Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:34 am
It is obvious you do not understand Kant at all.
The distinction between intelligible objects vs sensible objects and their respective intuitions are explained in Kant's CPR extensively in the Transcendent Aesthetic and the Transcendental Logic.
You can get an idea of the distinction in the Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena I presented herein
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
CPR B294-315
You keep blabbering, introduce something substantial why you think Kant is wrong in relation to the above?
To repeat, Kant's invention of the noumenon - a thing-in-itself - is a silly tease required to establish the silly claim that all we can have access to - and therefore all we can know - are phenomena, or things as they appear to our senses.
As I had stated, there are two senses of reality, i.e.
- 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.
Philosophical realism [2] is a very dogmatic ideology [ism] which was invented from an evolutionary default of a sense of
external-ness existence of things outside to facilitate basic survival for all organism since 3.5 billion years ago.
What is phenomena is what is experienced thus basically related to the
internal-ness of the human-body, brain and mind.
Because the external-ness of existence of things outside are a default thus instinctualized and habitualized, it is natural for all humans to think there must be something external that represent what is internal [phenomena as experienced]. [note dualism]
It is very natural [based on Pure Reason*] to think of such logically for every human beings is habitualized with that evolutionary default of external_ness.
So Kant went along and accept the term 'noumenon' to represent that supposedly external thing in contrast to phenomena but with
very strong qualifications as stipulated in his chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena.
* that is why Kant's Critique of
Pure Reason.
BUT the problem is the philosophical realists insist on this habitualized default of external-ness on a dogmatic ideological level. In this sense, the philosophical realists are insisting on what is supposed [assumed] noumenon to be really real, thus chasing an illusion.
To Kant, what is rally real are the 'phenomena'.
Phenomena [sensibility] in this case, is not what is perceived, known and described.
To paraphrase Kant, what is phenomena is the emergence and
realization of a thing prior to its perception, knowing and describing it.
Thus, the phenomena [sensibilty] is the realized reality [conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of forces since the BB].
In contrast, the thinking of the noumena is merely a thought via the intellect, thus it is an intelligible object.
intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].
To reify a noumenon as really real as claim by p-realists is chasing an illusion.
So Kant repackaged empiricist skepticism, in order to find a way around the supposed 'scandal' that we can't 'prove' the existence of the so-called external world. Hence his so-called Copernican revolution in epistemology.
The analogy with the Copernican Revolution is;
Human with their evolutionary default of external-ness are focus on the outside and as such habitualized to assume the earth and flat and the external Sun which is so obvious move from East to West.
When the philosophical realist cling to this
externalness that the Sun moved, it brought along all sort of philosophical problems of what is reality.
Kant [stated, fuck the focus on external_ness as an ideology] but rather do a paradigm shift [Copernican Revolution] to focus on the internalness of the human being in its interaction with reality as a whole.
Here are some questions. Try answering them without simply quoting Kant.
If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?
To what is the so-called external world supposedly external?
What and where is a so-called intelligible thing - or, in upmarket posh, object or entity? Please give an example.
It is not that there is no noumena.
The point is, there no p-realist's version of what-is-noumena as absolutely mind-independent clung dogmatically an ideology, which then is an illusion if reified.
Anti-p-realists can accept the idea of the noumena, but insist it is not absolutely mind-independent in the p-realist sense.
If the noumena is to be recognized as 'something' that it has to be in the Negative Sense as some sort of limitation; read Kant's chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena.
It is delusional to insist the noumena is a really real thing that is mind-independent.
There is an external world within common sense, but it is subsumed within the human conditions, thus there is no external world which is absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are claiming.
What and where is a so-called intelligible thing
intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses [nb: sensibility not merely 5 senses].
Thus anything that can thought but not realizable as a real things via sensibility is an intelligible object.
The noumenon is an intelligible object and can never be realized as a real sensible object that can be justified via a human-based FSK like the science FSK.
You claimed to have read Kant, but you are displaying extensive ignorance and understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's CPR.