Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:18 am
Looks to me that this is how it probably went:
1. First, noumenon meant objects from Plato's world of forms and ideas, they were treated as real.
2. Then Kant showed that the Platonic world of forms and ideas is probably just a cognitive illusion, so this noumenon isn't real. But at the end he was forced to admit that another kind of noumenon could be real (just directly unknowable), that's behind sensual appearances.
3. Nowadays, noumenon just means what's behind sensual appearances. Plus all the things that don't even appear but may be still 'out there'. No one in their right mind is associating it with Plato's world of forms and ideas anymore so why continue to strawman the discussion with that?
Your 1 is wrong.
Plato came up with the world of forms, ideas and universals which encompass empirical
and non-empirical things
Kant had high respect for Plato's work but to Kant, Plato was not sufficiently precise.
- Misled 1 by such a proof of the Power of Reason, the demand for the extension of Knowledge recognises no Limits.
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.
It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
Suggest you read the above carefully. I doubt it will sink in?
In B-xxvii Kant explained why it is necessary to differentiate what Plato came up as 'world of forms, ideas and universals' from what is related to the empirical and the non-empirical.
Thus Kant assigned the term 'noumenom' to empirical related Plato's forms, ideas and universals as a limit
to the empirical world. Note a limit is not an empirical thing.
Kant then assigned the term 'thing-in-itself' to non-empirical forms, ideas and universals.
Kant stated in B-xxvii, if we do not differentiate the empirical from the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals, then the conflation will lead to what is called Synthetic a priori Judgments
which is an impossibility to be real in the empirical/philosophical sense.
The Synthetic a priori Judgment is reflected in the following as a transcendental illusion;
- There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept [non-empirical], and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
From the above;
What is objective reality is confined to the empirical only.
But what happened above is, the empirical is wrongly conflated
with the non-empirical [forms, ideas, universals' to insist upon an objective reality.
This objective reality is actually an illusion.
How such an illusion is deceived to be objective reality is driven by certain syllogism which is pseudo.
- 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.
What is driving this pseudo-rationality in conflating and jumping to the wrong conclusion there is objective reality is due to existential psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.
- P1. Created creations exists - empirical
P2. What is created [actioned] must have a creator [actor] - empirical/reason.
P3. All of creations [empirical] must have a master-creator [idea].
C4. That master-creator can only a universal God. [idea]
The above is a demonstration of what Kant meant in B397, i.e. equivocating the empirical with the non-empirical in P3.
What drive P3 is psychological where the desperation is very subliminal.
From P3 then there is C4, i.e. a real God exists to the extent of commanding theists to war against and kill non-theists.
As a non-theists and more so a human being, I should be concern and contribute to deal with the ultimate consequences.
One of the starting point is to differentiate the non-empirical forms, ideas and universals as as the noumenon acting as a limit from the non-empirical ideas.