I have tried a variety of practices and understandings from schools and took only what fitted my path and kept the remainder at arms length. So don’t adhere to a belief system. — Punshhh
I did say;
‘ I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life.’ — Punshhh
Also beliefs are intellectually defined and held positions, or loyalties. — Punshhh
I am relegating such things to the chitta chatta of my mind while continuing to go about living my life. — Punshhh
chitta chatta — Punshhh
So are we not forced to admit, insofar as Kant offers no definition of what a noumenon is, offers no descriptions of what a noumenon would be like, but authorizes (B115) its validity as a mere possible, non-contradictory, conception, there can be no talk of noumena as such, but only the conception itself, represented by that word, which is actually nothing other than talk of the modus operandi of the faculty of understanding in opposition to its own rules? — Mww
One might consider such a sentence to be superfluous considering, surely, there are people alive, perhaps even living quite well, who don't hold the beliefs you do. — Outlander
I think this is a very important point. "Noumena" for Kant is analogous to "matter" for Aristotle. They are strictly conceptual, not referring to any independent thing as people are inclined to believe. But "matter" is more like the limit of conception, the closest we can come to contradiction without crossing that boundary. Then many people assume these concepts to be a description of some independent feature of reality. But they are not descriptions at all, just concepts which somehow represent what cannot be described. — Metaphysician Undercover
No worries, I enjoy what you write.You must understand, I rarely have the gall to interject myself into such established arguments (60 pages and counting!) unless, shall we say, the wine glass has been broken out. :smile:
I was using the phrase to say that I hold as few beliefs as I can get away with. I would rather do away with the word completely, but I accept it is used a lot, with various meanings. So I try to keep it to precise definitions where it is used. Janus was asking about my beliefs, which is why I wrote that post and explained how I arrive at intellectual and other positions without having beliefs about them.One might consider such a sentence to be superfluous considering, surely, there are people alive, perhaps even living quite well, who don't hold the beliefs you do.
I seem to have lived a charmed life and often realise that others have had more complex and, or traumatic, conflicted lives. I realise how fortunate I am in this regard and yet still have all the usual emotional, anxiety, confidence hang ups that most people have. Even after many years of defusing and attending to them.Loyalty, eh. Heh. Sorry. such terms distract me due to the complex history of my own life experience.
"Noumena" for Kant is analogous to "matter" for Aristotle. They are strictly conceptual, not referring to any independent thing as people are inclined to believe. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Noumena" for Kant is analogous to "matter" for Aristotle. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then many people assume these concepts to be a description of some independent feature of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is a stretch too far. We can -- and do -- measure matter. — I like sushi
Here he is explicit: sensation provides the matter of appearances, while space and time are the form in which that matter is ordered. — Wayfarer
If it is true in Aristotle matter acquires form to become particular substance, and because it is true in Kant matter acquires form to become particular phenomena, then originally to both is matter, which leaves Kantian noumena, as it relates to matter, out in the cold…...right where it’s supposed to be. — Mww
If only those many people would just study the damn book. One does not have to accept what he’s saying, but should comprehend the point he’s making, the major premise in the “ground of the division of all objects”. — Mww
There is a large variety of things which we measure, and each has a name. There is also a variety of different types of measurements. I've never heard anyone claim to be measuring matter. What type of measurement do you think that would be? — Metaphysician Undercover
Kilograms. That is how we do physics. — I like sushi
Aristotle has instances of "particular substance" independent from the mind, things with an identity. — Metaphysician Undercover
….usually subject to an array of different interpretations… — Metaphysician Undercover
A good example is Plato, and Platonism. — Metaphysician Undercover
Kilograms. That is how we do physics. — I like sushi
Is this to say, in Aristotle things come with identity? — Mww
Identity being what a thing is, in Kant, identity is assigned to things, not for what it is, but for as what it is to be known. — Mww
This is a gross misunderstanding if you are referring to Kant. There is no bifurcation at all. — I like sushi
I would like to offer, for your consideration, the idea, the interpretation, that Kant isn’t talking about noumena at all. He is talking about the faculty of understanding, and its proclivity for exceeding its warrant, such warrants having already been specified in preceding sections of his critical theory. — Mww
. I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life. However I lead a life informed by what I have discovered or adopted as a practice for a period of time. — Punshhh
I don't hold to a two worlds conception of nature. There is only one world. As I said before I don't accept the bifurcation of nature into phenomena and noumena. — Janus
I am asserting that there are people who misunderstand the difference between 'things-in-themselves' and 'noumena'. — I like sushi
I am also asserting -- having read Kant quite thoroughly -- that it makes no sense to talk of a 'bifurcation of nature' between 'phenomena and noumena'. That is very much a gross misunderstanding, but a very common one. — I like sushi
What is the difference between noumena and things in themselves according to you? — Janus
and this is still a kind of dualism for all intents and purposes. — Janus
It is not necessary to live a life, so does not come under the purview of necessary beliefs. It is an interest, a leisure, pursuit, an interest.Of course you can say it is necessary for you―but perhaps that is just because you have come to think it is necessary for you, that is you have come to believe it.
Then we are not struggling with an explicitly dualist view, because the things that appears to us are the same things that have their own existence apart from our perceptions of them — Janus
Then we can speculate that things in themselves may exist in their own space and time, which cannot be proven but which seems most plausible… — Janus
For me it makes no sense to say "of course things have their own existence independent of any mind in the empirical sense, but not in the transcendental sense'. — Janus
If Kant is not positing that there is something which gives rise to phenomena then his position is no different than Phenomenalism. — Janus
I would like to offer, for your consideration…. — Mww
Then we can speculate that things in themselves may exist in their own space and time... — Janus
When it comes down to speculating about noumena or things in themselves there can be no discernible fact of the matter which could confirm or disconfirm any conjectures, so it comes down to what each of us might find to be the most useful and/or plausible way of thinking and talking about them.
My beef is with the dogmatic "thought police" prescriptions about what we can and cannot coherently think and talk about. For me it makes no sense to say "of course things have their own existence independent of any mind in the empirical sense, but not in the transcendental sense'. I see this prescription as dogmatic because there can be no strictly determinable transcendental sense. — Janus
A lot of this makes more sense form a phenomenological perspective (which is how I originally approached academic philosophy). Consciousness is 'of something' (the intentional), so if you follow that line of thinking further down the track you presume a grounding function.
If you have literally no interest in phenomenology then I can see how none of the above would serve any purpose nor inspire you to look further. — I like sushi
Then we can speculate that things in themselves may exist in their own space and time, which cannot be proven but which seems most plausible…
— Janus
Agreed, given the conditions which make that speculation plausible. It just isn’t a Kantian speculation and to which I only object because I think it is being made to look like it. In this particular speculation, while Kant also cannot prove things-in-themselves may exist in their own space and time, he only has to prove they cannot, in order for his entire metaphysical thesis with respect to human knowledge, to have an empirical limit. And he does exactly that, by proving….transcendentally….that space and time belong to the cognizing subject himself, which makes the existence of things in them, impossible. — Mww
All of which is quite beside the point, insofar as all which concerns us as knowing subjects, is any of that which is entirely dependent on the mind. — Mww
I recognize nothing that hints you have considered, so I shall assume you’re not so inclined. Or you have and kept it to yourself. Which is fine; just thought you’d be interested. — Mww
Remember? “…I can think what I please, provided only that I do not contradict myself…”, which is precisely what understanding is doing, when empirical conceptions of possible objects arise from it alone, the empirical representation of which, from intuition, is entirely lacking. — Mww
But the distinction isn’t a matter of “thought-police prescriptions.” It’s a matter of recognizing limits. — Wayfarer
When you say “of course things exist independently of any mind,” you’re already employing the categories of existence and independence. The transcendental point is simply: those categories have meaning only in relation to a subject. It’s not dogma, but an analysis of how thought works. — Wayfarer
So you’re right that there’s no empirical way to confirm or disconfirm claims about noumena—that’s precisely why Kant warns against treating them as if they were positive objects. — Wayfarer
You keep calling it “dogma,” but it seems to me the real issue is that you’re not willing to admit that our knowledge has limits. — Wayfarer
And I suspect the reason you push back so strongly is that you have an instinctive aversion to the very word transcendental—for you it smacks of “God talk,” which is why you keep insisting it must be dogmatic. But that’s really just your pre-existing conception of the question, not what’s actually at stake. — Wayfarer
I don't see myself as one of the thought police on this forum. That honour goes to all of those who squeal every time the word 'transcendent' is so much as mentioned. — Wayfarer
Whose limits, and justified by appealing to what exactly? — Janus
You even agree that it makes sense to say that things existed prior to humans. Then you go on to say it makes sense in an empirical context, but not in a transcendental context. I don't accept that bifurcation. — Janus
It's dogma, pure and simple, but I can't make you see that, you have to come to that realization yourself. — Janus
I don't so much object to the word 'transcendental' because we can only really reflect on what we experience and on what we can imagine.... — Janus
Science consists in investigation and analysis of the nature of the phenomena we experience. Phenomenology='What is the nature of experience ' and science= 'what is the nature of the things we experience'. — Janus
In contrast to the outlook of naturalism, Husserl believed all knowledge, all science, all rationality depended on conscious acts, acts which cannot be properly understood from within the natural outlook at all. Consciousness should not be viewed naturalistically as part of the world at all, since consciousness is precisely the reason why there was a world there for us in the first place. For Husserl it is not that consciousness creates the world in any ontological sense—this would be a subjective idealism, itself a consequence of a certain naturalising tendency whereby consciousness is cause and the world its effect—but rather that the world is opened up, made meaningful, or disclosed through consciousness. The world is inconceivable apart from consciousness. Treating consciousness as part of the world, reifying consciousness, is precisely to ignore consciousness’s foundational, disclosive role.
Of course I admit that our knowledge has limits, but I'm not a fan of pre-determining those limits. Of course we can talk about limits in tautologous way―once we conceive of objects as being "appearances for us" and "things in themselves" it is true by mere definition that if we define 'in itself' as what lies beyond 'how it appears' then we cannot have cognitive access to the in itself. But it doesn't follow logically that speculative talk about what it might be is meaningless. — Janus
But it doesn't follow logically that speculative talk about what it might be is meaningless.
— Janus
But it is likely to be dogmatic.
What has never entered your mind is not anything, obviously. And when it has entered your mind, it has done so via the senses, and has been interpreted by your intellect. What is outside that, neither exists nor does not exist. It is not yet anything, but that doesn't mean it's nothing. This is not dogma. — Wayfarer
You say that Kant "proves" that things-in-themselves cannot exist in space and time, when all he can prove if anything is that they don't exist (…) in our perceptual space and time. — Janus
I say that speculative conceptions of the kind of bare bones in-themselves nature of the objects that appear to us as phenomena is not at all contradictory. That is just an interpretation-dependent stipulative judgement that I don't accept. — Janus
If we are going to talk about things at all, then we should be consistent with what logic is implicit in thinking in terms of things. — Janus
Then if we posit things beyond cognition we are in speculative territory. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.