Thanks, but I don't think your version helps. If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear-but-are-full-fat-only-if-they-are-experiences) is incoherent. (And what is a semi-skimmed phenomenon?)Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:53 pmNot only is there no such thing as the noumenal, neither is there such as thing as a fully formed phenomenal world apart from experiences. Not only is Peter a bundle of experiences, he is nothing but a bundle of experiences. Experiences are limited not by a real world but by possibility. All phenomenal worlds are experiences or they are nothing.Experiences and only experiences are reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:32 am VA
Have another go at the following assertion. You didn't understand the point about incoherence last time.
If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.
(VA either won't or can't address this. But can any other Kantian here straighten me out?)
Ethics are true only if they are possible to achieve as experiences. For instance we'd say that to work a magical solution to an ethical problem is neither true nor untrue but is nonsense. Also an ethic is true only if it is coherent. The fact is, we don't know which ethics cohere with Nature /God, and we men are in the scary situation of having to find that out for ourselves.
Christians believe that we have an actual pattern of ethical behaviour in the life of Christ.
The femur in my right leg is not 'an experience'. And neither is that rock on that planet orbiting that star on the other side of the universe. Enough with the claptrap already.