuance] that are abused and are not empirically possible, thus cannot be verified empirically to be real, e.g. square-circle.
The transcendental idea of God is an idealization from the abuse of various concepts [not empirical concepts], supreme creator who created the Universe and all things.

You will have to read up Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. It took me 3 years full time to grasp the points reasonably. I am not going to try and waste time in explaining that to you in a forum like this.

It does not matter who introduced the term ‘conceptualization’ as long as both agree to what it means.
Actually I don’t think it is you who coined the term ‘conceptualization’. If so where? If you have done so, it would not be the same as what I intended the term to mean.

I stand on my point, you will be lost in the above if you have not read Kant’s CPR and understand it thoroughly.
Sounds like a cliche but the above is a serious especially with Kant’s CPR.
To get an idea on this, note;

Why is Immanuel Kant considered to be the most difficult philosopher to understand?
quora.com/Why-is-Immanuel-K … understand

Prismatic,

As far as I’m aware. I introduced the term “conceptualisations” in this post url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2744836#p2744836[/url]. Therefrom, you introduced “idealisations”.

Your reference is Nov11, However note in Nov 2 I stated the following which implied “conceptualization” from my perspective;

In any case, this is not a big issue.

To me, ‘conceptualization’ is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

‘Idealization’ is the abuse of the “Pure Concepts of the Understanding” leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

There were no posts in this topic on the 2nd of November? I am claiming that I introduced the term in this topic and I’m speaking specifically about the term “conceptualisations.” I didn’t mean “conceptualised” as they have different meanings.

Prismatic,

A “square-circle” is a contradiction you’ve used as an analogy to demonstrate that something similarly contradictory is impossible. You compare a square circle to God, because you believe the possibility of God existing is the same as a square circle existing. Both of these propositions are based upon a concept, the concept of contradictions – which is what you’re trying to show. Without a conceptual understanding of the variables involved, I don’t believe that idealisation is possible, because idealisation is based upon concepts. If you don’t believe me, check the dictionary. How do you interpret the quote I provided from Kant?

“Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)”

I think that many aspects of God are based on empirical concepts – they are just taken to extreme ideals, i.e. God is not just perfect he is absolutely perfect. Perfection is a concept, but God is idealised as being absolutely perfect. Jesus was a man, but he was a perfect Godman. People are wise, but God has supreme wisdom. Human-beings love, but God’s love is absolute - you see where I’m going? God is based upon empirical concepts taken to the extreme or absolute, that’s why people can relate to God. If God wasn’t given human or empirical attributes people wouldn’t so easily connect with the idea. So if it was claimed as an analogy that God’s anger is a fire, it would be the perfect or absolute fire. These are idealisations, and they are based upon empirical concepts.

You missed out my differentiation between idealization and conceptualization [my perspective[;

To me, ‘conceptualization’ is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

‘Idealization’ is the abuse of the “Pure Concepts of the Understanding” leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

Note “Idealization” is abuse of the “Pure Concepts of the Understanding.”

Idealizations are not based on empirical concepts.
Note ‘empirical’;

1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

Perfection is a ‘pure’ concept but not an empirical concept.
God has to be absolutely perfect, which is based on a pure concept and an ideal [idea] which is impossible to be an empirical [as defined above] concept.

In the above case you have conflated pure concept [non-empirical] with empirical concept.
Any man [living person] as an empirical concept can be verified empirically but it is impossible to verify the pure concept [ideal] of Jesus-Godman.

Where did you get the above quote from?
What is its reference in Kant’s CPR.

OK I checked from Smith’s translation, it is;

Note your translation used ‘conceptions’ and Smith used ‘concepts’.
I believe ‘concepts’ is the better word.

I don’t see how your quote is effective in countering what I had stated.

Note the points;

  1. -that there may perhaps be Concepts which relate a priori to Objects,
    not as Pure or Sensible Intuitions,
  2. -but solely as acts of Pure Thought – that is, as Concepts which are neither of Empirical nor of aesthetic Origin

The above point 1 & 2 merely affirm what I have been stating, i.e. there are concepts [pure] which are non-empirical and are a priori.
I did not mention the term ‘a priori’ earlier, it implied transcendental re Critique of Knowledge.
not as Pure or Sensible Intuitions” mean they are non-empirical concepts.
These non-empirical concepts as Pure Thoughts are then idealized as idealizations.

When one read Kant every significant variable in the sentence is a tip of an iceberg and one need to have a Kant Dictionary ready on hand.
As such when one comes across the term ‘concepts’ we need to differentiate between pure concepts and empirical-concepts.
This is why my inclination and perspective of the term ‘conceptualization’ is towards the empirical-concepts.

Generally I relate concepts as empirical until the need arise to differentiate between pure and empirical.

Prismatic,

Its your differentiation. I have already explained why I don’t agree with it.

What is a “pure concept”? If someone scores 100/100 in a test, isn’t that an empirical example of perfection?

Reportedly, Jesus was experienced. He came to earth, interacted with people etc. As according to the Bible and what Christians believe, Jesus was empirical.

Re: Your post on following post on Kant, thank you for providing your interpretation, but I’m not going to discuss/debate this with you.

I meant ‘perfect’ in this case is a pure concept.
Note that is what Kant described above, i.e. a concept of pure thought without any empirical concept.

A score of 100/100 is an empirical perfection, not perfection in the absolute sense.
Note I stated God has to be absolutely perfect, which has no empirical elements.
I have highlighted this very clearly in the other thread ‘God is an impossibility’.

Yes, Jesus the physical man was empirical but not empirically perfect.
Do think Jesus was physically perfect?

What is perfect with Jesus is the mental and Spirit of Christ - the pure concept which is claimed to be still alive somewhere in heaven at present.

Prismatic,

The term “pure concept” is seemingly your term and interpretation. Kant did not state that perfection is a “pure concept”.

I don’t know, how could I know? I’m just saying, as according to the Bible.

Christians who idealise Jesus will claim that he was perfect in every way, not just in those aspects which you mention.

Nope, not mine.
Kant used it 150 times in the CPR, e.g.

It is these Pure Concepts that tempt theists to apply [abuse] them beyond the limits of Experience [the empirical] to impossible objects [things], i.e. “upon Objects which are not Given to us, nay, perhaps cannot in any way be Given” like the idea of God [a transcendental illusion].

Note the critical term ‘is Given’ i.e. objects are Given to us, i.e. it mean object emerged simultaneously in reality as opposed to being pre-existing in reality independent of humans.

There are other considerations re the Pure Concepts, but I will not go further into it to avoid more confusions.

Christians will claim Jesus is perfect in every way including the empirical without a second thought to it.
But ultimately and philosophically, whatever is empirical is impossible to be absolutely perfect.

Prismatic,

Does your claim extend to all of reality? Are you claiming that in all of empirical reality, absolute perfection is an impossibility? I don’t think that philosophy can answer that question conclusively. My “instincts” tell me that this claim is infinitely regressive, or that it would be if I argue against it, but I can’t find a way to put it into words to explain why…

Maybe this is why; if I argue that absolute perfection is empirically possible, you will claim that it isn’t. However, given that there is no way to demonstrate either the positive or negative side of this claim, because we don’t know all of empirical reality, the argument is infinitely regressive. I think the correct term for the argument would be “circular”, but I am sure you get my drift.

So in the case of “absolute perfection being an impossibility”, logic is not going to present us with a conclusive answer.

Prismatic,

Fair enough, it isn’t your term. I thought that you may have taken it from Kant, but I wasn’t sure. My point was that Kant did not claim that perfection was a pure concept - whereas you believe that it is.

Perfect to whom, for what purpose, in what context?

I have seen thousands of perfect, absolutely perfect trees. I could not even take in all their beauty. They could not be improved on, because any change would simply have been a different perfect tree.

Perfection, unless specified for some purpose, is a value judgment term. You cannot tell me what is not a perfect tree, for me.

Of course this use of the word perfection is no doubt part of this perfect God that must be omni everything…
because Prismatic says so.

But even in this small issue, Prismatic is just stating stuff without authority.

Perfect for what, to whom?

It is so odd that these abstract, soulless arguments are presented as if they have anything to do with reality, while playing the role of denying the existence of abstract things that are not empirical. These arguments are not empirical. Not in the sense that they are deduction at a useless level of abstraction, but in that they are contextless view from nowhere ideas strung together having nothing to do with any humans or anyone addressed here.

It’s like if a pocket calculator starting telling me what it is like to be alive.