I mean first off, lol, because what does “legitimate” even mean in your philosophical system?
Like, I dunno, Kant distinguishes between noumena and phenomena but he doesn’t then say that therefore it’s all a goddamn free-for-all where you can just say that lies are truth now, which seems to be your position.
Hence me saying “listen to the people telling you that you are wrong about your entire epistemic framework”.
that’s not even close to what I said. You’re mixing up epistemology with moral reasoning. I never said “lies are truth.” I said perception shapes truth in politics. There’s a difference between understanding how framing works and throwing reality out the window.
Kant separated noumena and phenomena, that’s literally the whole point. we don’t get direct access to the thing in itself. We interact with how it appears. That doesn’t mean free for all, it means we operate off perception and agreement, not perfect access to reality.
I mean first off, lol, because what does “legitimate” even mean in your philosophical system?
Like, I dunno, Kant distinguishes between noumena and phenomena but he doesn’t then say that therefore it’s all a goddamn free-for-all where you can just say that lies are truth now, which seems to be your position.
Hence me saying “listen to the people telling you that you are wrong about your entire epistemic framework”.
that’s not even close to what I said. You’re mixing up epistemology with moral reasoning. I never said “lies are truth.” I said perception shapes truth in politics. There’s a difference between understanding how framing works and throwing reality out the window.
Kant separated noumena and phenomena, that’s literally the whole point. we don’t get direct access to the thing in itself. We interact with how it appears. That doesn’t mean free for all, it means we operate off perception and agreement, not perfect access to reality.