seeds wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:05 pm
seeds wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:00 pm
Finally, we now have a clear demonstration of how you manage to twist Kant’s words to fit your agenda.
Note how you completely changed the meaning of Kant’s assertion by insisting that we can “only think”
of the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” thus making them appear to be unreal or imaginary.
Whereas, on the other hand, Kant is proposing that even though we cannot directly know the Objects [of experience] as being “Things-in-Themselves,” we nevertheless “must”
think of them as being “Things-in-Themselves.”
In which case, Kant is clearly imbuing the “Things-in-Themselves (i.e., the noumena) with an implicit substance and realness (albeit inaccessible to our senses).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:19 am
Nah! you are the one who is twisting Kant's words. Kant stated,
- that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] 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.
Kant did not state 'MUST THINK' as you has twisted it,
Kant stated "we must yet be in position" the "must" is related to the position not the "thinking".
While for 'think' he qualified think as,
"at least to think"
thus at the least and the best one can only 'think' and not to objectify the things-in-themselves as real given objects.
Sorry, Veritas, but you are completely wrong about that.
You are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing.
Let’s break it down:
...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,...
Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...
...we must yet be in position...
Meaning: we must be willing...
...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves...
Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...
...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...
...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.
Stop ignoring the implications of that last line.
Furthermore, to look deeper into the Wiki quote that Atla referenced earlier:
Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relationship...
...Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-in-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing:
- ...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a 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.
Now just in case you glossed over it, here it is again:
...he regards things-in-themselves as existing...
Therefore, it would appear that Wikipedia does not agree with you, Veritas.
In which case, shouldn’t you contact the editors and...
(after shamelessly bragging to them about how your 3 whole years of personal studies have made you the world’s leading expert on Kant)
...correct their error?
Again, Veritas, I am sorry, but there’s just no getting around the fact that if everyone (and their grandmother) is countering and debunking the very first line (the anchoring premise) of one of your key syllogisms...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am
Point is, for Kant,
- 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
2. God is the thing-in-itself
3. Therefore God is impossible to be real
...then your whole theory regarding the “impossibility of God being real” falls apart.
Now with all of the preceding in mind, we both need to be willing to admit that all of us (including Kant) could be completely wrong about this extremely confusing “thing-in-itself” business.
And that furthermore, after all is said and done,...
...the bottom line is that the possession of the esoteric knowledge we are arguing about in this thread - in combination with $1.50 in U.S. currency - will bestow upon each of us the prestigious honor and privilege of being able to take a ride on the city bus.
As I had stated you are interpreting each statement above too literally and not taking them in the context of the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Especially re Kant, your approach above shown you lack intellectual integrity and is insulting your own intelligence.
I have also mentioned the " ..appearance without anything that appears" is only a summarized point in the preface
[do understand the purpose and limitation of a preface?]. You need to understand it in the full context of the section of sensibility of the CPR where the main divisions are 1. Sensibility, 2. Reason.
You should at least read the whole article on noumenon in Wiki which at its best still fall short of reading the whole of the CPR.
You should read at least,
Positive and negative noumena
The noumenon as a limiting concept
to understand the noumenon in its full perspective.
Especially for Kantian philosophy, one cannot rely totally on wiki [generally one should not] but one must refer to the Critique of Reason itself.
Note Kant again
- 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.
As I had argued earlier, the concept of noumenon is a limiting concept and thus has a limiting function of negative employment. It's purpose is to put a limit
to the field of sensibility, i.e. to curb the pretensions of sensibility, especially to equivocate sensibility [empirical] with the transcendental entities [God, and the likes].
As I had stated the CPR deals with knowledge and its objects in 2 main divisions, i.e.
- 1. Sensibility,
The purpose of the noumenon is a limiting concept, i.e. it is like a boundary to ensure whatever of sensibility [empirical] do not extent beyond sensibility to reason.
Example of reason going beyond the limit of sensibility is;
- 1. Things exist [sensibility - empirical - noumenon ]
2. God create things [reason - thing-in-itself + sensibility]
3. God exists. [reason]
P2 is false because the noumenon in P2 is a limiting concept that limits sensible objects and thus cannot be extended beyond sensibility to the transcendental as thing-in-itself in P2.
Thus the fallacy of equivocation.
God in this case is an impossibility to be real because God has no real grounds.
The noumenon a limit of empirical reality curbed the pretension of God as real. The idea and the reification of God is an illusion.
Kant went on to explain how the theists mind is duped into thinking the illusory God is real by theists. Note,
- They [things-in-themselves*] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. 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.
*the father of the things-in-themselves is God