Depends what you mean by the inside of your head.
PS
Your sentence is an instruction. Imperatives have exclamation marks, not question marks. If you want to ask a question you need to drop the "explain".
Depends what you mean by the inside of your head.
What Kant did was to point out, as Descartes had done, was that all that is certain is that there are phenomena. Any first year philosophy student can tell you that Descartes' argument collapses the moment that he introduces god as justification for his 'clear and distinct ideas'. Kant understood that leap couldn't be justified by any phenomenon; so rather than attribute the cause of phenomena to any specific agent, he simply applied the term noumenon to whatever the cause may be. Every conceivable cause, and not a few which are obviously completely batshit, has been explored by some philosopher, scientist or 'mystic'. Everyone is free to decide which story they find most compelling, but that is an aesthetic choice. Anyone who closes their mind to alternative hypotheses is misguided and quite possibly a nutcase.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'.
I studied Kant's CPR full time for 3 years so I know Kant reasonably well.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'.
It well may be Hex but have you actually read him?
It is an exact and accurate factual statement.
Yeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
Hmm guess studying Kant is a mistake. Even if he was a revolutionary Western thinker at that time.seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:07 pmTo reference Wiki again:
We cannot know the true status of any phenomenal object (as it really is) independent of our observation of it.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.
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.
_______
It is insane to assume that phenomena have a 'cause'. Why would anyone do that?uwot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:49 amWhat Kant did was to point out, as Descartes had done, was that all that is certain is that there are phenomena. Any first year philosophy student can tell you that Descartes' argument collapses the moment that he introduces god as justification for his 'clear and distinct ideas'. Kant understood that leap couldn't be justified by any phenomenon; so rather than attribute the cause of phenomena to any specific agent, he simply applied the term noumenon to whatever the cause may be. Every conceivable cause, and not a few which are obviously completely batshit, has been explored by some philosopher, scientist or 'mystic'. Everyone is free to decide which story they find most compelling, but that is an aesthetic choice. Anyone who closes their mind to alternative hypotheses is misguided and quite possibly a nutcase.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'.
And by the way, if you contend that there exist such things as human heads as the arena for phenomena, then you are a dualist.
You are not doing philosophy. You are just expressing your personal opinions. And if you wish to worship at the shrine of St. Kant.. well that is fine with me.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pmIt is an exact and accurate factual statement.
As for the content - Millions disagree with you, most of them likely to have a lot more intelligence than your saintly self.
For myself and many others Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. And I refer you back to the statement about others not knowing what he is talking about is a more likely truth than Kant being "nonsense".
What have you contributed to the thread?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pmYou are not doing philosophy. You are just expressing your personal opinions. And if you wish to worship at the shrine of St. Kant.. well that is fine with me.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pmIt is an exact and accurate factual statement.
As for the content - Millions disagree with you, most of them likely to have a lot more intelligence than your saintly self.
For myself and many others Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. And I refer you back to the statement about others not knowing what he is talking about is a more likely truth than Kant being "nonsense".
Yes I am ignorant .. and stupid.. but not so stupid as to believe stuff that isn't true nor to try to make sense of nonsense.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:56 pmWhat have you contributed to the thread?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pmYou are not doing philosophy. You are just expressing your personal opinions. And if you wish to worship at the shrine of St. Kant.. well that is fine with me.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pm
It is an exact and accurate factual statement.
As for the content - Millions disagree with you, most of them likely to have a lot more intelligence than your saintly self.
For myself and many others Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all time. And I refer you back to the statement about others not knowing what he is talking about is a more likely truth than Kant being "nonsense".
Nothing.
I do not give a flying flamingo what you think of Kant as I am pretty sure you are utterly ignorant of anything he wrote.
- irrelevantArising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:29 amIt well may be Hex but have you actually read him?
The reason why some have to read Kant and the other Germans is that they are studying Continental Philosophy and as such he was a larger stone in the pond and was addressing previous thoughts and was the cause of many later replies. So to understand them you really need to attempt to get a grip with him. Now you don't need to as there is the Anglo/American Analytic tradition in Philosophy and the Germans are a very, very difficult read to English ears.
By the by, the clock is ticking on your second coming prophecy.What will you do when it doesn't happen?
I interpret the "tribulations" as the wars in the middle east, right now there's peace talks and it seems the wars will be cut short.Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven"