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.