For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Is that what he said? So unnecessarily convoluted and inside out..surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:26 am Mind dependent phenomena such as thoughts cannot be noumena because they not are independent of perception
Therefore only objects or events or experiences that exist independently of perception can be classed as noumena
All mind independent phenomena are noumena so noumena are a sub set of phenomena [ where phenomena is
defined as anything which physically exists regardless of whether or not it can actually be perceived by minds ]
You waste a year reading it. My question can be answered in a few sentences, if Kant knew what he was talking about.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 am Kant said many things but in this case I guess you'll be talking about this.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y
So read him for yourself and get back to us with your critique. See you in about a year or so as German into English makes for a hard read philosophically.
Since the CofPR, written by Kant, is not a book of facts, but an argument, then it is a necessary conclusion that Kant, above all others, DID know what he is talking about. The problem is whether or not YOU know what Kant is talking about.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:04 amYou waste a year reading it. My question can be answered in a few sentences, if Kant knew what he was talking about.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 am Kant said many things but in this case I guess you'll be talking about this.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y
So read him for yourself and get back to us with your critique. See you in about a year or so as German into English makes for a hard read philosophically.
No, Kant was way ahead of you.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Is this a genuine question? Are you not aware that all philosophies are contingent?
We are of the world. So if self-knowledge is possible then we can know some things of the world.
Thus begging the question: is perception a noumenon or a phenomenon?
I have nothing to do with solipsism, don't comment if you don't have a fucking clue.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 amNo, Kant was way ahead of you.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Since you are not a brain in a vat, and simply do not have the power to invent Kant; Kant must comprise of something that is NOT just in your head.
The divide between phenomena and noumena, is not directly related to your solipsistic angst. It is about an epistemological question related to what we can know of the world.
Phenomena are what is available to the senses, and the Noumena are what is not directly available.
I can't tell if he understood or not cause I don't have time studying him. What I can tell is that most people see phenomena and noumena as 'too' distinct yet also see Kant as a hero.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:30 amIs this a genuine question? Are you not aware that all philosophies are contingent?
If you have studied philosophy then you ought to know that self-contradiction (or rather - contradicting the self out of existence) is the norm, not the exception. So why are you surprised?
If he truly understood it, he's not really 'allowed' to say it.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).... [\quote]You didn't.As you are aptly demonstrating.But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Care to elaborate on this objection? That's also the way I interpret Kant.
According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:22 pmAs you are aptly demonstrating.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).... [\quote]You didn't.But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.