Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

Or would never evaluate something as that, himself. Others might, and do, in fact, and they cannot compel him to evaluate anthing as that, but then he cannot compel them to stop considering something absolutely perfect. And again, I would like to stress, we don’t even need to look at deities or transcendent beings for this. One can find trees, our children, a lover, a sunset absolutely perfect. And if one wants to argue that one of these examples, in a specific case, was not absolutely perfect, then one would have to demonstrate that if some quality was changed in the specific example it would be better. But in the case of a tree or sunset, this would simply be another perfection. A different tree or sunset that is perfect. In the case of a human, SINCE we often include so called flaws as factors in the perfection, removing these so-called flaws would actually reduce the perfection.

There are a number of definitions of absolute in philosophy. And in relation to perfection some will argue that if something has a defect or flaw it cannot be absolutely perfect. The problem with this rule is that asymmetry can be argued to be more perfect. And that the specific contingent qualities of a thing or person ADD to the perfection and make it absolute.

The slight turn to a nose. The beauty mark. The slight difference in the shape of the eyes. Each of these can add positive qualities.

IOW the perfect face without any ‘flaws’ has a flaw. There is no perfect tension between the wonderful symmetry and other perfect qualities and something a little different, a little off when thought of in isolation, but in the whole makes the whole more perfect and thus absolute.

With a child or a lover or an experience the dynamism of what might be called flaws or defects actually adds…

and in fact most religious traditions have notions of this contingency in something that is precisely part of its perfection.

that it is a spiritual failing to think these kinds of flaws lead to something being less than absolutely perfect.

Prismatic,

What does this mean?

This is not correct. Perfection is subjective or intersubjective. You are arguing as though perfection is a quantity, because you want it to be, because you need it to be, but it isn’t. It is qualitative and necessarily subject to what people think/perceive.

No you haven’t. This is not mathematics, we are dealing with a perceived quality. Some theists believe that God is absolutely perfect. That is their value judgement, because for them he meets all of their ideals and because their scriptures say that he is. Those scriptures were written by people with a similar perception of God. The cause of God’s claimed perfection is human perception.

So that you can refute the existence of a subjective value judgement? You do realise that is just attempting to convince someone of your value judgements, not actually proving anything.

But maybe your view transcends these things.

KT,

Excellent.

As in the Biblical story of David, where as a child, God chose him instead of Jesse’s other sons who were all considered by him as more favourable. David wasn’t highly regarded by Jesse, but for God he was the best/perfect King for Israel. I think that story is one of the reasons why people believe God is perfect, because he purportedly looks at the heart and not the appearance. For me that is good life advice, absolutely perfect even .

Prismatic,

I’ll take a gamble here…

Ironically this;

Seems like a transcendental idea as relating to your point 5:

Why isn’t it? Haven’t you argued that God is not a concept? You argued that God is an idealisation and differentiated conceptualisations from idealisations.

In fact, you argued that:

And that:

Given that you don’t believe that God is a concept and because the perception of absolute perfection is a value judgement or ideal – a quality. Why is your claim that your argument represents “Objective Reality” not a transcendental idea?

Only relative perfection is a value judgment, i.e a quality.
Relative perfection, e.g. a perfect 100/100 score in a test can have objective reality because it can be verified empirically.

Absolute perfection is not a value judgement of a quality. It is a false reality from delusion.

We can impute ‘absolute perfection’ into point 5 above; [mine]

5. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [ an idea of God with absolute perfection] of which we have no Concept [empirical], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

Absolute perfection has no empirical elements at all, but is a deception of the mind in forcing it [thing of absolute perfection] to be an objective reality with empirical elements.
This deception involves ideas - not empirical concepts.

Note the analogy of deception with empirical concepts;

In case of a “real” snake for rope-in-the-dark, the mind similarly deceive itself in taking the real empirical rope to be a “real” empirical snake [an illusion] and yet ascribe that illusory snake as objectively real which trigger real fears. The mind generate a fake reality which has survival value to some degree.

In the case of an absolutely-perfect-God, the brain/mind deceive itself in converting and forcing an absolutely-perfect-God without empirical concept and force it to be a God that is empirically real of Objective Reality.
This deception and forcing within the brain/mind is psychological which has survival value of some degree.

Note I have never insisted ‘absolute perfection’ is a quantity not quality.
‘Absolute perfection’ is a fakeness of reality.
It is theists who ascribe ‘absolute perfection’ to a thing, i.e. God.

Thus point 5 again;

5. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [ an idea of God with absolute perfection] of which we have no Concept [empirical], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

Theists claim and insist God is an ‘objective reality’ which listens and answers prayers, created and maintain the universe, grant eternal life and has omni-whatever power - when this idealization is fake, i.e. an illusion deceived to be real.

Thus the idea of absolute-perfection is fake or false reality which can neither be a quantity nor quality of empirical elements.

Prismatic,

On my way home from work today I saw such a beautiful sunset. The sky was lit up with reddish golden hues and people were even taking pictures. I thought that it was absolutely (emphasis) perfect, that was my value judgement.

Please explain why this was a “false reality from delusion” and had no empirical elements? And then explain why this wasn’t subjective and relating to a conceptualised ideal.

The irony is, that you will actually attempt to do this.

The line of relating a conceptual object to one that is an ‘illusion’ rising to the level of ‘delusion’, is very literally the content of a natural fallacy, where the question has been asked generationally , choose: what is the thing that can be perceived and what is the thing that should?

The object, arises out of this schism, and that object is synchronous, undetermined, but predictable.

If it becomes an aggrisement without portfolio, it becomes suspect, of it is overwhelmed and belittled , then it becomes only what it is, even less then what it is, it creates contravention and strife.

Contradiction is really an anomaly, a regression toward the oral stage, stuck at the anal. The epoche retains the seminal digression as infantile, and becomes the apoathesis of obsessive compulsion.

God is such an anthethesis.that opens up the channels through which the Gnostic energy can travel, dissecting the borders that hinder the main thorough fare.

If, the illusion is killed , as it has been, the next border stage becomes a elusive- delusive state of.Being, and the existence.cannot transcend its object of nihilistic despair, life, as we know it, becomes non objective, senseless, and regresses toward anal retention of substantive and unreal dialectical contradictions.

All the mirrors of the world can not pull focus on such an imageless object.

youtu.be/Vl89g2SwMh4

I would not label that sunset perceived via your sense as a “false reality from delusion.”

First of the sunset in your case as perceived is empirical.
What is beautiful and absolute perfect is related to your judgment.
Thus however you describe that sunset, it is still relative.
You view that the sunset is ‘absolute perfect’ is still a relative ‘absolute perfect’, not an absolutely absolute.
A sense-perceived sunset is always empirical and relative to a person thus do not belong to the no-empirical-element category.

An absolute perfect ‘sunset’ would be a sunset that is always [permanent] there at all times regardless of any one perceiving it.
Such an absolute and perfect ‘sunset’ is only a thought, thus not empirically related.
This is obviously impossible.

Just as the above, the idealization of an absolute perfect God is a thought and has no empirical element.

Prismatic,

This is your value judgement, what you perceive would be the perfect sunset. This is not what I would conceptualise as the perfect sunset. The fact that we don’t agree on what would constitute a perfect sunset should make it clear to you that the perception of perfection is subjective.

As such, I don’t think you can disprove what someone perceives as perfection. You will only be imposing your value judgements on what they believe. To claim that it is impossible for absolute perfection to exist, is arguing against a value judgement. If you’re arguing that a quality of absolute perfection doesn’t exist, how can you disprove someone’s subjective opinion (based upon perception), with your own subjective opinion?

That statis is better than cyclic change is a value judgment. Apart from the damage a static permanent sunset would cause.

Prismatic,

I think that any description of perfection is relative to human value judgements, it doesn’t matter what is being described. When you claim that absolute perfection is impossible, you are claiming that a particular quality that humans ascribe to something cannot exist – which is problematic given that perfection is subjective, you simply cannot prove this. You cannot claim that because one perfect thing cannot exist, this means that nothing perfect can exist as that would be fallacious - as if perfection was a quantity that nothing can possess. I think that the quality of perfection is absolutely relative to human perception – therefore you cannot prove nor disprove it’s existence - you can just have an opinion on it. To claim that the perception of absolute perfection is a “false reality from delusion” is your value judgement, but because of the way you state things, I’m not sure that you recognise this?

I am NOT relying on a subjective basis to disprove your subjective view of a sunset.

It is obvious your view of the sunset as ‘absolutely perfect’ is subjective and empirical, i.e. it is based on your observation and judgment.
What is there to argue about on the above.
Do you dispute the above?

My view of what should be an absolutely perfect sunset is based on logic and reasoning not based on my observations and judgment on the empirical evidence.
The logic and reasoning is this;

To be absolute, it has to be totally unconditional.
To be unconditional, it has to exist by itself, i.e. independent of any human observation and subjective judgment.
Therefore for a sunset to be absolutely perfect it has to be independent of human observation.

The above is similar to Plato’s universals, forms and ideas.

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.[1]
For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs both share the quality of “chairness”, as well as greenness or the quality of being green; in other words, they share a “universal”.
There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: types or kinds (e.g. mammal), properties (e.g. short, strong), and relations (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics

There is no absolute perfect sunset-Ness in your case.

Therefore the sunset [you claimed as absolute and perfect] which is dependent on your observation and judgment, cannot be absolutely perfect per se [as defined].

Point is whatever is related to the empirical can never be absolutely perfect.
This why Science never claim empirical based scientific theories as absolutely perfect.

Note the case of geometry.
Circles, squares and other geometry patterns are observed in nature, i.e. they are empirical.
Whatever qualify as circle must conform to the IDEAL standard measurements of a perfect circle.
Note this ideal standard measure of a perfect circle is objective and not subjective which is agreeable by anyone.

You may claim the circle you drew to be absolutely perfect, but the point is the circle you draw can never be absolute perfect in accordance to the ideal defined standard measurements of a perfect circle in the highest precision.
As you can see what is a perfect circle exists only in ideal-measurements as the ideal but such an ideal can never be represented within empirical reality.

It is the same with the idea of God which is merely a thought [not measurement] in the mind of individual[s] but cannot exists in empirical reality at all.

Note the contrast, while one can contest [in failure] one’s drawn circle is absolutely perfect with at least with the empirical evidence of a drawn circle on paper or other material,
the theists are unable to produce anything empirical to be verified as what they claim is the absolute perfect God.

Prismatic,

Don’t you see any problems with your reasoning? That because you believe a perfect circle can never exist, God cannot exist? Does your example of a perfect circle preclude God from existing?

It is only problematic from your perspective, not mine.
I am not that stupid.
Nope I have merely given you a near analogy and assist you to understand and hopefully you get a clue.
You don’t understand and different the two sets of examples I gave above?

My argument on why God is impossible to be real philosophically is given in the OP and here;

God is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically and Philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

Prismatic,

Prismatic,

I don’t see how “God” is analogous to a “perfect circle”? Why do you think they are similar, conceptually?

Note my explanation above, I mentioned the analogy and then the constrast;

Note the contrast, while
-one can contest [in failure] one’s drawn circle is absolutely perfect with at least with the empirical evidence of a drawn circle on paper or other material,
-the theists are unable to produce anything empirical to be verified as what they claim is the absolute perfect God.

Both examples,
-the empirically-based perfect circle derived from empirical sources and
-the idea-based God [without any empirical element at all]
end up as ideals which are impossible to exist in reality as real.
God in this case is claimed to be an absolute perfection.

which would mean it was not visible, which would be a limitation. How could that possibly be either absolute perfect?

This sounds like an absolutely transcendent sunset.

And if we move this to God, it would mean that an absolute God, could never communicate with us, could never be felt or noticed. Only the deists believe in one of those, and even their God was once interacting with materia.

Further there is no reason to think that God is not evolving.

And in fact the Bible clearly indicates a God that is changing over time, rather than a fixed unchanging something.

There is no reason to think that we have to focus only on particular words, when we have God making changes and allowing changes and displaying changes over time, some of which overturn earlier decisions God made.

There is no reason to accept Prismatic, an atheist, as the final theological arbiter of religion.

KT,

Well spotted. I don’t understand why P claims that absolute perfection is independent of human observation? Especially given that he’s acknowledged that perfection is a value judgement. He doesn’t see the conflict that creates, or the transcendence in his ideas. Yet he believes that he can, with clarity, see what he claims are theist’s transcendental ideas.