Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am
Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.
Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,
- 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.
CPR - B311
viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?
You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . Since humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.
In your above view you are merely analyzing the meaning of each word in relation to humans understanding but not interpreting the noumenon in
the context of the related chapter and
the whole CPR which is one long argument.
If you read the quote carefully, it stated the noumenon has a function as a limiting concept.
The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore
only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.
To put the noumenon in perspective, the whole of the CPR is represented by the following complete CPR in terms of main sections.
- A. Doctrine of Element
..1. Transcendental Aesthetic
..2. Transcendental logic
.......2i. Transcendental Analytic
..............Book II Chapter III
..............Phenomena versus Noumenon
.......2ii. Transcendental Dialectic
B. Doctrine of Method
It is only after Kant has completed explaining and proving what is essentially "empirically real [phenomena] via the combination of Sensibility and Understanding that he introduced the concept of the noumenon to differentiate from the phenomena in
Book II Chapter III of the Transcendental Analytic of the CPR.
The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility from extending into the
Transcendental Dialectic; and it is therefore only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.
Note Kant stated,
- We have already entitled Dialectic-in-General a Logic of Illusion. B349
The reason for the noumenon is thus to prevent the equivocation of sensibility with the illusion of dialectic. But there is still the question 'is there an ultimate reality within a phenomenon'.
The reason for the limiting concept is actually to limit the Philosophical Realists' view that there is an ultimate reality, i.e. the thing-in-itself within phenomena.
- In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-Wiki
Kant's position at this point is,
Hold on, yes there is an empirical basis but let's not jump too fast in concluding there is an ultimate substance/reality of the said object. Since there is an empirical basis, let's label this supposedly reality the noumenon [this is an assumption or hypothetical] and then investigate further whether there is an ultimate thing, the thing-in-itself.
Kant then proceeded to
2ii. Transcendental Dialectic [logic of illusion - B349] to prove how the so called ultimate reality, i.e. the noumenon of sensibility as thing-in-itself is ultimately a transcendental illusion.
Kant proved the Philosophical Realists' view is not tenable in reality.
For Kant, the fundamental basis of reality is;
- Sensibility + Categories + Understanding + philosophy-proper = reality
In the case of the Philosophical Realists what they are not aware is their conclusion is based on;
- [missing ground] + Categories + Understanding [crude] + philosophy-ordinary = reality
The philosophical realists' views [yours presumably] of the noumenon and thing-in-itself as something real is ungrounded.
This was what Kant critiqued Plato;
- It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. B9
In support of the above Kant stated;
- There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premises, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality. B397
This is what happened when the Philosophical Realists jumped from the assumed noumenon to the thing-in-itself - the ultimate reality of an object. They rely on their Understanding [crude pure reason] alone without Sensibility to jump to the conclusion of an Objective Reality.
If you had understood Kant, can you give an alternative interpretation to B397?
Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.
What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!
.
You stated the noumenon is 'stuff' which mean something positive, i.e. a real object.
Kant stated the noumenon is merely a limiting concept which has the quality in limiting, the noumenon is a confirmed thing-in-itself.
You are suggesting I reat the context in the passage only??
Note I suggested you read the noumenon in the context of the passage, the chapter, the main sections and the whole book.
I have put the noumenon in the whole perspective of the CPR above.
Btw, I suggest you provide quotes from the book in its full context to justify your points rather than giving your own personal interpretations without support from the CPR.