Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:42 am
You are the one who is not getting it.
For Kant the distinction Phenomena vs Noumena is critical to expose philosophical realists [like you regardless of your denial] in claiming there are "things that exist independent of human opinions and beliefs" which Kant labelled as 'noumena'.
The use of the term 'phenomena' is incoherent, because it makes no sense to call something an appearance if there's nothing of which it's an appearance. If there are no noumena, the term 'phenomena' makes a distinction which doesn't obtain. As you put it, there are only 'the real things' - which makes you a realist after all.
The term 'phenomena' is a common term to denote things that are observable, verifiable and justifiable via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK. In this case, the term 'phenomena' make sense, i.e. empirical and scientific sense. Phenomena 'obtain' in relation to the scientific framework.
In your case, you are claiming there is more to 'phenomena' which is 'fact,' the thing that is a feature of reality [states of affairs] which is independent of human opinions and beliefs, i.e. independent [not entangled] of the scientific framework.
To Kant, what you are claiming as 'fact' i.e. fact independent of human conditions, is an illusory thing which Kant labelled as 'noumena'.
You are very ignorant to insist the term 'phenomena' is incoherent without the 'noumena' which you are inferring from crude logic.
The term 'phenomena' is VERY real but it has to be entangled with a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
You cannot deny there are phenomena like hurricanes, volcanic erruptions, earthquakes, suns, planets, physical things, etc. which can be verified and justified by Science.
Yes, I claim there are 'real things' but they are not independent of the human conditions but emerged with the human conditions, e.g. within the scientific framework.
In this sense I am an Empirical Realist [not a philosophical realist] which is entangled with empirical evidences, verification and justifications within the credible scientific FSK.
The claim that realists believe in the existence of things-in-themselves is a straw man - a product of Kant's argument. Realists have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. Outside Kantian blather, the expression has no discernable meaning.
You think you have no idea what a thing-in-itself is?
Surely you should be aware, you are claiming [ignorantly and dogmatically] there are "real" things which are independent of humans' beliefs and opinion, thus not entangled with the human conditions at all.
This is precisely a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves you are insisting on and believing in, so how can you deny that?
In this case you are philosophical realist [independent of real thing] not an empirical realist [entangled with real things
emergently].