The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
The difference between abstract and intuitive cognition, which Kant entirely overlooks, was the very one that ancient philosophers indicated as φαινόμενα [phainomena] and νοούμενα [nooumena]; the opposition and incommensurability between these terms proved very productive in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later in the scholastics, in the conflict between nominalism and realism. This latter conflict was the late development of a seed already present in the opposed tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant, who completely and irresponsibly neglected the issue for which the terms φαινομένα and νοούμενα were already in use, then took possession of the terms as if they were stray and ownerless, and used them as designations of things in themselves and their appearances. - Schopenhauer
or in other words:
Fundamental error: Kant did not distinguish between the concrete, intuitive, perceptual knowledge of objects and the abstract, discursive, conceptual, knowledge of thoughts.
----------------------------

My claim:

If I think of a perfect circle or a perfect square, I'm having 'abstract' thoughts. It's true that 'abstract' thoughts don't refer to anything real in the noumenal external world.

If I think of the Moon or the table in front of me, I'm having 'concrete' thoughts. These thoughts are representations of real noumenal objects in the noumenal external world. (But it's also possible to think of concrete things that don't actually exist in the noumenal external world.)

So the noumenon can be used in both positive and negative sense. Which is the modern usage, as far as I'm concerned.

-----------------------------

VA's claim:

The noumenon can only be used in the negative sense, there can never be a real noumenal world. All noumenal references are without real referents. There is no use for an abstract/concrete distinction. Schopenhauer and many others have fallen under the very illusion that Kant has warned us about.

-----------------------------

So what justification could there be for taking the latter stance over the former stance?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

There are two fundamental contentions re ontology [being-ness] in philosophy, i.e.
  • 1. Philosophical Realism - mind-independent noumenal things exist as real. Relatively, I designate this the BOTTOM-UP approach.

    2. Anti-Philosophical Realism - those views [many types] that do not agree with philosophical realism, i.e. there are no mind-independent entities. Relative to 1, this is the TOP-DOWN approach.
BOTTOM-UP Approach - Philosophical Realism
Philosophical realists adopt the BOTTOM-UP approach, i.e. they merely speculate & assumed without proofs there are real mind independent noumenal things [moon, table] out there.
From this supposedly BOTTOM-most real reality, they infer it is the ultimate cause of what humans experience, know and describe that independent reality.
In this way, they move from the BOTTOM-cause to the TOP i.e. what is experienced by humans.
As such, their mind-independent things which is speculated & assumed without proofs is illusory.

Schopenhauer adopted the BOTTOM-UP approach, i.e. he crudely rationalize there is a mind independent WILL [thing-in-itself] underlying all humans and existence which cause things [at the TOP] to be experienced by humans.
To Schopenhauer, the WILL as thing-in-itself is the real thing, all else are representations of the WILL.

TOP-DOWN Approach -Anti-Philosophical Realism
Instead of starting from the BOTTOM from merely speculation, and faith without proofs, the TOP-DOWN Approach starts from real experiences that can be verified and justified empirically to be real based on a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] which is human-based.

As such, the moon and table we experienced are real because the science-physics-FSR (FSK) said so, as conditioned upon 13.7 billions years of conditions since the Big Bang.

After philosophy had failed [miserably] to prove the existence of a mind-independent reality,
Kant adopted the TOP-DOWN approach [note his Copernican Revolution] starting with human experiences; what is real is goes as far as real empirical evidences can support it within a FSR/FSK.
Whatever is speculated [not proven yet] as possibly real must have the possibility of empirical elements to be experienced. [awaiting empirical evidence to be verified]
This is the Phenomenal that is conditioned upon a FSK, thus CANNOT be mind-independent [as claimed by P-realists].

Therefore what is real as experienced and possible to be experienced cannot be mind-independent noumenal as claimed by P-realists.

It is obvious, we have more confidence to rely on what is experienced as real [despite its weaknesses] than to rely on that mind-independent thing which is speculated and assumed by P-realist to be real.

Schopenhauer threw diatribes against Kant, but his criticisms are grounded on an illusion [TOP-DOWN], thus has no credibility at all.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Agent Smith »

A popular model that's really caught on over the years would, if permitted, to some degree blur the boundary between noumena & phenomena. However, the model's veracity or, more figuratively, credit-worthiness, is not as cut-and-dried as we'd have liked. C'est la vie moment!

We now enter the domain of esse &, loosely speaking, functions. What's hidden and what's exposed, If panpsychism is true, we're in trouble; perhaps not (vide The Epicurean Trilemma).

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

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:09 am There are two fundamental contentions re ontology [being-ness] in philosophy, i.e.
  • 1. Philosophical Realism - mind-independent noumenal things exist as real. Relatively, I designate this the BOTTOM-UP approach.

    2. Anti-Philosophical Realism - those views [many types] that do not agree with philosophical realism, i.e. there are no mind-independent entities. Relative to 1, this is the TOP-DOWN approach.
BOTTOM-UP Approach - Philosophical Realism
Philosophical realists adopt the BOTTOM-UP approach, i.e. they merely speculate & assumed without proofs there are real mind independent noumenal things [moon, table] out there.
From this supposedly BOTTOM-most real reality, they infer it is the ultimate cause of what humans experience, know and describe that independent reality.
In this way, they move from the BOTTOM-cause to the TOP i.e. what is experienced by humans.
As such, their mind-independent things which is speculated & assumed without proofs is illusory.

Schopenhauer adopted the BOTTOM-UP approach, i.e. he crudely rationalize there is a mind independent WILL [thing-in-itself] underlying all humans and existence which cause things [at the TOP] to be experienced by humans.
To Schopenhauer, the WILL as thing-in-itself is the real thing, all else are representations of the WILL.

TOP-DOWN Approach -Anti-Philosophical Realism
Instead of starting from the BOTTOM from merely speculation, and faith without proofs, the TOP-DOWN Approach starts from real experiences that can be verified and justified empirically to be real based on a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] which is human-based.

As such, the moon and table we experienced are real because the science-physics-FSR (FSK) said so, as conditioned upon 13.7 billions years of conditions since the Big Bang.

After philosophy had failed [miserably] to prove the existence of a mind-independent reality,
Kant adopted the TOP-DOWN approach [note his Copernican Revolution] starting with human experiences; what is real is goes as far as real empirical evidences can support it within a FSR/FSK.
Whatever is speculated [not proven yet] as possibly real must have the possibility of empirical elements to be experienced. [awaiting empirical evidence to be verified]
This is the Phenomenal that is conditioned upon a FSK, thus CANNOT be mind-independent [as claimed by P-realists].

Therefore what is real as experienced and possible to be experienced cannot be mind-independent noumenal as claimed by P-realists.

It is obvious, we have more confidence to rely on what is experienced as real [despite its weaknesses] than to rely on that mind-independent thing which is speculated and assumed by P-realist to be real.

Schopenhauer threw diatribes against Kant, but his criticisms are grounded on an illusion [TOP-DOWN], thus has no credibility at all.
I don't see how top-down and down-top approaches make any sense in this topic. All we can ever directly work with, are the appearances, nothing else. So there can't be a top and a down.

The question is how we treat the appearances. One way to treat them is to propose that there are real mind-independent noumenal objects beyond some mind-dependent appearances. (Like the noumenal, mind-independent table behind the mind-dependent appearance of the table, and yes we also have to take the time-gap into consideration, we always see the representation of the past.) Modern science and psychology have shown that this is the best view, unless you can show otherwise.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Classical Science merely ASSUMED there is the noumenal.
And that assumption is the illusory noumenal taken in the Negative Sense as the furthest limit of empirical reality.
Kant stated, the illusory noumenal is a useful illusion to be taken negatively as an Assumption which can assist to drive science forward.

Note Kant's, read this thoroughly;
viewtopic.php?p=637284#p637284
29. But none the less we are unable to comprehend how such Noumena can be Possible [to be real], and the domain that lies out beyond the sphere of Appearances is for us Empty.

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.

16. Doubtless, indeed, there are Intelligible entities corresponding to the Sensible entities; there may also be Intelligible entities to which our Sensible Faculty of Objectifying-Faculty has no Relation whatsoever;
but our Concepts of Intellect, being mere Forms of Thought for our Sensible Objectifying-Faculty, could not in the least apply to them {intelligible entities}.
17. That, therefore, which we entitle 'Noumenon' must be understood as being [re intelligible entities] such only in a negative sense.

31. 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.

32. 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 [Appearances].
To insist the illusory noumenal [supposedly beyond appearances] is real is delusional.

Modern Science in general don't give a fuck for the noumenal, the supposed mind-independent things beyond experiences and the observables [observed and possible observables].

Re Hawking; in [] mine;
  • Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
    It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" [mind-independent] of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
    The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Some modern scientists do cling to a mind-independent reality beyond what is observable or cognizable, but that is their personal philosophical stance, which cannot be acceptable within the Scientific Method.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:33 am
29. But none the less we are unable to comprehend how such Noumena can be Possible [to be real], and the domain that lies out beyond the sphere of Appearances is for us Empty.
An insane claim. By Occam's razor, the noumenal world is continuous with the phenomenal world, they are one and the same kind of world.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

What Occam?

Modern Science don't give a damm with the noumenal.
Read this again,

Re Hawking; in [] mine;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" [mind-independent] of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
As Kant warned, some people are deceived by their seemingly valid syllogism from crude reasonings which may be valid but are unsound as far as objective reality is concerned; in {}=mine;
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses {beyond appearances}, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know {appearances} to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397
Thus they are landed with and clung to the resulting illusions from Pure, proto- primal reasoning from an evolutionary default of external-ness;
These conclusions {illusions} 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.
ibid
Because this evolution default is embedded deep in the brain, thus very forceful [like sexual lust to rape, hunger drive to fatal obesity], they will dominate one's life and overcome those who are psychologically weak, thus;
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
Whilst the illusions may rise inevitably, the more wiser will only view them as emergence of illusions from a distance and use them where applicable if useful but not reifying the noumenal as real in the positive sense.
For example parents knows Santa is an illusion but real to a child, but nevertheless treat as if Santa is real by buying Christmas gifts for the child telling the child the gifts are from a real Santa.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Skepdick »

The abstract/concrete distinction collapses the moment an abstract thought is reified into something tangible.

e.g

The reification of abstract Mathematics is a computer program.
The reification of abstract morality is healthcare (amongst other things).
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:00 am What Occam?

Modern Science don't give a damm with the noumenal.
Read this again,

Re Hawking; in [] mine;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" [mind-independent] of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
As Kant warned, some people are deceived by their seemingly valid syllogism from crude reasonings which may be valid but are unsound as far as objective reality is concerned; in {}=mine;
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses {beyond appearances}, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know {appearances} to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397
Thus they are landed with and clung to the resulting illusions from Pure, proto- primal reasoning from an evolutionary default of external-ness;
These conclusions {illusions} 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.
ibid
Because this evolution default is embedded deep in the brain, thus very forceful [like sexual lust to rape, hunger drive to fatal obesity], they will dominate one's life and overcome those who are psychologically weak, thus;
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
Whilst the illusions may rise inevitably, the more wiser will only view them as emergence of illusions from a distance and use them where applicable if useful but not reifying the noumenal as real in the positive sense.
For example parents knows Santa is an illusion but real to a child, but nevertheless treat as if Santa is real by buying Christmas gifts for the child telling the child the gifts are from a real Santa.
Scientific instrumentalism isn't relevant to ontology.

Again: by Occam's razor, it's nonsense to treat the noumenon as empty/non-existent by default, as long as we don't treat the phenomena as empty/non-existent. Just why would they be different in this regard?

It's the default assumption that there's a real, concrete noumenal world beyond some concrete appearances, it's just unknowable. Calling this an illusion, is a game Kant is playing, by adding an extra assumption, which renders the noumenon always empty/non-existent.

So it's Kant who introduces an error that should be warned against. It just looks like some kind of perverse affinity for solipsism, which affinity might have psychological origins.

It's the evolutionary default to experience a real environment, because there's probably a real environment, duh. Organisms and environments go together. The environemnt is simply not quite as we experience it, it's the evolutionary default to think that we experience it directly, but actually we are experiencing an indirect representation of it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The noumenal beyond the phenomenal world is an Intelligible Object that is reasoned.

Philosophy:
intelligible = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.
Google and also
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligible
Kant wrote:For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves [intelligible objects].
B336
We do have that peculiar intuition to realize or make real the intelligible object, i.e. the noumena.

Kant described how the intelligible object in the Chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena extensively asserting it is merely an illusion, albeit a useful illusion when used in the negative sense.
viewtopic.php?p=637284#p637284

The focus of evolution is not about truth of reality but rather whatever it takes to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4&t=6152s

It is an evolutionary default to lie to humans that there is a real external reality beyond appearances, so that they can focus on what is external to them to facilitate basic survival to find food and avoid external threats which could be fatal.

It is not important then [200K years ago] or that important even at present for the majority to understand how humans are part and parcel of reality, where reality emerged and is realized in tandem, thus cannot be independent of reality;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:05 am
Kant wrote:For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all
Here's the nonsensical solipsistic claim again. We don't possess this quite peculiar Intuition, but it's an error to treat this Intelligible as nothing at all by default, when it comes to the natural world.
It is an evolutionary default to lie to humans that there is a real external reality beyond appearances, so that they can focus on what is external to them to facilitate basic survival to find food and avoid external threats which could be fatal.
If the external world and external threats aren't external to them then where or what are they?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

There are two senses of external-ness.

1. P-realist Noumenal external-ness
2. Empirical FSK-ed external-ness

1. P-realist Noumenal external-ness
  • Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
This Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default which is a lie to facilitate survival but the problem is P-Realism cling to it dogmatically as an ideology and truth [when it is actually false].


2. Empirical FSK-ed external-ness
This is common sense and empirically verifiable external-ness.
An empirical-realist obviously recognize the apple on the tree out there is in an external environment in a distance from himself.
The empirical-realist also recognize this external-ness is a lie [falsehood] arising from an evolutionary default and do not insist upon it as an ideology that it is the most true reality but merely a conditional reality.

As such an empirical-realist will not insist there is a real noumenal apple in a positive sense beyond what is realized as real by him.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:30 am There are two senses of external-ness.

1. P-realist Noumenal external-ness
2. Empirical FSK-ed external-ness

1. P-realist Noumenal external-ness
  • Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
This Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default which is a lie to facilitate survival but the problem is P-Realism cling to it dogmatically as an ideology and truth [when it is actually false].


2. Empirical FSK-ed external-ness
This is common sense and empirically verifiable external-ness.
An empirical-realist obviously recognize the apple on the tree out there is in an external environment in a distance from himself.
The empirical-realist also recognize this external-ness is a lie [falsehood] arising from an evolutionary default and do not insist upon it as an ideology that it is the most true reality but merely a conditional reality.

As such an empirical-realist will not insist there is a real noumenal apple in a positive sense beyond what is realized as real by him.
Again the same nonsensical solipsistic claim. Again, the default view is to become an "empirical-realist", and then, by Occam's razor, posit that there probably is a real noumenal apple.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

"Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements." -WIKI

The idea of the noumena is too complex an idea to meet Occam's requirement.

Whatever, Occam or otherwise, must be verified and justified to be real by a human-based FSK, i.e. of which science is the most credible and reliable.
Phenomena are the only things that can be verified and justified as real by the human-based scientific FSK.

The noumena, i.e. as intelligible object beyond phenomena cannot be verified and justified as real by the scientific FSK.
Since the noumena is non-empirical, it is a non-starter for the scientific FSK to regard it as real.
As most the noumenal is merely an ASSUMPTION within the classical scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK can only confirm its conclusion based so far as empirical evidences are available to it.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:45 am "Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements." -WIKI

The idea of the noumena is too complex an idea to meet Occam's requirement.

Whatever, Occam or otherwise, must be verified and justified to be real by a human-based FSK, i.e. of which science is the most credible and reliable.
Phenomena are the only things that can be verified and justified as real by the human-based scientific FSK.

The noumena, i.e. as intelligible object beyond phenomena cannot be verified and justified as real by the scientific FSK.
Since the noumena is non-empirical, it is a non-starter for the scientific FSK to regard it as real.
As most the noumenal is merely an ASSUMPTION within the classical scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK can only confirm its conclusion based so far as empirical evidences are available to it.
Philosophy without Occam's razor is random guesswork, there are infinitely many explanations for anything.

The simplest explanation here that's consistent with all scientific knowledge, is to posit a real noumenal world, which is continuous, one and the same with the phenomenal world.

This way we don't have to go into all kinds of weird explanations why it seems like a noumenal world existed, but actually it doesn't. We don't have to add an extra speculation that renders the noumenal world non-existent.
Post Reply