Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:24 pm

Atla wrote:
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

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?
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".

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Kant

Post by uwot » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:49 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'.
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.
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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:23 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'.
I studied Kant's CPR full time for 3 years so I know Kant reasonably well.

Phenomena [empirical] are constituted by various elements and 'appearances' is one of those constituents.

Is it well known appearances of a thing [object] is very subjective to the subject's mind, so the quest is what is the real thing that is not dependent on appearances and other subjective elements [the realist position].
Note the Problem re the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth

In a quest of this sort, it is inevitable one will be chasing turtles all the way thus to nowhere.
To stop from chasing turtles all the way, Kant propose we assume [with reasonable justifications] the ultimate real empirical thing is the noumenon. This 'noumenon' will be like a ceiling concept to stop endless speculation so that one can gather a reasonably complete knowledge what is an an empirical thing.

Kant's intention for the noumenon is merely an assumption and limitation to a partial stage to his thesis, thus not to confirm there is something or an object in the positive sense.
  • The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

    At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.

    CPR - B311
Note 'field of sensibility' is the empirical world.

Once Kant has exhausted justifying what is the empirical, he shifted the concept of the noumenon [empirical assumption] to the idea of thing-in-itself within the sphere of thoughts and reason [the Understanding], i.e. that of ideas.
Here is where Kant demonstrated how theists jumped off [are duped] from ungrounded sensibility to reify the idea [thing-in-itself] as a real God when in fact this is merely an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion.
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
    They [things-in-themselves] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion [thing-in-itself], which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
    B397
In the last statement, there is an implication of psychology involved in the above.

The conclusion from Kant is there is no real noumenon and no real thing-in-itself.
What Kant concluded is reality is conditioned upon the human condition [psychology involved] as when he first hypothesized in his Copernican Revolution, i.e.
  • We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
    ..
    We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
    Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.
    (B xvi)
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Kant

Post by A_Seagull » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:49 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:22 am
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.
That is not even an argument. Its just nonsense, Kantian nonsense if you like.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11929
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Kant

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:29 am

HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
It 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?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:49 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:22 am
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.
That is not even an argument. Its just nonsense, Kantian nonsense if you like.
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".

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:19 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
So, in what way EXACTLY do you think KANT is out of date?

Atla
Posts: 2376
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
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.

There is just reality. And the part of reality in our head is both a 'representation' and an 'ultimate real thing' at the same time. Not sure if he really got this, seems like he categorized this part as one or the other, but not both.

Atla
Posts: 2376
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:13 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.
_______
Hmm guess studying Kant is a mistake. Even if he was a revolutionary Western thinker at that time.

Atla
Posts: 2376
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:25 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:49 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'.
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.
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.
It is insane to assume that phenomena have a 'cause'. Why would anyone do that?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Kant

Post by A_Seagull » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:49 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:22 am
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.
That is not even an argument. Its just nonsense, Kantian nonsense if you like.
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".
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.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:56 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:49 am


That is not even an argument. Its just nonsense, Kantian nonsense if you like.
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".
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.
What have you contributed to the thread?
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.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Kant

Post by A_Seagull » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:04 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:56 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pm
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".
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.
What have you contributed to the thread?
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.
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.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:56 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:29 am
HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
It 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?
- irrelevant
- irrelevant
- I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE TIMING!! SORRY!!! ..didn't read the verse about
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"
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nothing and 3 guests