Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:38 pm

According to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses.
The quantum realm is something that is “posited” by physicists as existing, but it can never be directly experienced (as it really is) by our senses.
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
...some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.
Just so that we can understand what you are getting at, please name and describe a specific noumenon that is directly knowable by our senses.
_______

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:42 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:38 pm
The quantum realm is something that is “posited” by physicists as existing, but it can never be directly experienced (as it really is) by our senses.
You experience uncertainty, don't you? That's a quantum phenomenon.

Is it going to rain tomorrow? Yes and no.
seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:38 pm
Just so that we can understand what you are getting at, please name and describe a specific noumenon that is directly knowable by our senses.
Love. Beauty. Compassion. Solidarity. Pain. Sorrow. The full range of human emotions.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:51 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:38 pm
The quantum realm is something that is “posited” by physicists as existing, but it can never be directly experienced (as it really is) by our senses.
Total bullshit, but we've been through this 1-2 times already.
The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
Okay, but then the noumenon is not a thing-in-itself. It's a thing-in-itself beyond human perception. And the phenomenon is a thing-in-itself, or the appearance of a thing-in-itself (or both at the same time), accessible to human perception (or is human experience itself).

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:03 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:51 pm
Okay, but then the noumenon is not a thing-in-itself. It's a thing-in-itself beyond human perception. And the phenomenon is a thing-in-itself, or the appearance of a thing-in-itself (or both at the same time), accessible to human perception (or is human experience itself).
You are just tripping up over undistributed middle.

There are two categories:
A. Noumena
B. Phenomena

In which category does "perception" go into?

Neither the dualist nor the monist can answer this one without contradicting themselves.

The way to side-step Kant is the Token/Type distinction.

A phenomenon is a type. A noumenon is a token, which leads to other problems down the road - reification fallacies.

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:00 pm

Wiki wrote: The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:51 pm
Okay, but then the noumenon is not a thing-in-itself. It's a thing-in-itself beyond human perception. And the phenomenon is a thing-in-itself, or the appearance of a thing-in-itself, accessible to human perception.
Atla, you completely avoided my question.

You clearly and unequivocally stated that “...some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.”

So once again I will ask you to please name and describe a specific noumenon that is “directly knowable” (perceptible) to our senses.

(P.S., and I ask that question knowing full well that we are discussing the ancient blatherings (guesswork) of a fallible human (Kant) who may or may not have had the slightest clue if what he was talking about has any true correlation with reality.)
_______

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:00 pm
Wiki wrote: The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:51 pm
Okay, but then the noumenon is not a thing-in-itself. It's a thing-in-itself beyond human perception. And the phenomenon is a thing-in-itself, or the appearance of a thing-in-itself, accessible to human perception.
Atla, you completely avoided my question.

You clearly and unequivocally stated that “...some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.”

So once again I will ask you to please name and describe a specific noumenon that is “directly knowable” (perceptible) to our senses.

(P.S., and I ask that question knowing full well that we are discussing the ancient blatherings (guesswork) of a fallible human (Kant) who may or may not have had the slightest clue if what he was talking about has any true correlation with reality.)
_______
If 'noumenon' means thing-in-itself, then all human experiences are noumena (but our 'senses' / 'perceptions' don't necessarily come into play).
Last edited by Atla on Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:13 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:00 pm
Wiki wrote: The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
Do 'sense' and 'perception' exist as noumena or phenomena?

Categories cause contradictions.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm

Atla wrote:
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.
FFS
The claim that Noumena are in your head is utterly solipsistic. The claim that all phenomena are noumena is ignorant.
For "solipsism" consult a dictionary.
FOr Kant you might as well give up, as I doubt you are able to grasp what he is trying to say.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:06 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:48 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:26 am


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.
FFS
The claim that Noumena are in your head is utterly solipsistic. The claim that all phenomena are noumena is ignorant.
For "solipsism" consult a dictionary.
FOr Kant you might as well give up, as I doubt you are able to grasp what he is trying to say.
What, you thought I meant that the world is in my head?

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:08 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm
The claim that Noumena are in your head is utterly solipsistic.
It's only solipsistic when you strawman the argument.

The argument is that everything in your head is made of noumena. Atoms, leptons, quarks, energy - all the physical stuff.
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm
The claim that all phenomena are noumena is ignorant.
Which is why nobody is making that claim. The claim is that some phenomena are noumena.

Pain is one example. And even that rule has exceptions.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:09 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:06 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:48 am

I have nothing to do with solipsism, don't comment if you don't have a fucking clue.
FFS
The claim that Noumena are in your head is utterly solipsistic. The claim that all phenomena are noumena is ignorant.
For "solipsism" consult a dictionary.
FOr Kant you might as well give up, as I doubt you are able to grasp what he is trying to say.
What, you thought I meant that the world is in my head?
You might want to try to type that again.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:13 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:09 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:06 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 pm

FFS
The claim that Noumena are in your head is utterly solipsistic. The claim that all phenomena are noumena is ignorant.
For "solipsism" consult a dictionary.
FOr Kant you might as well give up, as I doubt you are able to grasp what he is trying to say.
What, you thought I meant that the world is in my head?
You might want to try to type that again.
Explain why the inside of the head isn't a thing-in-itself?

Impenitent
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Impenitent » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:25 pm

the inside of the head depends on the size of the boat...

-Imp

seeds
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:07 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 pm
If 'noumenon' means thing-in-itself, then all human experiences are noumena (but our 'senses' / 'perceptions' don't necessarily come into play).
To reference Wiki again:
Wiki wrote: The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation.
We cannot know the true status of any phenomenal object (as it really is) independent of our observation of it.

Now if you want to assume that an apple always retains its apple features when it is no longer being observed by any form of consciousness whatsoever, then you are free to make that assumption.

However, consider the three-dimensional image of an apple that you observe during a vivid dream.

The question is: does that dream apple retain its apple features after you awaken from the dream?

In other words, are there fully-formed images of apples (or cars, or trees, or houses, etc.) floating around in the ether of your mind?

Or, when you are no longer observing them, do those 3-D phenomenal dream structures exist in some kind of informationally-based context that bears no resemblance to the actual objects?

If that is indeed a possibility, then that (IMO) would represent the “noumenal” aspect of the dream apple.

The point is that the same question can be applied to the phenomenal features of the universe.
_______

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:40 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:07 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 pm
If 'noumenon' means thing-in-itself, then all human experiences are noumena (but our 'senses' / 'perceptions' don't necessarily come into play).
To reference Wiki again:
Wiki wrote: The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation.
We cannot know the true status of any phenomenal object (as it really is) independent of our observation of it.

Now if you want to assume that an apple always retains its apple features when it is no longer being observed by any form of consciousness whatsoever, then you are free to make that assumption.

However, consider the three-dimensional image of an apple that you observe during a vivid dream.

The question is: does that dream apple retain its apple features after you awaken from the dream?

In other words, are there fully-formed images of apples (or cars, or trees, or houses, etc.) floating around in the ether of your mind?

Or, when you are no longer observing them, do those 3-D phenomenal dream structures exist in some kind of informationally-based context that bears no resemblance to the actual objects?

If that is indeed a possibility, then that (IMO) would represent the “noumenal” aspect of the dream apple.

The point is that the same question can be applied to the phenomenal features of the universe.
You are arguing against a strawman.

Is your experience of pain a noumenon of a phenomenon?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seeds and 10 guests