Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Kant

Post by seeds » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:09 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:11 pm
You could see memory that way if you wish, but where does Kant bring that into the argument please?
You do realize that I was supporting your assertions against Skepdick’s nonsense, right?

Nevertheless, in response to your question, of course Kant never expressed the phenomena/noumena dichotomy in quite the way offered by me.

However (IMO), the parallel in meaning seems obvious, in that we can never know the true status (i.e., as it really is) of an unobserved object in our mind, or that of an unobserved object in the universe.

Please read the following definition of Kant’s “thing-in-itself” from Wictionary:
Wictionary wrote: thing-in-itself
Noun.

thing-in-itself (plural things-in-themselves)

(from Kantian philosophy on) A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

Synonym: noumenon
Antonym: phenomenon
And then this from the Collins English Dictionary:
Collins Dictionary wrote: thing-in-itself
noun

(in the philosophy of Kant) an element of the noumenal rather than the phenomenal world, of which the senses give no knowledge but whose bare existence can be inferred from the nature of experience
With the above definitions in mind, one example I like to use for visualizing the meaning of the term “noumenon” can be seen in the Double Slit Experiment.

When a series of single electrons are shot through the double slits, what transpires in the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the detection screen is the perfect example of something that is “postulated by practical reason”...

(in other words, postulated as something that had spread-out into a wave by reason of the phenomenally observable interference pattern on the screen)

...but, at the time of transit, existed in a condition which is in principle unknowable and (especially) unexperienceable with our senses.

And the point is that it is literally impossible for us to directly know, or to directly experience (again, with our five senses) the true status of the electrons - (as they really are) - as they travel from wall-to-screen.

Even though we know (by “practical reasoning”) that something about the electrons is waving, we can only “infer” what is really taking place.

Now granted, I may be taking a bit of license with Kantian terminology, however, to me, the above analogy seems like a fairly simple way of helping us to visualize the meaning of the word “noumenon.”
_______

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:17 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 am

Not sure of your point.

My point is, the "thing-in-itself" is a transcendental illusion generated in the real minds of the majority [theists and others] living in a real world.

Empirical illusions are not real and we can know them when they are explained to us, e.g. bent-stick in water, curved parallel lines, snake-rope in the shade, etc.
Transcendental illusions [thing-in-itself] are mental-logical-illusions that are triggered subliminally deep in the mind.

After a very long winded argument, Kant reduced the thing-in-itself into only 3 main ones, i.e.
  • 1. God -Absolute
    2. a soul that survives physical death
    3. The WHOLE Universe.
You know what, we probably use 'real' in a completely different sense.

To me, you appear to be saying that the "whole universe" can't possibly exist. So do over 99% of cosmologists, physicists etc. suffer from an illusion triggered deep in the mind?

On second thought, you seem to use almost every crucial word differently.
Note Popper stated, scientific theories by scientists are merely polished conjectures.
No cosmologists, physicists would dare to claim the 'WHOLE' Universes in the absolute sense which is 100% completeness and 'perfection'.

Generally when the term 'whole' is used in the completeness sense, it is merely a sweeping statement.

Kant argued convincingly in the CPR why 'WHOLE' is an illusion and thus impossible to be real.
Oh okay, we use 'whole' completely differently too.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Alison versus Guyer -both are experts on Kant with at least 40+ years on studying Kant's ultimate of the thing-in-itself. Both disagree with each other i.e. 100% opposite view, so one of them is right and the other did not understood Kant fully or both are wrong.
Maybe this is the most telling takeaway here, no one knows precisely what Kant meant, because either he couldn't express himself properly or he didn't precisely knew either.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:00 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Alison versus Guyer -both are experts on Kant with at least 40+ years on studying Kant's ultimate of the thing-in-itself. Both disagree with each other i.e. 100% opposite view, so one of them is right and the other did not understood Kant fully or both are wrong.
Maybe this is the most telling takeaway here, no one knows precisely what Kant meant, because either he couldn't express himself properly or he didn't precisely knew either.
Kant's argument involved loads of very refined nuances and one need very deep reflection of sieve them out in their proper perspectives.
Guyer is of the analytic school and thus was caught in duality and philosophical realism, i.e. there must be something to the thing-in-itself despite Kant's insistence we cannot reify anything out of the thing-in-itself.

What I have access to is the more refined nuances of Eastern philosophy and I am able to reconciled them with Kant's thing-in-itself as a transcendental illusion.

As Kant stated,
  • 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
Point is the basic human is evolved with 'there cannot be nothing' thus the idea of nothingness [the fundamental is an illusion] will mock and and torment the majority that there must be 'something' regardless.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:00 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Alison versus Guyer -both are experts on Kant with at least 40+ years on studying Kant's ultimate of the thing-in-itself. Both disagree with each other i.e. 100% opposite view, so one of them is right and the other did not understood Kant fully or both are wrong.
Maybe this is the most telling takeaway here, no one knows precisely what Kant meant, because either he couldn't express himself properly or he didn't precisely knew either.
Kant's argument involved loads of very refined nuances and one need very deep reflection of sieve them out in their proper perspectives.
Guyer is of the analytic school and thus was caught in duality and philosophical realism, i.e. there must be something to the thing-in-itself despite Kant's insistence we cannot reify anything out of the thing-in-itself.

What I have access to is the more refined nuances of Eastern philosophy and I am able to reconciled them with Kant's thing-in-itself as a transcendental illusion.

As Kant stated,
  • 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
Point is the basic human is evolved with 'there cannot be nothing' thus the idea of nothingness [the fundamental is an illusion] will mock and and torment the majority that there must be 'something' regardless.
There is something rather than nothing (in the neutral sense), that's pretty much the only thing we can be certain about.

Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:07 am
To be completely honest, I never studied Kant to any great extent other than reading interpretations of some of his key ideas...

...(indeed, I have enough trouble keeping track of my own wacky theories without getting bogged-down by the dense and dubious speculations of other humans – especially those who lived centuries ago).

However (and I mean you no offense Veritas), after being exposed to your silly and shallow arguments about how you have proven the impossibility of the existence of a real God,...

...I could never trust anything you have to say in regards to your own personal interpretation of any aspect of Kant’s philosophy.
_______
Especially with Kant, one cannot rely on secondary sources to come up with any views on Kant. One must always quote from the direct sources, i.e. Kant's books. That is why I spent 3 years full time on reading and researching Kant based on original sources.

Note my personal interpretation of Kant's philosophy is backed by quotations from Kant's book. This cannot be an issue.

Re the impossibility of the existence of God as real, this is on the Kant's giant shoulders. Kant demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God, as in the CPR, i.e.
  • Chapter III. The Ideal of Pure Reason .... 485
    ...
    Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God ...500
    Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God ......507
    .....Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being 514
    Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof 518
    CPR content -Norman Kemp Smith
What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.

Point is, for Kant,
  • 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
    2. God is the thing-in-itself
    3. Therefore God is impossible to be real
All my supporting premises are from Kant's philosophy.

For Kant the only possibility for God existence is a reasoned God, i.e. not a real God, thus his Deism.
I extend further, the only possibility of God's existence as real is purely a psychological one and I have provided evidences and justifications for that.

You can test the above yourself.
Try giving up the belief in God as a test, you will feel all sort of uneasiness bubbling from within.
For some theists, they will even kill anyone who is a threat to their theistic beliefs.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:24 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:00 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:20 am

Maybe this is the most telling takeaway here, no one knows precisely what Kant meant, because either he couldn't express himself properly or he didn't precisely knew either.
Kant's argument involved loads of very refined nuances and one need very deep reflection of sieve them out in their proper perspectives.
Guyer is of the analytic school and thus was caught in duality and philosophical realism, i.e. there must be something to the thing-in-itself despite Kant's insistence we cannot reify anything out of the thing-in-itself.

What I have access to is the more refined nuances of Eastern philosophy and I am able to reconciled them with Kant's thing-in-itself as a transcendental illusion.

As Kant stated,
  • 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
Point is the basic human is evolved with 'there cannot be nothing' thus the idea of nothingness [the fundamental is an illusion] will mock and and torment the majority that there must be 'something' regardless.
There is something rather than nothing (in the neutral sense), that's pretty much the only thing we can be certain about.

Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
Your above is natural to higher common sense which is useful.
With the philosophy-proper the above higher common sense is not tenable at the finest level.

To be more complete;
  • 1. Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
    2. There is no 1.
This is reflected in the Buddhist tetralemma;
  • 1. p
    2. non-p
    3 both p and non-p
    4. Neither p nor non-p
to add;
  • 5. none of the above
The normal mind just cannot accept the above, so the question is how to deal with the above "lemma" cognitive dissonance and still 'be'.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:24 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:00 am

Kant's argument involved loads of very refined nuances and one need very deep reflection of sieve them out in their proper perspectives.
Guyer is of the analytic school and thus was caught in duality and philosophical realism, i.e. there must be something to the thing-in-itself despite Kant's insistence we cannot reify anything out of the thing-in-itself.

What I have access to is the more refined nuances of Eastern philosophy and I am able to reconciled them with Kant's thing-in-itself as a transcendental illusion.

As Kant stated,
  • 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
Point is the basic human is evolved with 'there cannot be nothing' thus the idea of nothingness [the fundamental is an illusion] will mock and and torment the majority that there must be 'something' regardless.
There is something rather than nothing (in the neutral sense), that's pretty much the only thing we can be certain about.

Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
Your above is natural to higher common sense which is useful.
With the philosophy-proper the above higher common sense is not tenable at the finest level.

To be more complete;
  • 1. Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
    2. There is no 1.
This is reflected in the Buddhist tetralemma;
  • 1. p
    2. non-p
    3 both p and non-p
    4. Neither p nor non-p
to add;
  • 5. none of the above
The normal mind just cannot accept the above, so the question is how to deal with the above "lemma" cognitive dissonance and still 'be'.
The optimal way is going back to making positive statements like the world exists. While "there are no 'things' with essences of their own" still holds.

Besides I reject such contradiction
Last edited by Atla on Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am
What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.
You can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:44 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:18 am
What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.
You can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.
Why not?
I justified my argument with logical reasoning.

One of my point is,
no ontological theist would accept their God will end up kissing the ass of another God, thus, the ontological God must prevail.
But an ontological God logically cannot exists are real empirically and philosophically.
This argument will cover >80% of theists, e.g. the Abrahamic God has to be an ontological God as in the respective scripture.
This is sufficient to serve my purpose toward perpetual peace for humanity.

If a theist do not mind their God is inferior to another,
then bring the evidence to justify their God is real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:50 am

Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:24 am
Atla wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:07 am

There is something rather than nothing (in the neutral sense), that's pretty much the only thing we can be certain about.

Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
Your above is natural to higher common sense which is useful.
With the philosophy-proper the above higher common sense is not tenable at the finest level.

To be more complete;
  • 1. Eastern nothingness/emptiness means no-thing-ness: there are no 'things' with essences of their own.
    2. There is no 1.
This is reflected in the Buddhist tetralemma;
  • 1. p
    2. non-p
    3 both p and non-p
    4. Neither p nor non-p
to add;
  • 5. none of the above
The normal mind just cannot accept the above, so the question is how to deal with the above "lemma" cognitive dissonance and still 'be'.
The optimal way is going back to making positive statements like the world exists. While "there are no 'things' with essences of their own" still holds.

Besides I reject such contradiction
Where is your argument for that rejection?
You are applying common sense.

Note the Law of Non-Contradictio is applicable to 'same time, same sense'.

In the above case of the tetralemma, it involves the shift in perspective, i.e. sense appropriately.
  • E.g. A diamond gem and a piece of charcoal are different, not the same.
    But in a different perspective, i.e. in term of atoms, they are the same, i.e. C - Carbon.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:24 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:11 pm
You could see memory that way if you wish, but where does Kant bring that into the argument please?
He doesn't. That's precisely the problem being pointed out.
Sorry I have to stop you there for two reasons.
1) I did not ask you the question.
2) Since you reject the idea that there are categories, you cannot possibly allow the category of "problem", or "memory." This makes undermines everything you say and it would be a waste of time responding, because you seem to make free the right to criticise me for using categories, but seem unable to accept that you are using your own.

Thanks for playing.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 am
My point is, the "thing-in-itself" is a transcendental illusion generated in the real minds of the majority [theists and others] living in a real world.

Empirical illusions are not real and we can know them when they are explained to us, e.g. bent-stick in water, curved parallel lines, snake-rope in the shade, etc.
Transcendental illusions [thing-in-itself] are mental-logical-illusions that are triggered subliminally deep in the mind.
No, no, no.
The phenomena are things as perceived.

But this is distinct from the Noumena, which are the things are they truly are; NOT shit in your head, but stuff that the senses can't get to - or not without aid. The things "Ding an sich", are as they are not perceptible to the senses; as they are NOT obtainable by the senses.

If this thread is about Kant, at least get your facts straight.
Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.

Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,
  • 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
    viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?

You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . SInce humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.


Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.

What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!

.


I suggest you read the above quoted point re the noumenon carefully in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.
I suggest you try to understand the context in which this passage was written.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:57 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:09 am
seeds wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm
_______

There are participants in this thread who clearly do not have a clue as to what the Kantian term “noumenon” means with respect to its relationship with the term “phenomenon.”

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we do not use our subjectively-based senses to access our memories (and similarly, our dreams) is simply demonstrating the veracity of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

...(and will no doubt continue to do so as they doggedly double down on their misinformed assertions :wink:).

That being said (and in a backdoor defense of their ignorance), an un-recalled (unobserved) memory can indeed be thought of as existing in its noumenal state of being.

However, once a memory (of a first kiss, for example) is being inwardly observed, or felt, or heard, or smelt, or tasted by the agent to which the memory belongs, it is thus promoted into its “phenomenal” state of being.

In other words, depending on the circumstances, memories (and dreams) appear to be comprised of an essence that, in one moment, can present itself as a phenomenon,...

...while in the next moment, reverts into a noumenal state of being of which we have absolutely no way of knowing the true nature of.
_______
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:11 pm
You could see memory that way if you wish, but where does Kant bring that into the argument please?
You do realize that I was supporting your assertions against Skepdick’s nonsense, right?
I simply wanted to know some info. I was not attacking you.
Nevertheless, in response to your question, of course Kant never expressed the phenomena/noumena dichotomy in quite the way offered by me.

However (IMO), the parallel in meaning seems obvious, in that we can never know the true status (i.e., as it really is) of an unobserved object in our mind, or that of an unobserved object in the universe.

Please read the following definition of Kant’s “thing-in-itself” from Wictionary:
Wictionary wrote: thing-in-itself
Noun.

thing-in-itself (plural things-in-themselves)

(from Kantian philosophy on) A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

Synonym: noumenon
Antonym: phenomenon
And then this from the Collins English Dictionary:
Collins Dictionary wrote: thing-in-itself
noun

(in the philosophy of Kant) an element of the noumenal rather than the phenomenal world, of which the senses give no knowledge but whose bare existence can be inferred from the nature of experience
With the above definitions in mind, one example I like to use for visualizing the meaning of the term “noumenon” can be seen in the Double Slit Experiment.

When a series of single electrons are shot through the double slits, what transpires in the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the detection screen is the perfect example of something that is “postulated by practical reason”...

(in other words, postulated as something that had spread-out into a wave by reason of the phenomenally observable interference pattern on the screen)

...but, at the time of transit, existed in a condition which is in principle unknowable and (especially) unexperienceable with our senses.

And the point is that it is literally impossible for us to directly know, or to directly experience (again, with our five senses) the true status of the electrons - (as they really are) - as they travel from wall-to-screen.

Even though we know (by “practical reasoning”) that something about the electrons is waving, we can only “infer” what is really taking place.

Now granted, I may be taking a bit of license with Kantian terminology, however, to me, the above analogy seems like a fairly simple way of helping us to visualize the meaning of the word “noumenon.”
_______
There is a much simpler way without opening up the can of worms that is QMechanics.
If I see a mug on the next table I shall see an arc supported by two straight lines that support a circle. The edges of those lines have shading towards the middle.
This is the phenomenon of the "mug".
At this point I might be wrong - it may not be a mug at all.
But I build up a 3D picture and add a third dimension; I even had a handle to the other unsighted side. In most cases the mind builds and interprets a whole mug.
What we have here is a phenomenon. The noumenal mug has a lot more information hidden from my senses. Not only its full shape but the internal structures, of molecules of the pottery and the surface glaze. The facts of the mug, hidden from our senses, can go much deeper
With such simple illustrations Kant cautions us not to take for granted our simple sense perceptions; the taken for granted.
Kant represents 100s of years of thinking and puts the final lid on the Copurnican turn, which whilst it appeared that the sun goes round the earth - that phenomenon is actually the earth revolving. Kant cautions us to consider a possible turn in all aspects of our perception, and his place in the history of Philosophy is assured; it is now something many (though not all on this forum, sadly) take for granted.

As far as I understand it Kant's epistemology is inviting us to consider the differences between appearance and deep reality. I do not remember any reference to memory in my study, though it was some time ago.
So it seems churlish of others to bring these psychological questions to bear on a methodology which was not designed to address the "mind problem".
It's like complaining that the car you have designed cannot sail across the Pacific.

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

Re: Kant

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:25 am

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 am
2) Since you reject the idea that there are categories, you cannot possibly allow the category of "problem", or "memory." This makes undermines everything you say and it would be a waste of time responding, because you seem to make free the right to criticise me for using categories, but seem unable to accept that you are using your own.
That is not true. In fact, I have to point out your intellectual dishonesty on the matter.

You are the one who subscribes to the religion of non-contradiction. I am merely holding you to account for the religion you've chosen for yourself.

When you contradict yourself you are wrong.
When I contradict myself - I am not wrong.

I didn't choose your religion for you, I am only respecting your religious choice. On the other hand - you are forcing your religion upon me. That's very very rude!

I openly admitted to that I contradict myself and I don't care. Right here:
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:17 pm
It's only a corner if you believe it is. I don't care if I contradict myself.

You are an idiot for denying contradicting yourself.
And I'd rather be a hypocrite than a liar.

Categories are linguistic phenomena. They are used for juxtapositions and drawing distinctions. Because descriptions of reality are categorical they lead to contradictions. This is a true claim about LANGUAGE, not about REALITY.

You keep confusing language (the things we SAY about reality) for reality itself! Stupid logocentrist!

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests