Atla wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:01 am
Note 'think' not conclude objects-in-themselves as real.
Beside you should read context of the above statement within the chapter and whole book of the CPR.
The above is from the 2nd preface (B xxvii) with a qualification note to things in themselves
- *To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
This suffices for the Possibility of the Concept, even though I may not be able to answer for there being, in the sum of all possibilities, an Object corresponding to it.
But Something more is required before I can ascribe to such a Concept Objective Validity, that is, Real Possibility; the former Possibility is merely Logical.
This Something more need not, however, be sought in the Theoretical sources of Knowledge; it may lie in those that are Practical.
Thus we can think of the noumenon but Kant stated,
- 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.
It is has a limiting concept having a limiting function, but the concept of noumenon should not lead to it as a thing.
So you are saying that
1. noumena are independent of human sense/perception
But since there can't be appearances without anything that appears, you are also saying that
2. noumena aren't independent of human sense/perception?
Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception.
However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept;
2. the noumenon is the basis of phenomenon.
Subsequently this assumption will expose the impulse to reify the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is due to one's psychology.
Kant explained here why we need to THINK of the noumenon or thing-in-itself;
- We may not say that this Idea is a Concept of the Object, but only of the Thoroughgoing Unity of such Concepts, in so far as that Unity serves as a Rule for the Understanding.
By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
As Kant stated, PURE, the IDEAL, the absolute independence of the empirical are never real!
But we require [thus THINK] a concept of them [noumenon - the pure empirical] to gather more knowledge of Appearances [empirical] and subsequent issues of reality.
So that is the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. there is no such things a PURE, ideal empirical thing, but we need a concept of the noumenon to have a greater understanding of the empirical.
In the non-conceptual situation, i.e. re thoughts only we have the IDEA of the thing-in-itself which again is to gain a greater understand to reality.
Point is if you read the whole of the CPR you will get a better picture as the principles of the above are repeated often.