Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:59 pm There are no Kantian noumena, but there are countless phenomena, including the experiences of all the life forms that have ever and will ever exist.

The cause of all these life forms, and inorganic forms too, is sometimes called existence itself, and sometimes God. In both these cases I'd not want to confuse the absolute with an aggregate of differentiated noumena as did Kant. The whole is more than its parts.
There is the "noumena" according to Kant as he had defined within his CPR.
For Kant the noumena is a necessary limiting concept of negative employment only.
As such, re Kant, the noumena should NEVER be reified as constitutively real.

The point as I had pointed out is,
in any discussion about 'appearances' that are perceived, there is a natural tendencies for the majority to reason there must be 'something that appear'.

To keep shut up the continual inquisitiveness Kant merely agreed to use the term 'noumena' as a limiting concept to represent the supposed "something that appear" so that he can focus on explaining all there is to the concept of appearances.
Once he had done that, subsequently he demonstrated the noumena is an illusion when reified.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:09 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:59 pm There are no Kantian noumena, but there are countless phenomena, including the experiences of all the life forms that have ever and will ever exist.

The cause of all these life forms, and inorganic forms too, is sometimes called existence itself, and sometimes God. In both these cases I'd not want to confuse the absolute with an aggregate of differentiated noumena as did Kant. The whole is more than its parts.
There is the "noumena" according to Kant as he had defined within his CPR.
For Kant the noumena is a necessary limiting concept of negative employment only.
As such, re Kant, the noumena should NEVER be reified as constitutively real.

The point as I had pointed out is,
in any discussion about 'appearances' that are perceived, there is a natural tendencies for the majority to reason there must be 'something that appear'.

To keep shut up the continual inquisitiveness Kant merely agreed to use the term 'noumena' as a limiting concept to represent the supposed "something that appear" so that he can focus on explaining all there is to the concept of appearances.
Once he had done that, subsequently he demonstrated the noumena is an illusion when reified.
Regarding "things in themselves' that's to say noumena. My preferred stance is that phenomena are all that is and there are no noumena. However I'd like to compare the idea of the noumenous with the idea of the plenum of possibility.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by RCSaunders »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm ... considering the diversity of world views. Is there a solution?
Solution to what?

Since when is the fact different people have different views, "a problem?" So long as no one chooses to force their view on anyone else, there is no problem.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:40 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm ... considering the diversity of world views. Is there a solution?
Solution to what?

Since when is the fact different people have different views, "a problem?" So long as no one chooses to force their view on anyone else, there is no problem.
True, different views are not a problem. That is why people should stay in the lane of their discipline and not extrapolate it to represent the sum total of reality. While the parts contribute to the whole, no one part can be considered to be the sum total of the whole. The view that the physical is the sum total of reality is becoming a dogmatic one. Some consideration should be given to the opposing view that ideas, the principles of nature, mind, abstract thought, are equally valid.

If some time in the future, all disciplines; all lanes to knowing, merge into one highway, one view will prevail. We are nowhere there yet. It is too early for dogmatic adherence to one perspective of reality. The answer to ‘is there a solution’ is yes, stay with diverse views until they merge into one. Do not allow one discipline to become dogmatically hostile to other perspectives.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 7:54 am Noted you have been posting your reply twice and now three times. Suggest you delete the duplicates.
owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:55 pm It does not not matter what Kant believed or did not believe it is not pertinent to this discussion. Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality. Electricity or electromagnetism or the forces were not known of until the 1600s. Kant may have used the term but it is not owned by him as it is pertinent to any abstract thought that connects the non-sensory perceptible to sensory reality making it conceptual and thus perceptible and of practical use in daily life as these discoveries have been.
It does matter what Kant believed since he had provided his argument for it. If you don't agree then you have to provide a counter to Kant's argument re the Noumena.

There is no current literature that support your point, re
"Noumena is used, or should be used, for what is not perceptible to the senses but is still part of our reality."
Instead you could refer to substance theory with a philosophical realism background which is contentious and countered by Kant's thing-in-itself [aka noumenon].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
I would agree with the co-creator perspective. Humans are integral to our three dimensional reality. They are not integral to any force or emanation. To say they are would be the equivalent of saying that an Avatar was the Logos; the Intelligence in nature. He can be in sync with Intelligence; in correspondence with but not It, as no finite form can be a universal principle. As for example the Elders metaphorically the Principles of nature, being interpreted as 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples.
I am not familiar with Elders, 12 Patriarchs and 12 Disciples. Is it related to this?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Four_Elders
If not pls provide some references.

However my main principle is whatever that is claim to be real, it must be verified and justified within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the standard.
You keep bringing God and religion into the discussion. We are discussing philosophy not theology so I do not understand why you are doing so. Maybe because you confuse Kant’s use of the word transcendental with religion. Kant caused confusion by using this word for metaphysics which is not transcendental. It is the unseen and currently unknown, not accessible to our senses but still within our dimensions and impacts every area of our lives.
I believe you are the one who triggered the 'religion' element when you stated "Kant as a Christian .." in the earlier post.
As mentioned above the forces were not known or named until towards the end of the Dark Ages. In our three dimensions there is matter and force, both which are close to be understood and classified for what they actually are. As there are three dimensions matter and force only accounts for two, the third which is mental is not understood yet. That it is related to the Principles of nature; the 24 Elders, metaphor for the Principles which are pertinent to understanding the three aspects of our three-dimensional world.

To say anything other than what has been discovered is illusion is an illusion, If it is within these dimensions how can it be an illusion. Once it is discovered and known it can be related to our sensory experience and known as conceptually true and relatable to our lives as electricity and electromagnetism is, although not known or relatable to life in the Dark Ages.

The topic of this discussion is answered by the perspective that each discipline should stay within its lane. The reductionism of sociobiology tends to want to expand its lane into a highway where all lanes meet, that is incorrect. A theoretical physicist posited four different ways the multiverse might exist, shedding light in physics for those within that lane to follow. Philosophy should be doing something similar for science. Instead it is itself lost in reductionism, when it is not endlessly rehashing the work of prior philosophers. That is why it is beginning to be perceived as not really relevant to todays world.
As I had stated, whatever the dimension, third or 10th, it must be empirically and philosophy possible.
Since it is empirically and philosophically possible, it cannot be claimed within philosophical realism, i.e. as absolute independent of the human conditions.

From what I had gathered your fundamental philosophical stance is that of philosophical realism [yes/No?] thus contrast with mine i.e. anti-philosophical realism [Kantian].
Thus whatever you conclude and it is within the ambit of PR, then we do not have an ultimate consensus of the matter.

Note again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note this thread
All Philosophies Reduced to Philosophical-Realism vs anti-Philosophical-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
I will delete the duplicates when I figure it out. It kept asking me “Do you want to submit this”. I must have clicked Yes too many times.

There are many views on what substance is, on what is phenomenal and what is noumenonal. The former as elemental substance accessible to sense perception is easily accessible. The latter is defined as a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Phenomena is not subject to controversy as it is easily accessible to sense perception. Noumenon if thought of as principles of nature, laws of nature etc. are not beyond the boundaries of abstract thought. When known and classified conceptually it will be accessible as a concept but of course still not accessible to sensory experience or sensory perception.

To say it does not exist because it is not accessible to sensory experience or does not exist until it becomes a concept is erroneous. Primitive man would have seen the importance of the sun to life. He would not have thought of, or known of, the importance of the anthropic principle in making life possible. It existed then as now, otherwise he would not have existed to think of anything.

For me PR however it is defined otherwise is uniting the known with the unknown. The known, or more easily known is phenomenal. The abstract, or noumenon, or however one wants to define it will never be known to sense experience as to what the-thing-in-itself is. It will always be abstract as a concept but that does not mean that it is any less real for that, if as the anthropic principle it makes life possible, then its impact on life, is not an illusion or false rationalizing. It is information that adds to our understanding, though not to our sensory experience or our sensory perception.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:09 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:59 pm There are no Kantian noumena, but there are countless phenomena, including the experiences of all the life forms that have ever and will ever exist.

The cause of all these life forms, and inorganic forms too, is sometimes called existence itself, and sometimes God. In both these cases I'd not want to confuse the absolute with an aggregate of differentiated noumena as did Kant. The whole is more than its parts.
There is the "noumena" according to Kant as he had defined within his CPR.
For Kant the noumena is a necessary limiting concept of negative employment only.
As such, re Kant, the noumena should NEVER be reified as constitutively real.

The point as I had pointed out is,
in any discussion about 'appearances' that are perceived, there is a natural tendencies for the majority to reason there must be 'something that appear'.

To keep shut up the continual inquisitiveness Kant merely agreed to use the term 'noumena' as a limiting concept to represent the supposed "something that appear" so that he can focus on explaining all there is to the concept of appearances.
Once he had done that, subsequently he demonstrated the noumena is an illusion when reified.
Regarding "things in themselves' that's to say noumena. My preferred stance is that phenomena are all that is and there are no noumena. However I'd like to compare the idea of the noumenous with the idea of the plenum of possibility.
Yes, in reality there is only phenomena and no real noumena.

However Kant needed the idea of 'noumena' for his specific purpose in the whole context of the CPR.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:47 pm I will delete the duplicates when I figure it out. It kept asking me “Do you want to submit this”. I must have clicked Yes too many times.
Actually we cannot delete the post, only admin can do that.
What you can do is go into 'edit' mode and delete the full contents and replace it with say "post duplicated".
There are many views on what substance is, on what is phenomenal and what is noumenonal. The former as elemental substance accessible to sense perception is easily accessible. The latter is defined as a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Phenomena is not subject to controversy as it is easily accessible to sense perception. Noumenon if thought of as principles of nature, laws of nature etc. are not beyond the boundaries of abstract thought.
When known and classified conceptually it will be accessible as a concept but of course still not accessible to sensory experience or sensory perception.

To say it does not exist because it is not accessible to sensory experience or does not exist until it becomes a concept is erroneous.
Primitive man would have seen the importance of the sun to life. He would not have thought of, or known of, the importance of the anthropic principle in making life possible. It existed then as now, otherwise he would not have existed to think of anything.
There is no issue with the concept of phenomena.
Anything that is unknown and expected to be known, that is a 'possible-phenomena' [your example, sun, anthropic principle, electromagnetic force, and the likes].
Such 'possible-phenomena' cannot be noumena.

There is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion.
While awaiting to explain the "something-that-appear" as an illusion, he temporary agreed to call it the noumena. Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all.
if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (Phenomena),
........
in opposition to the former [Phenomena, sensible entities],
and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).

CPR B306
Having explained what is necessary for the phenomena, Kant moved on the explore what the 'noumena' in the land of illusion;
WE have now not merely explored the territory of Pure Understanding, and carefully surveyed every part of it, but have also measured its extent, and assigned to everything in it its rightful place.
This domain {Pure Understanding} is an island, enclosed by Nature itself within unalterable Limits. A236 B295
It [pure understanding] is the land of Truth -- enchanting name! -- surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the native home of Illusion, where many a fog bank and many a swiftly melting iceberg give the deceptive Appearance of farther shores, deluding the adventurous seafarer ever anew with empty hopes, and engaging him in enterprises which he can never abandon and yet is unable to carry to completion.
Hope you can grasp some idea from the above.
From the above the noumena is rename the thing-in-itself in a different phase which ultimately is an illusion which is impossible to be known.

For me PR however it is defined otherwise is uniting the known with the unknown. The known, or more easily known is phenomenal.
The abstract, or noumenon, or however one wants to define it will never be known to sense experience as to what the-thing-in-itself is. It will always be abstract as a concept but that does not mean that it is any less real for that, if as the anthropic principle it makes life possible, then its impact on life, is not an illusion or false rationalizing. It is information that adds to our understanding, though not to our sensory experience or our sensory perception.
The PR is triggered from an inherent psychological impulse, i.e. a jumping to a conclusion that there is something in an unknown thus generating dualism which is eternally not reconcilable.

Like anything else that one think, one can only think of the thing-in-itself but there is no possibility of the thing-in-itself be real or be known at all.

You are familiar with Russell's no man's land?
In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell famously characterized philosophy as follows:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html
  • Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
    Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
    All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
    all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

    But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
    Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)
The essence of PR is not in the mainstream of No Man's Land [philosophy] but merely at its outer boundary with theology.
Like theology, PR claims there is something independent of the human conditions.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:41 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:09 am
There is the "noumena" according to Kant as he had defined within his CPR.
For Kant the noumena is a necessary limiting concept of negative employment only.
As such, re Kant, the noumena should NEVER be reified as constitutively real.

The point as I had pointed out is,
in any discussion about 'appearances' that are perceived, there is a natural tendencies for the majority to reason there must be 'something that appear'.

To keep shut up the continual inquisitiveness Kant merely agreed to use the term 'noumena' as a limiting concept to represent the supposed "something that appear" so that he can focus on explaining all there is to the concept of appearances.
Once he had done that, subsequently he demonstrated the noumena is an illusion when reified.
Regarding "things in themselves' that's to say noumena. My preferred stance is that phenomena are all that is and there are no noumena. However I'd like to compare the idea of the noumenous with the idea of the plenum of possibility.
Yes, in reality there is only phenomena and no real noumena.

However Kant needed the idea of 'noumena' for his specific purpose in the whole context of the CPR.
Thanks. Could you possibly provide a synopsis that explains how the idea of the numenous fits in?
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:16 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:47 pm I will delete the duplicates when I figure it out. It kept asking me “Do you want to submit this”. I must have clicked Yes too many times.
Actually we cannot delete the post, only admin can do that.
What you can do is go into 'edit' mode and delete the full contents and replace it with say "post duplicated".
There are many views on what substance is, on what is phenomenal and what is noumenonal. The former as elemental substance accessible to sense perception is easily accessible. The latter is defined as a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Phenomena is not subject to controversy as it is easily accessible to sense perception. Noumenon if thought of as principles of nature, laws of nature etc. are not beyond the boundaries of abstract thought.
When known and classified conceptually it will be accessible as a concept but of course still not accessible to sensory experience or sensory perception.

To say it does not exist because it is not accessible to sensory experience or does not exist until it becomes a concept is erroneous.
Primitive man would have seen the importance of the sun to life. He would not have thought of, or known of, the importance of the anthropic principle in making life possible. It existed then as now, otherwise he would not have existed to think of anything.
There is no issue with the concept of phenomena.
Anything that is unknown and expected to be known, that is a 'possible-phenomena' [your example, sun, anthropic principle, electromagnetic force, and the likes].
Such 'possible-phenomena' cannot be noumena.

There is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion.
While awaiting to explain the "something-that-appear" as an illusion, he temporary agreed to call it the noumena. Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all.
if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (Phenomena),
........
in opposition to the former [Phenomena, sensible entities],
and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).

CPR B306
Having explained what is necessary for the phenomena, Kant moved on the explore what the 'noumena' in the land of illusion;
WE have now not merely explored the territory of Pure Understanding, and carefully surveyed every part of it, but have also measured its extent, and assigned to everything in it its rightful place.
This domain {Pure Understanding} is an island, enclosed by Nature itself within unalterable Limits. A236 B295
It [pure understanding] is the land of Truth -- enchanting name! -- surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the native home of Illusion, where many a fog bank and many a swiftly melting iceberg give the deceptive Appearance of farther shores, deluding the adventurous seafarer ever anew with empty hopes, and engaging him in enterprises which he can never abandon and yet is unable to carry to completion.
Hope you can grasp some idea from the above.
From the above the noumena is rename the thing-in-itself in a different phase which ultimately is an illusion which is impossible to be known.

For me PR however it is defined otherwise is uniting the known with the unknown. The known, or more easily known is phenomenal.
The abstract, or noumenon, or however one wants to define it will never be known to sense experience as to what the-thing-in-itself is. It will always be abstract as a concept but that does not mean that it is any less real for that, if as the anthropic principle it makes life possible, then its impact on life, is not an illusion or false rationalizing. It is information that adds to our understanding, though not to our sensory experience or our sensory perception.
The PR is triggered from an inherent psychological impulse, i.e. a jumping to a conclusion that there is something in an unknown thus generating dualism which is eternally not reconcilable.

Like anything else that one think, one can only think of the thing-in-itself but there is no possibility of the thing-in-itself be real or be known at all.

You are familiar with Russell's no man's land?
In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell famously characterized philosophy as follows:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html
  • Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
    Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
    All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
    all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

    But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
    Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)
The essence of PR is not in the mainstream of No Man's Land [philosophy] but merely at its outer boundary with theology.
Like theology, PR claims there is something independent of the human conditions.
It could be said that Kant put philosophy back together and allowed it to progress beyond the dead end of radical empiricism. Reality is not just out there but in the head shaped by the pure concepts and categories of the mind. Cause and effect resides not in things but in our understanding of our experience of them, that is Kant’s perspective. We can reason about what is out there but I would agree there is a gap between what we think we know and what is actually out there. I can accept all of that but can also posit that it will not always be so. Reason is limited, the intellect; intelligence less so, and the blueprint of nature; mathematics and the principles of nature, may be accessed through abstract thought, unless we think of them as inventions of abstract thought. To know; experience the-thing-in-itself is of course an impossibility. We can only have pure concepts and categories of the mind.

There is body/sensory-mind dualism. Sensory mind/Intelligence is a polarity with reason being the connecting link making inferences from sensory perception and abstract thought, thus making sense of the world.

If there is nothing independent of the human condition maybe man is the center of the universe after all as they understood was the case in the Renaissance motivating the concept of humanism. Russell thought philosophy should loosen its grip of uncritically held opinion and open the mind to a liberating range of new possibilities to explore. He was open-minded in that respect. He was in step with now current QM, seeing man as made up of events that ends when he does. He focused on theory and knowledge. His philosophy could be perceived as metaphysical Platonism which is quite enlightened. He was not a proponent of a philosophy that was materialist or reductionist.

Theists could agree with his perspective that a Deity could not be deduced by logical means. Another positive thing about him is that he saw science as having an obligation to the new world it was creating, plus his saying that sense data tell us nothing about the reality of the object and on being open to opposing views to avoid dogmatism. Also in understanding the value of philosophy lies not in any definite answers but in the questions themselves.

He agreed with Wittgenstein on the ambiguity of philosophical language and that perspective likely lead to analytical philosophy and linguistics.
Last edited by owl of Minerva on Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:16 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:47 pm I will delete the duplicates when I figure it out. It kept asking me “Do you want to submit this”. I must have clicked Yes too many times.
Actually we cannot delete the post, only admin can do that.
What you can do is go into 'edit' mode and delete the full contents and replace it with say "post duplicated".
There are many views on what substance is, on what is phenomenal and what is noumenonal. The former as elemental substance accessible to sense perception is easily accessible. The latter is defined as a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Phenomena is not subject to controversy as it is easily accessible to sense perception. Noumenon if thought of as principles of nature, laws of nature etc. are not beyond the boundaries of abstract thought.
When known and classified conceptually it will be accessible as a concept but of course still not accessible to sensory experience or sensory perception.

To say it does not exist because it is not accessible to sensory experience or does not exist until it becomes a concept is erroneous.
Primitive man would have seen the importance of the sun to life. He would not have thought of, or known of, the importance of the anthropic principle in making life possible. It existed then as now, otherwise he would not have existed to think of anything.
There is no issue with the concept of phenomena.
Anything that is unknown and expected to be known, that is a 'possible-phenomena' [your example, sun, anthropic principle, electromagnetic force, and the likes].
Such 'possible-phenomena' cannot be noumena.

There is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion.
While awaiting to explain the "something-that-appear" as an illusion, he temporary agreed to call it the noumena. Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all.
if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (Phenomena),
........
in opposition to the former [Phenomena, sensible entities],
and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).

CPR B306
Having explained what is necessary for the phenomena, Kant moved on the explore what the 'noumena' in the land of illusion;
WE have now not merely explored the territory of Pure Understanding, and carefully surveyed every part of it, but have also measured its extent, and assigned to everything in it its rightful place.
This domain {Pure Understanding} is an island, enclosed by Nature itself within unalterable Limits. A236 B295
It [pure understanding] is the land of Truth -- enchanting name! -- surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the native home of Illusion, where many a fog bank and many a swiftly melting iceberg give the deceptive Appearance of farther shores, deluding the adventurous seafarer ever anew with empty hopes, and engaging him in enterprises which he can never abandon and yet is unable to carry to completion.
Hope you can grasp some idea from the above.
From the above the noumena is rename the thing-in-itself in a different phase which ultimately is an illusion which is impossible to be known.

For me PR however it is defined otherwise is uniting the known with the unknown. The known, or more easily known is phenomenal.
The abstract, or noumenon, or however one wants to define it will never be known to sense experience as to what the-thing-in-itself is. It will always be abstract as a concept but that does not mean that it is any less real for that, if as the anthropic principle it makes life possible, then its impact on life, is not an illusion or false rationalizing. It is information that adds to our understanding, though not to our sensory experience or our sensory perception.
The PR is triggered from an inherent psychological impulse, i.e. a jumping to a conclusion that there is something in an unknown thus generating dualism which is eternally not reconcilable.

Like anything else that one think, one can only think of the thing-in-itself but there is no possibility of the thing-in-itself be real or be known at all.

You are familiar with Russell's no man's land?
In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell famously characterized philosophy as follows:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08 ... -land.html
  • Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
    Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
    All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
    all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

    But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
    Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)
The essence of PR is not in the mainstream of No Man's Land [philosophy] but merely at its outer boundary with theology.
Like theology, PR claims there is something independent of the human conditions.
It could be said that Kant put philosophy back together and allowed it to progress beyond the dead end of radical empiricism. Reality is not just out there but in the head shaped by the pure concepts and categories of the mind. Cause and effect resides not in things but in our understanding of our experience of them, that is Kant’s perspective. We can reason about what is out there but I would agree there is a gap between what we think we know and what is actually out there. I can accept all of that but can also posit that it will not always be so. Reason is limited, the intellect; intelligence less so, and the blueprint of nature; mathematics and the principles of nature, may be accessed through abstract thought, unless we think of them as inventions of abstract thought. To know; experience the-thing-in-itself is of course an impossibility. We can only have pure concepts and categories of the mind.

There is body/sensory-mind dualism. Sensory mind/Intelligence is a polarity with reason being the connecting link making inferences from sensory perception and abstract thought, thus making sense of the world.

If there is nothing independent of the human condition maybe man is the center of the universe after all as they understood was the case in the Renaissance motivating the concept of humanism. Russell thought philosophy should loosen its grip of uncritically held opinion and open the mind to a liberating range of new possibilities to explore. He was open-minded in that respect. He was in step with now current QM, seeing man as made up of events that ends when he does. He focused on theory and knowledge. His philosophy could be perceived as metaphysical Platonism which is quite enlightened. He was not a proponent of a philosophy that was materialist or reductionist.

Theists could agree with his perspective that a Deity could not be deduced by logical means. Another positive thing about him is that he saw science as having an obligation to the new world it was creating, plus his saying that sense data tell us nothing about the reality of the object and on being open to opposing views to avoid dogmatism. Also in understanding the value of philosophy lies not in any definite answers but in the questions themselves.

He agreed with Wittgenstein on the ambiguity of philosophical language and that perspective likely lead to analytical philosophy and linguistics.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:24 pm It could be said that Kant put philosophy back together and allowed it to progress beyond the dead end of radical empiricism. Reality is not just out there but in the head shaped by the pure concepts and categories of the mind. Cause and effect resides not in things but in our understanding of our experience of them, that is Kant’s perspective.
We can reason about what is out there but I would agree there is a gap between what we think we know and what is actually out there. I can accept all of that but can also posit that it will not always be so.
Reason is limited, the intellect; intelligence less so, and the blueprint of nature; mathematics and the principles of nature, may be accessed through abstract thought, unless we think of them as inventions of abstract thought.
To know; experience the-thing-in-itself is of course an impossibility. We can only have pure concepts and categories of the mind.
The problem is the conception of "what is actually out there."

According to Kant the conception of "what is actually out there" is conceived by 'reason', in this case is crude, raw or Pure Reason, thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
The point is 'critique' also use reason but in this case is based on more refined and higher more competent reason, i.e. rational and critical thinking.

Ever since philosophy began, humanity has the problem of "what is actually out there" but no answers nor confirmation is has been found.
Kant wanted to know [using higher reason] why do the majority are inclined towards the the conception of "what is actually out there," where is the source and origin of source conception. What are the limits to such a conception "what is actually out there."

One can gather the dilemma in Kant's 1st CPR Preface re the origin of the conception of 'what is out there?' which is impossible to be known nor realized.
Human Reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its Knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of Reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer.

The perplexity into which it thus falls is not due to any fault of its own.
It begins with Principles which it has no option save to employ in the course of Experience, and which this Experience at the same time abundantly justifies it in using.

Rising with their aid (since it is determined to this also by its own Nature) to ever higher, ever more remote, Conditions, it soon becomes aware that in this way the questions never ceasing its work must always remain incomplete;
and it therefore finds itself compelled to resort to Principles which overstep all Possible Empirical employment, and
which yet seem so unobjectionable that even ordinary Consciousness readily accepts them.
CPR Avii
The last point refer to why the "what is actually out there" despite being very problematic is somehow accepted.

There is body/sensory-mind dualism. Sensory mind/Intelligence is a polarity with reason being the connecting link making inferences from sensory perception and abstract thought, thus making sense of the world.
As I mentioned there are many hierarchy to the faculty of reason.
It is critical the higher critical reason must critique the conceptions of the lower levels of reason [pure, crude, raw].
If there is nothing independent of the human condition maybe man is the center of the universe after all as they understood was the case in the Renaissance motivating the concept of humanism. Russell thought philosophy should loosen its grip of uncritically held opinion and open the mind to a liberating range of new possibilities to explore. He was open-minded in that respect. He was in step with now current QM, seeing man as made up of events that ends when he does. He focused on theory and knowledge. His philosophy could be perceived as metaphysical Platonism which is quite enlightened. He was not a proponent of a philosophy that was materialist or reductionist.
To conclude that "man is the center of the universe" is a conception of the pure, crude, raw levels of the faculty of reason. This is immature reasoning, thus as you stated, resulting in 'humanism.'
Theists could agree with his perspective that a Deity could not be deduced by logical means. Another positive thing about him is that he saw science as having an obligation to the new world it was creating, plus his saying that sense data tell us nothing about the reality of the object and on being open to opposing views to avoid dogmatism. Also in understanding the value of philosophy lies not in any definite answers but in the questions themselves.

He agreed with Wittgenstein on the ambiguity of philosophical language and that perspective likely lead to analytical philosophy and linguistics.
Despite Russell's more sophisticated thoughts, he however cannot give up the reasoning 'there must be something out there' [not divine] that is objective. In this case he was ultimate a philosophical realist [his is of indirect realism].

OTOH, the anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] will rely of higher reason to simply give up the idea of 'there must be something out there' while understanding how such conception can be conceived and setting limits to such a thought.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:41 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:53 pm
Regarding "things in themselves' that's to say noumena. My preferred stance is that phenomena are all that is and there are no noumena. However I'd like to compare the idea of the noumenous with the idea of the plenum of possibility.
Yes, in reality there is only phenomena and no real noumena.

However Kant needed the idea of 'noumena' for his specific purpose in the whole context of the CPR.
Thanks. Could you possibly provide a synopsis that explains how the idea of the numenous fits in?
Kant's Vision and Mission is summarized as follows'
  • 1. What can we know? epistemology, science, mathematics, etc.
    2. What can we do/act? Morality and Ethics
    3. What can we hope for? Well-being & Perpetual Peace.
What we can know [1] is the phenomena world.

But there is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.
see the reference to CPR Avii in the above post.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion which nevertheless is a useful concept. [a limiting concept of negative employment, B311]

While awaiting to explain the concept of "something-that-appear" as an illusion and that such is illusion is nevertheless necessary for [2 What can we do/act] he temporary agreed to call it the noumena [opp. phenomena].
Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all but nevertheless it can be thought and useful for the purpose of [2].
Thus the noumena should never be reified as real constitutively.

Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].

From [2] i.e. Freedom based Morality and Ethics, Kant demonstrate how that will lead to the well-being and perpetual peace for humanity.

Thus to achieve Kant's Vision and Mission, he linked phenomena [experience] to noumenal, then to the thing-in-itself [Freedom] to ultimately perpetual peace.
Without the noumena is the above context Kant's perpetual peace will not be realized within reality in time [future, not now].
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:50 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:24 pm It could be said that Kant put philosophy back together and allowed it to progress beyond the dead end of radical empiricism. Reality is not just out there but in the head shaped by the pure concepts and categories of the mind. Cause and effect resides not in things but in our understanding of our experience of them, that is Kant’s perspective.
We can reason about what is out there but I would agree there is a gap between what we think we know and what is actually out there. I can accept all of that but can also posit that it will not always be so.
Reason is limited, the intellect; intelligence less so, and the blueprint of nature; mathematics and the principles of nature, may be accessed through abstract thought, unless we think of them as inventions of abstract thought.
To know; experience the-thing-in-itself is of course an impossibility. We can only have pure concepts and categories of the mind.
The problem is the conception of "what is actually out there."

According to Kant the conception of "what is actually out there" is conceived by 'reason', in this case is crude, raw or Pure Reason, thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
The point is 'critique' also use reason but in this case is based on more refined and higher more competent reason, i.e. rational and critical thinking.

Ever since philosophy began, humanity has the problem of "what is actually out there" but no answers nor confirmation is has been found.
Kant wanted to know [using higher reason] why do the majority are inclined towards the the conception of "what is actually out there," where is the source and origin of source conception. What are the limits to such a conception "what is actually out there."

One can gather the dilemma in Kant's 1st CPR Preface re the origin of the conception of 'what is out there?' which is impossible to be known nor realized.
Human Reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its Knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of Reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer.

The perplexity into which it thus falls is not due to any fault of its own.
It begins with Principles which it has no option save to employ in the course of Experience, and which this Experience at the same time abundantly justifies it in using.

Rising with their aid (since it is determined to this also by its own Nature) to ever higher, ever more remote, Conditions, it soon becomes aware that in this way the questions never ceasing its work must always remain incomplete;
and it therefore finds itself compelled to resort to Principles which overstep all Possible Empirical employment, and
which yet seem so unobjectionable that even ordinary Consciousness readily accepts them.
CPR Avii
The last point refer to why the "what is actually out there" despite being very problematic is somehow accepted.

There is body/sensory-mind dualism. Sensory mind/Intelligence is a polarity with reason being the connecting link making inferences from sensory perception and abstract thought, thus making sense of the world.
As I mentioned there are many hierarchy to the faculty of reason.
It is critical the higher critical reason must critique the conceptions of the lower levels of reason [pure, crude, raw].
If there is nothing independent of the human condition maybe man is the center of the universe after all as they understood was the case in the Renaissance motivating the concept of humanism. Russell thought philosophy should loosen its grip of uncritically held opinion and open the mind to a liberating range of new possibilities to explore. He was open-minded in that respect. He was in step with now current QM, seeing man as made up of events that ends when he does. He focused on theory and knowledge. His philosophy could be perceived as metaphysical Platonism which is quite enlightened. He was not a proponent of a philosophy that was materialist or reductionist.
To conclude that "man is the center of the universe" is a conception of the pure, crude, raw levels of the faculty of reason. This is immature reasoning, thus as you stated, resulting in 'humanism.'
Theists could agree with his perspective that a Deity could not be deduced by logical means. Another positive thing about him is that he saw science as having an obligation to the new world it was creating, plus his saying that sense data tell us nothing about the reality of the object and on being open to opposing views to avoid dogmatism. Also in understanding the value of philosophy lies not in any definite answers but in the questions themselves.

He agreed with Wittgenstein on the ambiguity of philosophical language and that perspective likely lead to analytical philosophy and linguistics.
Despite Russell's more sophisticated thoughts, he however cannot give up the reasoning 'there must be something out there' [not divine] that is objective. In this case he was ultimate a philosophical realist [his is of indirect realism].

OTOH, the anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] will rely of higher reason to simply give up the idea of 'there must be something out there' while understanding how such conception can be conceived and setting limits to such a thought.
According to Heraclitus: “We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own. “

That is true. Still it is better that there are different views than that one dogmatic view prevails.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:57 pm According to Heraclitus: “We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own. “

That is true. Still it is better that there are different views than that one dogmatic view prevails.
I noted Heraclitus is anti-Philosophical-Realism with his "no man can step into the same river twice."

Re Logos [reason]
Although he was primarily concerned with explanations of the world around him, Heraclitus also stressed the need for people to live together in social harmony. He complained that most people failed to comprehend the logos (Greek: “reason”), the universal principle through which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of the world.
A significant manifestation of the logos, Heraclitus claimed, is the underlying connection between opposites.
For example, health and disease define each other. Good and evil, hot and cold, and other opposites are similarly related.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Heraclitus
If opposites are related [per Heraclitus] then what is "out-there" cannot be absolutely independent of "in-here".
PR claims what is "out-there" is absolutely independent of "in-here
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:32 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:41 am
Yes, in reality there is only phenomena and no real noumena.

However Kant needed the idea of 'noumena' for his specific purpose in the whole context of the CPR.
Thanks. Could you possibly provide a synopsis that explains how the idea of the numenous fits in?
Kant's Vision and Mission is summarized as follows'
  • 1. What can we know? epistemology, science, mathematics, etc.
    2. What can we do/act? Morality and Ethics
    3. What can we hope for? Well-being & Perpetual Peace.
What we can know [1] is the phenomena world.

But there is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.
see the reference to CPR Avii in the above post.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion which nevertheless is a useful concept. [a limiting concept of negative employment, B311]

While awaiting to explain the concept of "something-that-appear" as an illusion and that such is illusion is nevertheless necessary for [2 What can we do/act] he temporary agreed to call it the noumena [opp. phenomena].
Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all but nevertheless it can be thought and useful for the purpose of [2].
Thus the noumena should never be reified as real constitutively.

Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].

From [2] i.e. Freedom based Morality and Ethics, Kant demonstrate how that will lead to the well-being and perpetual peace for humanity.

Thus to achieve Kant's Vision and Mission, he linked phenomena [experience] to noumenal, then to the thing-in-itself [Freedom] to ultimately perpetual peace.
Without the noumena is the above context Kant's perpetual peace will not be realized within reality in time [future, not now].
Thanks, Veritas Aequitas.
In the light of your synopsis I wonder if
Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].
is the same as man's aspirations towards transcendent virtues , or towards the transcendent good.
Post Reply