Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:28 am The evolutionary default of philosophical realism is so forceful that Kant warned;
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 of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions {transcendental Ideas, God, Soul & The World, } 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 {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
Most of the wisest of men who came after Kant, e.g. Hegel [the Absolute], Schopenhauer [Will] and others succumbed to be deceived by the illusions.
This included Einstein [a follower of Schopenhauer] who insisted "God do not play dice" based on his philosophical realism stance.
And then Kant went out to grab an illusory 18th century version Big Mac.

{transcendental Ideas, God, Soul & The World} seems to be your comment, are you sure that {The World} belongs there? Kant is a part of the world and the roasted chicken is a part of the world, Kant is eating the roasted chicken, why is the roasted chicken just an illusion?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Many posters has conflated the negative noumena with the positive noumena and do not understand what they are talking about with reference to Kant's CPR.

I have posted Kant's Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena and has referred to it many times.

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=39987

Since I have provided the appropriate reference from Kant, anyone who keep insisting in their own wrong interpretations of Kant is a numbskull and philosophical immature.

Note the relevant reference from Kant re Phenomena vs Noumena and what is noumena in the Negative and Positive Sense.
Kant in CPR wrote:1. B306 …, if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (Phenomena),
then since we thus distinguish the Mode in which we intuit them from the nature that belongs to them in-themselves,
it is implied in this distinction that we place the latter [in-themselves], considered in their own nature,
although we do not so intuit them, or that we place other Possible Things, which are not Objects of our Senses but are Thought as Objects merely through the Intellect,
in opposition to the former [Phenomena, Sensible entities],
and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).
In the above, Kant identify Phenomena as Sensible Entities [verified empirically] while Noumena are Intelligible Entities [i.e. mere thought only].
5. And since the Intellect yields no Concepts additional to the Innate-Programs,
it {Intellect} also supposes that the Object-in-itself must at least be Thought through these Pure Concepts [Innate-Programs],
and so is misled into treating the entirely indeterminate Concept of an Intelligible entity, namely, of a something-in-General outside our Sensibility,
as being a Determinate Concept of an entity that allows of being known in a certain [purely Intelligible] manner by means of the Intellect.
The above point out how the Intellect confuses the noumena as a Determinate Concept.
To differentiate the noumena from the Phenomena we need to identify the noumena in the negative and positive sense.
6. If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Objectifying-Faculty, and so abstract from our Mode of Sensing it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term.
If the noumena is to be related to the sensible phenomena, then this is a Noumenon in the negative sense, i.e. it can never be an sensible empirical object.
7. But if we understand by it [the thing] an Object of a non-Sensible Objectifying-Faculty,
we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Objectifying-Faculty, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term.
If the noumena is taken in the positive sense, then it has to be cognized with with an intellectual intuition which humans do no possess.
As such it is impossible to be real for any humans.
This noumena in the positive sense is the same as the assumption in science adopted by P-realists.
8. The Doctrine of Sensibility is likewise the Doctrine of the Noumenon in the negative sense, that is, of Things which the Intellect must think without this reference to our Mode of Objectifying-Faculty, therefore not merely as Appearances but as Things-in-Themselves. B308
As such when we consider the Doctrine of Sensibility with a sensible intuition, the noumenon is in the negative sense which the intellect can think of, but not to objectify the noumena.

So, when we deliberate on what is phenomena we can assume there is a corresponding noumena, this is taken in the negativesense for theory sake. This is as best merely a thought and can never be something that is empirically real.

But to insist the noumena is a really real referent, this is taking the noumena in the positive sense; this is an impossibility to be real because humans do not have the intelligible intuition to realize this intelligible object.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:59 am Many posters has conflated the negative noumena with the positive noumena and do not understand what they are talking about with reference to Kant's CPR.

I have posted Kant's Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena and has referred to it many times.

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=39987

Since I have provided the appropriate reference from Kant, anyone who keep insisting in their own wrong interpretations of Kant is a numbskull and philosophical immature.

Note the relevant reference from Kant re Phenomena vs Noumena and what is noumena in the Negative and Positive Sense.
Kant in CPR wrote:1. B306 …, if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities 2 (Phenomena),
then since we thus distinguish the Mode in which we intuit them from the nature that belongs to them in-themselves,
it is implied in this distinction that we place the latter [in-themselves], considered in their own nature,
although we do not so intuit them, or that we place other Possible Things, which are not Objects of our Senses but are Thought as Objects merely through the Intellect,
in opposition to the former [Phenomena, Sensible entities],
and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities 1 (Noumena).
In the above, Kant identify Phenomena as Sensible Entities [verified empirically] while Noumena are Intelligible Entities [i.e. mere thought only].
5. And since the Intellect yields no Concepts additional to the Innate-Programs,
it {Intellect} also supposes that the Object-in-itself must at least be Thought through these Pure Concepts [Innate-Programs],
and so is misled into treating the entirely indeterminate Concept of an Intelligible entity, namely, of a something-in-General outside our Sensibility,
as being a Determinate Concept of an entity that allows of being known in a certain [purely Intelligible] manner by means of the Intellect.
The above point out how the Intellect confuses the noumena as a Determinate Concept.
To differentiate the noumena from the Phenomena we need to identify the noumena in the negative and positive sense.
6. If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Objectifying-Faculty, and so abstract from our Mode of Sensing it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term.
If the noumena is to be related to the sensible phenomena, then this is a Noumenon in the negative sense, i.e. it can never be an sensible empirical object.
7. But if we understand by it [the thing] an Object of a non-Sensible Objectifying-Faculty,
we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Objectifying-Faculty, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term.
If the noumena is taken in the positive sense, then it has to be cognized with with an intellectual intuition which humans do no possess.
As such it is impossible to be real for any humans.
This noumena in the positive sense is the same as the assumption in science adopted by P-realists.
8. The Doctrine of Sensibility is likewise the Doctrine of the Noumenon in the negative sense, that is, of Things which the Intellect must think without this reference to our Mode of Objectifying-Faculty, therefore not merely as Appearances but as Things-in-Themselves. B308
As such when we consider the Doctrine of Sensibility with a sensible intuition, the noumenon is in the negative sense which the intellect can think of, but not to objectify the noumena.

So, when we deliberate on what is phenomena we can assume there is a corresponding noumena, this is taken in the negativesense for theory sake. This is as best merely a thought and can never be something that is empirically real.

But to insist the noumena is a really real referent, this is taking the noumena in the positive sense; this is an impossibility to be real because humans do not have the intelligible intuition to realize this intelligible object.
Kan't usage of these concepts was nonsense. He didn't consider the abstract/concrete dichotomy, and he didn't consider indirect realism (dual-object noumenon) as the default view.

As such, your insistence on using Kantian language is outdated and nonsensical.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Show proof Kant was wrong?

As far as I had known [and discussed here], those who had disputed Kant on his phenomena vs noumena strawman[ed] Kant's view because they were delusionally grounded on their philosophical realism dogmatism.

If one insist the positive noumena is really real, show proof that it is so?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:29 am Show proof Kant was wrong?

As far as I had known [and discussed here], those who had disputed Kant on his phenomena vs noumena strawman[ed] Kant's view because they were delusionally grounded on their philosophical realism dogmatism.

If one insist the positive noumena is really real, show proof that it is so?
Complete strawman, I wrote down at least 10 times why that's not possible either

You are intellectually retarded?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

"You are intellectually retarded?"
when providing no supporting references.
that is why I put such a bastard on ig.

Since this is a critical point,
Open a thread and throw in all your counters therein.
Schopenhauer et al? yuck!

Kant warned of people strawmaning his philosophy as related to the noumenon and thing-in-itself. {mine}
Kant in CPR wrote:Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions re noumenon and thing-in-itself}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:42 am "You are intellectually retarded?"
when providing no supporting references.
that is why I put such a bastard on ig.

Since this is a critical point,
Open a thread and throw in all your counters therein.
Schopenhauer et al? yuck!

Kant warned of people strawmaning his philosophy as related to the noumenon and thing-in-itself. {mine}
Kant in CPR wrote:Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions re noumenon and thing-in-itself}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
No VA, in this case the problem is that you really are intellectually retarded
Even today I EXPLICITLY told you in another comment where you go wrong, but it went above your head.

And it went above your head before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that.

And it still does.
In fact I think you don't even understand what Kant was really saying.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Yes Kant was committed to a fundamentally-appearances-only philosophy, but he was NOT the idiot that VA always portrays him to be. He never specifically said that there can't be anything beyond appearances. Because that simply doesn't follow logically.

Why would Kant not be able to see a simple logical fallacy? Where are the quotes where it's clear that he makes this error?

He just thought that even if there's a reality beyond appearances, it's nonsensical to try to explore it, and this is where he may have been wrong. Probably mainly because he didn't see it coming, he couldn't have seen it coming that space and time turns out to have a twofold nature.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Kan't........ didn't consider the abstract/concrete dichotomy, and
he didn't consider indirect realism (dual-object noumenon) as the default view.
Why should Kant consider Indirect Realism as the default view when his whole argument in the CPR argued it is delusional for indirect realists to insist on the thing-in-itself as that which is most realistic.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:51 am
We already covered this, he used the words in another sense. Why do you almost always have amnesia? Do you have long-term memory problems (I'm serious)? Is that why you make the same arguments 100 times?
Why should Kant consider Indirect Realism as the default view when his whole argument in the CPR argued it is delusional for indirect realists to insist on the thing-in-itself as that which is most realistic.
Kant lived in the late 18th century where, naive realism wasn't blasted out of the water by indirect realism yet (thanks to science). The question is why YOU still insist on this old usage.
Last edited by Atla on Sun Jul 02, 2023 10:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 9:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:51 am
We already covered this, he used the words in another sense. Why do you almost always have amnesia? Do you have long-term memory problems (I'm serious)? Is that why you make the same arguments 100 times?
Why should Kant consider Indirect Realism as the default view when his whole argument in the CPR argued it is delusional for indirect realists to insist on the thing-in-itself as that which is most realistic.
Kant lived in the late 18th century where, naive realism wasn't blasted out of the water by indirect realism yet (thanks to science). The question is why YOU still insist on this old usage.
And what does 'most realisitic' mean? the degrees of being real issue.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]

Post by Atla »

Naive realism is untenable, using a noumena-phenomena distinction on naive realism is some outdated, irrelevant philosophical argument.

It's a bit like arguing against the four classical elements in the 21st century, and then claiming that since they don't work, modern physics also doesn't work.
Post Reply