"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in
news:1130929393.735217.112350@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
But you are actually right. The way I wrote the statement above is
ambiguous. What I meant is that to claim "There is something out there
that exists fundamentally independent of us" is meaningless, because
if we know something about it then we experienced it at some level
which means that it is not really independent of us.
That depends upon how broadly you construe "experience," and also how
independent it has to be. Do we ever experience a square root? In other
words, is being able to conceive a thing sufficient to say we "experience"
it?
What about Kant's noumena? We experience it in the sense that we can
conceive it, and it is not independent of us, since it is conceived to be
the cause of our perceptions. Yet we can know nothing else about it.
.
|
