Kant vs. Schopenhauer

[Iwannaplato]

To insist a thing-in-itself exists are a real thing is delusional, but nevertheless the thing-in-itself can be thought and can be at most a useful illusion.

Kant is claimed by some to the be the father of cognitive science [based on his principles of cognition], but the 'thing-in-itself' itself has no relevance to the anti-realist version of cognitive science.

On the contrary, to Kant, the thing-in-itself is the only thing that can possibly be real.

Because it is the Synthesis between sensory perception and "thingness"/Being/Becoming.

The Synthesis is experienced as Cognition.

Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly?
Show me the texts that Kant asserted the thing-in-itself is the only thing that can possibly be real as opposed to the objective reality of phenomena.[/u]

I'll agree that it's a provocative interpretation. However, let's look at it...
1) Appearance (Erscheinung) means the way SOMETHING seems to be. I could also have written 'something SEEMS to be.' The concept presumes the existence of the noumenon. We can only know the appearances, not the real thing.
2)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant repeatedly characterizes the thing-in-itself (Ding an sich or noumenon) in such terms as “the non-sensible cause” of representations or as “the purely intelligible cause” of appearances (CPuR, A494 = B522). Again and again he employs the language of causal efficacy with regard to things-inthemselves. Thus he speaks of “the representations through which they [things-in-themselves] affect us” (CPuR, A190 = B235; italics added) and elsewhere says that while things-in-themselves “can never be known by us except as they affect us” (Grundlegung, p. 452, Akad.; italics added) they nevertheless represent “a transcendental object, which is the cause of appearance and therefore not itself appearance” (CPuR, A288 = B344; italics added). Accordingly Kant writes in the Prolegomena:

You cannot talk about X being the cause of Y and deny the existence of X if Y exists. Appearanced are caused by noumena. So, noumena are presumed to exist by Kant.
The juxtaposition of X with its appearances generally grants the former reality and the latter seeming. Appearance vs. Reality. There are a number of other quotes in the CPR that imply or require the existence of noumena which are juxtaposed with phenomena.
Another way to come at this would be to point out that
it was a mere appearance
makes sense
It was a mere reality
does not.

So, one can make a reasonable argument that Atla is correct.

On the other hand, as with many philosopher, there are a number of interpretations of Kant, even on this issue.
One can find support for various positions.
But I don't think we can rule out Atla's position.
Further...regardless we still have to think for ourselves. Kant is not the Bible however much fun hermeneutics is.

In any case, it is justified in saying that Appearances (or Erscheinung) is a pejorative term, ontologically speaking that is.

[Wizard22]

Reality is not simply 'Apprehended' through the senses or sense-perception... but through Cognition.

Because images or sounds don't "make sense" until the human brain 'processes' that information (through A Priori neurological circuits) and can store it as Memories.

This is what allows for pattern-recognition.



"Reality" is the larger "Event" by which a human's brain can accurately 'match' an internalized pattern with its external source, producing a feedback loop, and thus reaffirming the sensory-perception experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly?
Show me the texts that Kant asserted the thing-in-itself is the only thing that can possibly be real as opposed to the objective reality of phenomena.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kan ... _in_Itself

So the world reaches us already mediated through these tools of understanding. And what follows from that is that we can have no direct knowledge of the world as it is before this mediation has happened. The world as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world, or, in a memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means “The thing in itself”, but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is”(as distinct from how it appears to us). He calls the world as it appears to our senses (after mediation through our tools of understanding) the phenomenal world.

It is a tough act for anyone to justify from Kant's text that the thing-in-itself is the really-real. But if you have read Kant's work thoroughly and more so in German, you should be able to understand, Kant never claimed the thing-in-itself is the really-real.

The above do not help your claim that Kant claimed the thing-in-itself is the really real.

On the contrary to the above, Kant claimed it is his opponents of his transcendental idealism who claimed the thing-in-itself is really-real [of objective reality], i.e. a kind of real substance that is constitutive.
Kant argued and countered, the thing-in-itself which realists claimed as really-real is actually an illusion where the crude-pure-reason had driven them to reify that illusion as really-real.
Kant nevertheless enable the provision that the thing-in-itself can be only be a thought as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

Here is one clue [amongst many] why the thing-in-itself aka noumenon should never be claimed as really-real;

If by 'Noumenon' [aka thing-in-itself] we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative Sense of the term. CPR B307

In the 'negative sense' meant we cannot claim it positively as a really-real things like scientifically verifiable apples and oranges.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

This imply the noumenon aka thing-in-itself cannot be claimed as something that is really-real in the positive sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

On the contrary, to Kant, the thing-in-itself is the only thing that can possibly be real.

Because it is the Synthesis between sensory perception and "thingness"/Being/Becoming.

The Synthesis is experienced as Cognition.

Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly?
Show me the texts that Kant asserted the thing-in-itself is the only thing that can possibly be real as opposed to the objective reality of phenomena.[/u]

I'll agree that it's a provocative interpretation. However, let's look at it...
1) Appearance (Erscheinung) means the way SOMETHING seems to be. I could also have written 'something SEEMS to be.' The concept presumes the existence of the noumenon. We can only know the appearances, not the real thing.
2)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant repeatedly characterizes the thing-in-itself (Ding an sich or noumenon) in such terms as “the non-sensible cause” of representations or as “the purely intelligible cause” of appearances (CPuR, A494 = B522). Again and again he employs the language of causal efficacy with regard to things-inthemselves. Thus he speaks of “the representations through which they [things-in-themselves] affect us” (CPuR, A190 = B235; italics added) and elsewhere says that while things-in-themselves “can never be known by us except as they affect us” (Grundlegung, p. 452, Akad.; italics added) they nevertheless represent “a transcendental object, which is the cause of appearance and therefore not itself appearance” (CPuR, A288 = B344; italics added). Accordingly Kant writes in the Prolegomena:

You cannot talk about X being the cause of Y and deny the existence of X if Y exists. Appearanced are caused by noumena. So, noumena are presumed to exist by Kant.
The juxtaposition of X with its appearances generally grants the former reality and the latter seeming. Appearance vs. Reality. There are a number of other quotes in the CPR that imply or require the existence of noumena which are juxtaposed with phenomena.
Another way to come at this would be to point out that
it was a mere appearance
makes sense
It was a mere reality
does not.

So, one can make a reasonable argument that Atla is correct.

On the other hand, as with many philosopher, there are a number of interpretations of Kant, even on this issue.
One can find support for various positions.
But I don't think we can rule out Atla's position.
Further...regardless we still have to think for ourselves. Kant is not the Bible however much fun hermeneutics is.

In any case, it is justified in saying that Appearances (or Erscheinung) is a pejorative term, ontologically speaking that is.

Trying to understand Kant's thing-in-itself [limit of reason] aka noumenon [empirical limit] is trying to untangle a very complicated knot of easily damage materials. If one is not careful and simply pull, it would make the knot worse or can never be untangled.
There are a lot of complicated nuances to untangle and understand the thing-in-itself in its many subtle perspectives.

This statement and its term need to be very careful analyzed.
“the non-sensible cause” of representations or as “the purely intelligible cause” of appearances (CPuR, A494 = B522)

One critical point is the differentiation between
1. “the non-sensible cause” of representations or as “the purely intelligible cause” of appearance and
2. the sensible cause of appearance.

Kant agreed with Hume, there is no real sensible cause of appearance [2], i.e. we cannot jump to the conclusion that marble A caused marble B to move forward as a real cause out there. To Hume, the cause is within one's mind and that is a psychological issue.

If sensible cause of appearance is so contentious, then, non-sensible cause would be many more folds contentious.

In any another deeper nuance, Kant concede one can think of a non-sensible cause but the point is humans do not possess any non-sensible intuition at all. So it is a non-starter for the possibility that humans can ever cognize any non-sensible cause.

[A280 B336] For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we [humans] do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves

So we are in a dilemma that need to be resolved, i.e. as Kant noted,

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Ultimately Kant did resolve the dilemma, that the thing-in-itself is merely an illusion [in reality] albeit a necessary illusion [for therapeutic purposes, etc.].

You think Atla has a point, but to Kant that is at the Kindergarten level of thinking which had been handed down since the first unicellular organism.
At our present level of evolution we need to have a weighted and balanced view of the thing-in-itself in not insisting it is something really real but merely to optimize the "regulative" use of it as a useful illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

You think Atla has a point, but to Kant that is at the Kindergarten level of thinking which had been handed down since the first unicellular organism.

1) You do realize how infantile it looks when you tell us what Kant would think of someone's interpretation of Kant? I really hope you realize that.
2) I can see you used an AI for help and forgot to take out the citation numbers.
3) Sure, your argument could be made well - I don't think you did - but it doesn't rule out Atla's because Kant is dead and these things are complicated.

[Atla]

Aren't you guys replying to Wizzard's comment, not mine? Anyway,

In any another deeper nuance, Kant concede one can think of a non-sensible cause but the point is humans do not possess any non-sensible intuition at all. So it is a non-starter for the possibility that humans can ever cognize any non-sensible cause.

[A280 B336] For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we [humans] do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves

Most of Kant's epistemology is recyclable, but this is that kindergarten level nonsense where Kant truly went wrong (maybe deliberately, who knows), and you ate it up like an idiot.

There are always two circular possibilities, not one.
1. We can't cognize the Intelligible at all, so it would be nothing for us at all.
2. We can only cognize the Intelligible just a little (say 1-10%, depends), so it would be little for us all.

The entire CPR is one fucking trick where Kant pretends that only the first option exists, and you fell for it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You think Atla has a point, but to Kant that is at the Kindergarten level of thinking which had been handed down since the first unicellular organism.

1) You do realize how infantile it looks when you tell us what Kant would think of someone's interpretation of Kant? I really hope you realize that.
2) I can see you used an AI for help and forgot to take out the citation numbers.
3) Sure, your argument could be made well - I don't think you did - but it doesn't rule out Atla's because Kant is dead and these things are complicated.

You are more infantile with your "2) I can see you used an AI for help and forgot to take out the citation numbers."
If you are referring to that citation in blue that is from your post.
I have no qualms in qualifying I use AI when I do so.

I find it is very productive for others to be labelled as shallow, narrow thinkers because I was once in that shoe and it has benefited me a lot. Those critiques in the past motivated me to get out of the hallow, narrow thinker label and to do extensive research on those relevant areas I lacked. This is how I went into a 3 years full time study on Kant.

It was not long ago, that Sculptor insulted me with "I had read Hume thoroughly while you are still suckling." That triggered me, and instead of complaining I dug deeper into Hume to refresh my database on Hume, from there extended further research into morality. Ask Sculptor, despite I find him a pest, I wrote a PM to thank him for that "insult".

I would not mind such 'insults' [not other derogatory ones] of my lack in any knowledge at any time. If there is really a gap in my knowledge I will fill it up with more research and study.

You think Kant would not subtly "insult" the delusional?

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. CPR B397

Elsewhere Kant did use 'put downs' on lazy, hasty and ignorant-yet-arrogant thinkers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is not simply 'Apprehended' through the senses or sense-perception... but through Cognition.

Because images or sounds don't "make sense" until the human brain 'processes' that information (through A Priori neurological circuits) and can store it as Memories.

This is what allows for pattern-recognition.

"Reality" is the larger "Event" by which a human's brain can accurately 'match' an internalized pattern with its external source, producing a feedback loop, and thus reaffirming the sensory-perception experience.

What is reality is a human construct with the help of a history of 3.5 billion years of organic evolutions and 13.5 billion years of physical "evolution". Hegel labelled it sublation [German Aufheben or Aufhebung ].

What is most realistic even now is this dynamic soup of particles at the beginning;
(even this fundamental thingy is a human construct)


These particles then collate into denser patterns in time and living things evolved from these particles to cognize real things as to their specific evolved conditions.
For example for the cluster of particles the blind bat cognized via sonar is not the same thing that is cognized by humans.

Even for humans different people or tribe with different cognitive make-up will not cognize the same reality.
Take the case of peoples from the deep jungle when they first met modern people with their real "things". What is a "real" wooden rolling pin to the Western person is merely piece of wood to them like the pieces they have been chopping from trees. So there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself.
It is through process of sublation that what is real began to unfold.
There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understanding the "reality" of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real like theists with God, is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

[Wizard22]

There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understand the reality of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

You seem to be missing the critical point of the thing-in-itself and how the 'Cognizer' cognizes reality. Yes it's true that feral children, or native indian children from untouched tribes, do not re-cognize objects as modernized and civilized humans do. However, you need to understand that there is mental/brain software and hardware. The hardware, the inherited genetic circuitry, what people refer to as the phenomena of "IQ" and general intelligence, proves Kant's points. It is not through the senses, directly, or ipso facto, that people understand Reality. Rather it is through the deductive rationalizations of Reason, post hoc, that Reality is understood as the 'Synthesis' of the subject-object division. The subject-object divide is an extension of the "thing-in-itself" terminology: thing=object, self=subject. Its synthesis is how the brain reasons and rationalizes oneself as 'Subject' and as 'Object'.

"To Realize" means to 'Embody' experience.
"Reality" then is a Synthesis of mind-body duality, a Synthesis of the subject-object division.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understand the reality of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

You seem to be missing the critical point of the thing-in-itself and how the 'Cognizer' cognizes reality.

Yes it's true that feral children, or native indian children from untouched tribes, do not re-cognize objects as modernized and civilized humans do. However, you need to understand that there is mental/brain software and hardware. The hardware, the inherited genetic circuitry, what people refer to as the phenomena of "IQ" and general intelligence, proves Kant's points. It is not through the senses, directly, or ipso facto, that people understand Reality. Rather it is through the deductive rationalizations of Reason, post hoc, that Reality is understood as the 'Synthesis' of the subject-object division. The subject-object divide is an extension of the "thing-in-itself" terminology: thing=object, self=subject. Its synthesis is how the brain reasons and rationalizes oneself as 'Subject' and as 'Object'.

"To Realize" means to 'Embody' experience.
"Reality" then is a Synthesis of mind-body duality, a Synthesis of the subject-object division.

Kant presented a whole load of detailed processes that describe how humans cognized reality, e.g. his central feature of the a priori Categories which is supposedly [Kant was ignorant of this given the period he was in then] inherited from our 3.5 billion years ancestors.
Yes, one of the main element is synthesis, i.e. synthetic a priori judgments.

But to Kant, for one to reify the thing-in-itself as really real is delusional.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. CPR B397

Btw, you ignored the reference I provided from Kant in not taking the thing-in-itself [aka noumenon] as really real in here?
viewtopic.php?p=696825#p696825

Here is one clue [amongst many] why the thing-in-itself aka noumenon should never be claimed as really-real;

If by 'Noumenon' [aka thing-in-itself] we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative Sense of the term. CPR B307

In the 'negative sense' meant we cannot claim it positively as a really-real things like scientifically verifiable apples and oranges.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

This imply the noumenon aka thing-in-itself cannot be claimed as something that is really-real in the positive sense.

Can you counter the above to show I am wrong?

[Wizard22]

Btw, you ignored the reference I provided from Kant in not taking the thing-in-itself [aka noumenon] as really real in here?
viewtopic.php?p=696825#p696825

Here is one clue [amongst many] why the thing-in-itself aka noumenon should never be claimed as really-real;

If by 'Noumenon' [aka thing-in-itself] we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative Sense of the term. CPR B307

In the 'negative sense' meant we cannot claim it positively as a really-real things like scientifically verifiable apples and oranges.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

This imply the noumenon aka thing-in-itself cannot be claimed as something that is really-real in the positive sense.

Can you counter the above to show I am wrong?

My interpretation is that Noumenon is internal (to the human mind) and Phenomenon is external.

Your quantifier of what is "really"-real, or more real than some other thing, like a thing-in-itself, is a weird way of putting it, to me.

I'm not familiar enough with Kant to know what he thought about Quantification of Reality. His project was more about a type of 'Justification' of Reality, through human rationality, hence why Kant is concerned with Judgment.

[Atla]

Reality is not simply 'Apprehended' through the senses or sense-perception... but through Cognition.

Because images or sounds don't "make sense" until the human brain 'processes' that information (through A Priori neurological circuits) and can store it as Memories.

This is what allows for pattern-recognition.

"Reality" is the larger "Event" by which a human's brain can accurately 'match' an internalized pattern with its external source, producing a feedback loop, and thus reaffirming the sensory-perception experience.

What is reality is a human construct with the help of a history of 3.5 billion years of organic evolutions and 13.5 billion years of physical "evolution". Hegel labelled it sublation [German Aufheben or Aufhebung ].

What is most realistic even now is this dynamic soup of particles at the beginning;
(even this fundamental thingy is a human construct)


These particles then collate into denser patterns in time and living things evolved from these particles to cognize real things as to their specific evolved conditions.
For example for the cluster of particles the blind bat cognized via sonar is not the same thing that is cognized by humans.

Even for humans different people or tribe with different cognitive make-up will not cognize the same reality.
Take the case of peoples from the deep jungle when they first met modern people with their real "things". What is a "real" wooden rolling pin to the Western person is merely piece of wood to them like the pieces they have been chopping from trees. So there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself.
It is through process of sublation that what is real began to unfold.
There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understanding the "reality" of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real like theists with God, is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

Another self-refuting comment. You are comparing the wooden rolling pin to the mere piece of wood, which comparison can only even make sense when we also assume some sort of noumenal piece of wood, from which these two different perceptions were derived, were caused by. Otherwise how do you know that the wooden rolling pin and the mere piece of wood are related to each other in any way? When according to you, such an insight is impossible?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, you ignored the reference I provided from Kant in not taking the thing-in-itself [aka noumenon] as really real in here?
viewtopic.php?p=696825#p696825

Here is one clue [amongst many] why the thing-in-itself aka noumenon should never be claimed as really-real;

If by 'Noumenon' [aka thing-in-itself] we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative Sense of the term. CPR B307

In the 'negative sense' meant we cannot claim it positively as a really-real things like scientifically verifiable apples and oranges.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

This imply the noumenon aka thing-in-itself cannot be claimed as something that is really-real in the positive sense.

Can you counter the above to show I am wrong?

My interpretation is that Noumenon is internal (to the human mind) and Phenomenon is external.

Your quantifier of what is "really"-real, or more real than some other thing, like a thing-in-itself, is a weird way of putting it, to me.

I'm not familiar enough with Kant to know what he thought about Quantification of Reality. His project was more about a type of 'Justification' of Reality, through human rationality, hence why Kant is concerned with Judgment.

From what I gathered you still have a long way to have a reasonable grasp of Kant's Critique of Reason [CPR].
When one get more serious with Kant one has to provide specific textual references from the CPR as in this case.

Here is clue to Kant's Quantification of Reality;

As Kant attempts to demonstrate in the Anticipations, the quantification of reality is given in terms of 'intensive magnitude' or 'degree'. Intensive magnitudes are capable of continuous variation, such that between any two intensive magnitudes, there will be a third.
https://philarchive.org/archive/JANKAF#

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is not simply 'Apprehended' through the senses or sense-perception... but through Cognition.

Because images or sounds don't "make sense" until the human brain 'processes' that information (through A Priori neurological circuits) and can store it as Memories.

This is what allows for pattern-recognition.

"Reality" is the larger "Event" by which a human's brain can accurately 'match' an internalized pattern with its external source, producing a feedback loop, and thus reaffirming the sensory-perception experience.

What is reality is a human construct with the help of a history of 3.5 billion years of organic evolutions and 13.5 billion years of physical "evolution". Hegel labelled it sublation [German Aufheben or Aufhebung ].

What is most realistic even now is this dynamic soup of particles at the beginning;
(even this fundamental thingy is a human construct)


These particles then collate into denser patterns in time and living things evolved from these particles to cognize real things as to their specific evolved conditions.
For example for the cluster of particles the blind bat cognized via sonar is not the same thing that is cognized by humans.

Even for humans different people or tribe with different cognitive make-up will not cognize the same reality.
Take the case of peoples from the deep jungle when they first met modern people with their real "things". What is a "real" wooden rolling pin to the Western person is merely piece of wood to them like the pieces they have been chopping from trees. So there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself.
It is through process of sublation that what is real began to unfold.
There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understanding the "reality" of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real like theists with God, is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

Another self-refuting comment. You are comparing the wooden rolling pin to the mere piece of wood, which comparison can only even make sense when we also assume some sort of noumenal piece of wood, from which these two different perceptions were derived, were caused by. Otherwise how do you know that the wooden rolling pin and the mere piece of wood are related to each other in any way? When according to you, such an insight is impossible?

Off topic.

For the primitive people surely they know [seeing and touching it] wooden rolling pin is the same as the wood from their trees.

For the modern, that a wooden rolling pin is the same as any other wood can be verified and justified via the science-physics-FSRK.

There is no need for any concept of the noumena for the above purposes.

It is the philosophical gnat who insists there is a real noumena wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself or piece-of-wood-in-itself based on simple common sense logic and psychology of cause and effect.
The effect of seeing a wooden-rolling-pin must be caused by a wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself, which for the philosophical gnat is the real noumenal wooden-rolling-pin.
But note Hume's refutation of causality as something real.
One thing the philosophical-gnat avoids is to understand his own psychology why he is clinging to an illusory as a real thing.

One point is there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself because the wooden-rolling-pin-is-created-by-humans.
There is no wood-in-itself because the tree and particles it composed of are influenced by the human-based biology and physics FSRK.

Kant initially did not reject and went along with the philosophical gnat in acknowledging the noumena wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself exists but only a thought which is illusory and not as something substantial.
Why Kant MUST postulate the concept of the noumena and thing-in-itself is because he has use for that illusion as a necessary useful illusion.
For Kant there is no really-real noumena or thing-in-itself except that it is a necessary useful illusion.

That Schopenhauer clung to a Will-it-Itself is clinging to an reified illusion.

[Atla]

What is reality is a human construct with the help of a history of 3.5 billion years of organic evolutions and 13.5 billion years of physical "evolution". Hegel labelled it sublation [German Aufheben or Aufhebung ].

What is most realistic even now is this dynamic soup of particles at the beginning;
(even this fundamental thingy is a human construct)


These particles then collate into denser patterns in time and living things evolved from these particles to cognize real things as to their specific evolved conditions.
For example for the cluster of particles the blind bat cognized via sonar is not the same thing that is cognized by humans.

Even for humans different people or tribe with different cognitive make-up will not cognize the same reality.
Take the case of peoples from the deep jungle when they first met modern people with their real "things". What is a "real" wooden rolling pin to the Western person is merely piece of wood to them like the pieces they have been chopping from trees. So there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself.
It is through process of sublation that what is real began to unfold.
There are so many reported cases of primitive people not understanding the "reality" of modern things.

It is even the same with children, feral children will not have the same sense of reality with normal children. However, with normal children there are also variation in each sense of reality.

Is there something that is permanently real and universal. Nope!

So every thing is relative reality subject to the condition of the realizer and cognizer of reality.
You may be tempted to insist within the diversity of the realization of reality, there is still the fundamental particles as in the image above.
No.. that concept of the image above is another human construct via the physics FSK.

Whatever the ultimate reality is conditioned to human cognition thus there is no thing-in-itself but only thing-as-realized-by-realizers, i.e. relative reality. That is the most we can go, to reify any thing as something really-real like theists with God, is delusional [as Kant had implied].

Re OP: That was what Schopenhauer did with his Will-in-Itself.

Another self-refuting comment. You are comparing the wooden rolling pin to the mere piece of wood, which comparison can only even make sense when we also assume some sort of noumenal piece of wood, from which these two different perceptions were derived, were caused by. Otherwise how do you know that the wooden rolling pin and the mere piece of wood are related to each other in any way? When according to you, such an insight is impossible?

Off topic.

For the primitive people surely they know [seeing and touching it] wooden rolling pin is the same as the wood from their trees.

For the modern, that a wooden rolling pin is the same as any other wood can be verified and justified via the science-physics-FSRK.

There is no need for any concept of the noumena for the above purposes.

It is the philosophical gnat who insists there is a real noumena wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself or piece-of-wood-in-itself based on simple common sense logic and psychology of cause and effect.
The effect of seeing a wooden-rolling-pin must be caused by a wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself, which for the philosophical gnat is the real noumenal wooden-rolling-pin.
But note Hume's refutation of causality as something real.
One thing the philosophical-gnat avoids is to understand his own psychology why he is clinging to an illusory as a real thing.

One point is there is no wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself because the wooden-rolling-pin-is-created-by-humans.
There is no wood-in-itself because the tree and particles it composed of are influenced by the human-based biology and physics FSRK.

Kant initially did not reject and went along with the philosophical gnat in acknowledging the noumena wooden-rolling-pin-in-itself exists but only a thought which is illusory and not as something substantial.
Why Kant MUST postulate the concept of the noumena and thing-in-itself is because he has use for that illusion as a necessary useful illusion.
For Kant there is no really-real noumena or thing-in-itself except that it is a necessary useful illusion.

That Schopenhauer clung to a Will-it-Itself is clinging to an reified illusion.

And that's why your comment was self-refuting. Read my comment again, kindignat. We can't both have useful illusions on the exact same noumenal object, then it's hardly an illusion anymore.