Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Kant

Post by Atla » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm

Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Kant

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:26 am

Mind dependent phenomena such as thoughts cannot be noumena because they not are independent of perception
Therefore only objects or events or experiences that exist independently of perception can be classed as noumena

All mind independent phenomena are noumena so noumena are a sub set of phenomena [ where phenomena is
defined as anything which physically exists regardless of whether or not it can actually be perceived by minds ]

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:26 am
Mind dependent phenomena such as thoughts cannot be noumena because they not are independent of perception
Therefore only objects or events or experiences that exist independently of perception can be classed as noumena

All mind independent phenomena are noumena so noumena are a sub set of phenomena [ where phenomena is
defined as anything which physically exists regardless of whether or not it can actually be perceived by minds ]
Is that what he said? So unnecessarily convoluted and inside out..

And it seems to lead to the conclusion that mind is physical (so mental = physical, which would render both categories meaningless, and yet we still have them). Unless he meant that mind percieves all phenomena, which would make no sense.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Kant

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 am

Kant said many things but in this case I guess you'll be talking about this.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

So read him for yourself and get back to us with your critique. See you in about a year or so as German into English makes for a hard read philosophically.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:04 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 am
Kant said many things but in this case I guess you'll be talking about this.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

So read him for yourself and get back to us with your critique. See you in about a year or so as German into English makes for a hard read philosophically.
You waste a year reading it. My question can be answered in a few sentences, if Kant knew what he was talking about.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:22 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:04 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 am
Kant said many things but in this case I guess you'll be talking about this.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

So read him for yourself and get back to us with your critique. See you in about a year or so as German into English makes for a hard read philosophically.
You waste a year reading it. My question can be answered in a few sentences, if Kant knew what he was talking about.
Since the CofPR, written by Kant, is not a book of facts, but an argument, then it is a necessary conclusion that Kant, above all others, DID know what he is talking about. The problem is whether or not YOU know what Kant is talking about.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
No, Kant was way ahead of you.
Since you are not a brain in a vat, and simply do not have the power to invent Kant; Kant must comprise of something that is NOT just in your head.

The divide between phenomena and noumena, is not directly related to your solipsistic angst. It is about an epistemological question related to what we can know of the world.
Phenomena are what is available to the senses, and the Noumena are what is not directly available.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:30 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Is this a genuine question? Are you not aware that all philosophies are contingent?

If you have studied philosophy then you ought to know that self-contradiction (or rather - contradicting the self out of existence) is the norm, not the exception. So why are you surprised?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:32 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 am
The divide between phenomena and noumena, is not directly related to your solipsistic angst. It is about an epistemological question related to what we can know of the world.
We are of the world. So if self-knowledge is possible then we can know some things of the world.

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 am
Phenomena are what is available to the senses, and the Noumena are what is not directly available.
Thus begging the question: is perception a noumenon or a phenomenon?

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:48 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
No, Kant was way ahead of you.
Since you are not a brain in a vat, and simply do not have the power to invent Kant; Kant must comprise of something that is NOT just in your head.

The divide between phenomena and noumena, is not directly related to your solipsistic angst. It is about an epistemological question related to what we can know of the world.
Phenomena are what is available to the senses, and the Noumena are what is not directly available.
I have nothing to do with solipsism, don't comment if you don't have a fucking clue.
Last edited by Atla on Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:51 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:30 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Is this a genuine question? Are you not aware that all philosophies are contingent?

If you have studied philosophy then you ought to know that self-contradiction (or rather - contradicting the self out of existence) is the norm, not the exception. So why are you surprised?
I can't tell if he understood or not cause I don't have time studying him. What I can tell is that most people see phenomena and noumena as 'too' distinct yet also see Kant as a hero.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:27 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:51 am
I can't tell if he understood or not cause I don't have time studying him. What I can tell is that most people see phenomena and noumena as 'too' distinct yet also see Kant as a hero.
If he truly understood it, he's not really 'allowed' to say it.

For the benefit of the audience, he ought not say it. An audience that doesn't understand this would trivially dismiss his work on a contradiction.

The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Kant

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:22 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).... [\quote]You didn't.
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
As you are aptly demonstrating.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:19 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:22 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly)....
You didn't.
Care to elaborate on this objection? That's also the way I interpret Kant.

Temporally I understand it as "Noumena cause phenomena".
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:20 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:22 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).... [\quote]You didn't.
But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
As you are aptly demonstrating.
According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

So this quote is wrong?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests