Jonti
what the dormouse said
More fully ... if it is not the question 'whether or how the Kantian framework fits the real world' then how can that framework be of use in changing the world?
It would seem to me it could still be helpful when it comes to interpretation, but in terms of being able to engage with and change the real world, we have to understand how a view of the world (a metaphysic, a theory, an ideology, whatever) gains traction; how it fits; how the rubber grips the road.
I disagree that methodologically one mayn't measure in absolute terms (or assume provisionally that one can, to make the sums easier for example -- which comes to much the same thing from my pov). This is not to say that objective view is attainable -- only that an objective world exists, independently of our senses. And that we can make correct assertions about it (even if it's not possible strictly to prove those assertions).
None of this is to claim knowledge available only to a God, not to my way of thinking at any rate. It's most certainly not to claim there is only one way to see the world - I really don't understand where you plucked that from - just that there is one world which can validly be seen in a multiplicity of ways. There's nothing remotely arrogant and patronising about such a view, there really isn't.
So no, I never claimed to know 'exactly what the real world is like - absolutely'. I really haven't. I've only claimed that a real world exists, and that we can make true statements about it (even if we cannot prove it of any particular true statement). I think that's an entirely realistic view myself.
You say
It would seem to me it could still be helpful when it comes to interpretation, but in terms of being able to engage with and change the real world, we have to understand how a view of the world (a metaphysic, a theory, an ideology, whatever) gains traction; how it fits; how the rubber grips the road.
I disagree that methodologically one mayn't measure in absolute terms (or assume provisionally that one can, to make the sums easier for example -- which comes to much the same thing from my pov). This is not to say that objective view is attainable -- only that an objective world exists, independently of our senses. And that we can make correct assertions about it (even if it's not possible strictly to prove those assertions).
None of this is to claim knowledge available only to a God, not to my way of thinking at any rate. It's most certainly not to claim there is only one way to see the world - I really don't understand where you plucked that from - just that there is one world which can validly be seen in a multiplicity of ways. There's nothing remotely arrogant and patronising about such a view, there really isn't.
So no, I never claimed to know 'exactly what the real world is like - absolutely'. I really haven't. I've only claimed that a real world exists, and that we can make true statements about it (even if we cannot prove it of any particular true statement). I think that's an entirely realistic view myself.
You say
We cannot know or even presume that we know that world "as it really is" - we can only know it in Human terms, as Human Beings, limited and finite, in need of co-operation to keep becoming Human and fulfil our needs, and only insofar as we reach into that world and appropriate it for ourselves through our labour/effort, hence we can only get/take out what we put in, as it were...
But I say we may presume to know, and to see how far it gets us. That transcendance is the name of the game here. This is not to deny humanity, it is to embrace an essential part of what it means to be able to reflect on oneself. For all that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, it remains true that we can only exist in human terms, how could it be otherwise?
And gnoseologically speaking: please go back and read slowly, with an open mind...
I thank you...
