I get what TimeLine is trying to get at, but she's still wrong that we can have access to the noumenon. Contrary to the Cartesian version, in Kant, the subjective is not prioritised over the objective as giving us access to knowledge that is more "certain", since the subjective is still mediated through the pure internal intuition of time, and hence is not given to us as it exists in-itself. I don't have direct access to either external objects or to myself. So just like the noumeon corresponds to an "object in-itself", it must also correspond to a "subject in-itself". These two are both inaccessible. In fact, the whole talk of "object in-itself", even though Kant uses it, makes no sense, since objects always exist for subjects, and the noumenon does not have the forms of space and time which permit for the individuation of existence into the poles of subject and object.Subjective experience is phenomenal. The object of the phenomenon is noumenal. If you say the noumenal is knowable, reading generously, I read that as rejecting Kant as opposed to misunderstanding Kant, but I can't follow your suggestion that the subjective is noumenal (i.e. the phenomenal is noumenal). — Hanover
We never know ourselves as we are. We know THAT we are, but not WHAT we are. The access we have to our own subjectivity is also given mediately, through the pure intuition of time.Our awareness to exercise moral law that is authentically willed and therefore real is based on our understanding of ourselves as one that establishes this law, the world of understanding that is grounded in the transcendental 'I' and this does not follow if the things-in-themselves cannot be known. — TimeLine
While I am not as familiar with Kant's ethics as I am with his metaphysics, I don't quite follow you here. Through practical reason we postulate those that we cannot know through pure reason, but which are needed in order to act. I don't see how this "gives us access" to the noumenon.What I am attempting to convey is that there is no exclusion from accessing the noumenal because we have practical reason to postulate that free will exists there and presume that it is the location that constitutes reality even if it can be experienced only qua appearance. — TimeLine
The argument goes more like this: we can presume, if you want, that the noumenon is the location of freedom because causality is a category imposed by the understanding, and the noumenon stands outside of it.Overall, understanding of the ultimate nature of reality remains unknown, but we are nevertheless capable of regulating using reason the principles that govern our experience that is constitutive of this free will. — TimeLine
We never know ourselves as we are. We know THAT we are, but not WHAT we are. The access we have to our own subjectivity is also given mediately, through the pure intuition of time. — Agustino
I think that's the other way around - not bound by time, and therefore not subject to deterministic laws which can only apply within time.This is the most controversial aspect to Kant' thesis because the noumenal self is not subject to deterministic laws and therefore not bound by time — TimeLine
But free will is noumenal - we cannot empirically know it.Whereas free will is not bound by nature — TimeLine
Except that we don't "know" what we ought to do, at least we don't know with certainty.if we know what we ought to do, we choose to do what is right — TimeLine
Where do you get the idea that free will can causally influence nature from :s ? I think this is wrong, because, once again, causality is imposed on the phenomenon by the understanding. So you cannot infer causality outside of the domain of application of the understanding, meaning outside the phenomenon. I think it is fair to say that the phenomenon as a whole is some kind of "reflection" if you want of the noumenon, but not that one causes the other.You are saying that we do not have access to it, but we do, we just don't know how we have access because it is not bound by categories since free will can causally influence nature. — TimeLine
I disagree we can experience effects FROM noumenal causality. Effects are always given from within the pheonomenon - one experience is given to us, presented to us, as the cause of the other. But both experiences are necessarily within the phenomenon.That means that we know once we experience the effects from noumenal causality. — TimeLine
You're asking how moral atheists ground their morality without God? They pretend like they're not relying on God even though they are. Maybe that answer is personal commentary, but I'm open to hearing your answer. — Hanover
I get what TimeLine is trying to get at, but she's still wrong that we can have access to the noumenon. — Agustino
I think Kant is right on the point that we can't know an object freed of all subjective interpretation. The perspective from nowhere makes no sense.That's why Aristotle placed intuition at the highest level of knowledge. Kant simply defines "intuition" in an odd way (as you explain in the other thread), and this dismisses "intuition" in the traditional sense, disposing of our access to the noumenon. — Metaphysician Undercover
You should open a new thread about this, it would be interesting to discuss. A direct confrontation between Kant and Aristotle/Plato/Aquinas is never brought about, and, usually, participants on both sides only skirt around the issues and dismiss each other. I have yet to see a rigorous treatment of Kant from a Thomistic perspective (for example), or a rigorous treatment of Aquinas/Aristotle from a Kantian perspective.Actually I think it's Kant who is wrong on this point. From the Platonic tradition, we have direct access to apprehend intelligible objects (noumena) directly with the intellect, through intuition. That's why Aristotle placed intuition at the highest level of knowledge. Kant simply defines "intuition" in an odd way (as you explain in the other thread), and this dismisses "intuition" in the traditional sense, disposing of our access to the noumenon. — Metaphysician Undercover
For example, given the transcendental aesthetic this is wrong. Those "intelligible objects" are given at minimum mediately, through the pure intuition of time. Thus, they are not given as they are in-themselves, but as they are in time.From the Platonic tradition, we have direct access to apprehend intelligible objects (noumena) directly with the intellect, through intuition. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, just like how we come to learn about external objects, we also come to learn about who we are (our subjectivity). This is not something that we see clearly - we can (and often are) wrong about what we want, who we are, what we react like, what will make us happy etc. It is only by going through phenomenal experience that we come to learn more (hopefully) about who we (phenomenally) are. But we are often deceived about our intentions, our desires, and our inner states. Often, we also deceive ourselves into thinking we are so and so, or we are capable of so and so, when in truth we aren't.
So yes, TimeLine is right that there is a subjective "in-itself" - but she's wrong that we have access to it. — Agustino
Actually I think it's Kant who is wrong on this point. From the Platonic tradition, we have direct access to apprehend intelligible objects (noumena) directly with the intellect, through intuition. That's why Aristotle placed intuition at the highest level of knowledge. Kant simply defines "intuition" in an odd way (as you explain in the other thread), and this dismisses "intuition" in the traditional sense, disposing of our access to the noumenon. — Metaphysician Undercover
But free will is noumenal - we cannot empirically know it. — Agustino
I think that's the other way around - not bound by time, and therefore not subject to deterministic laws which can only apply within time. — Agustino
Where do you get the idea that free will can causally influence nature from :s ? I think this is wrong, because, once again, causality is imposed on the phenomenon by the understanding. So you cannot infer causality outside of the domain of application of the understanding, meaning outside the phenomenon. I think it is fair to say that the phenomenon as a whole is some kind of "reflection" if you want of the noumenon, but not that one causes the other. — Agustino
So, consciously, you are told that getting married to a trophy wife, working in a secure job, having two kids and living in the suburbs will bring you happiness. You do what you are told. You find that attractive wife, but she is mindless, you cannot have great conversations with her or laugh with her about similar jokes, but you think she is right for you because she epitomises what you are told to find attractive. You are silently suffering because you are blindly following, but you cannot articulate why because there is a totality in your conscious thoughts as dictated by your environment that you actually think that you are supposed to be happy because that is what you are told will bring you happiness. .
We are told that selling ourselves as objects - to be attractive, powerful, wealthy - is the requisite for this success, that we feel accomplished when we post a photo on Instagram and get likes for it despite the fact that it is completely meaningless. The more likes, the more worthy the object. There is an inherent emptiness in this, a lack of relatedness, or substance that despite the fact that we are dynamic, active, energetic and doing things, all of it is really nothing.
The congratulations that we receive from others who are also experiencing the symptoms of this pathology satisfy us consciously because we think there is some unity in this approval, but deep within we understand the self-deceit or the sacrifice to our own self-hood, but we simply cannot articulate it. — TimeLine
This is very well written, and I think I know what you mean. This is a great description of erring on the side of a kind of conformity (a conformity to billboards and perfume ads, which is now probably a conformity to the Instagram feeds of those who strive to incarnate such ads.). John Berger comes to mind on this: "Glamor is the happiness of being envied." On the other side we find a disagreeable insistence on 'individuality' that is little more than transgression, a mere negation of the norm which conforms in its own way.
I've tried to learn to trust my own first-hand experience. The photoshopped ads say one thing. The public sentimentality say something similar. The fullness of life, however, says things that cannot be fit conveniently into particular manipulative/marketing strategies. Even benevolent manipulation (political activism) tends to hide the part of the truth that muddies its message. — foo
This is a great description of erring on the side of a kind of conformity (a conformity to billboards and perfume ads, which is now probably a conformity to the Instagram feeds of those who strive to incarnate such ads.)... On the other side we find a disagreeable insistence on 'individuality' that is little more than transgression, a mere negation of the norm which conforms in its own way. — foo
I've tried to learn to trust my own first-hand experience. The photoshopped ads say one thing. The public sentimentality say something similar. The fullness of life, however, says things that cannot be fit conveniently into particular manipulative/marketing strategies. Even benevolent manipulation (political activism) tends to hide the part of the truth that muddies its message. — foo
Is there any authenticity in individuality, is it even possible? — TimeLine
I've tried to follow the various discussions of Kant in this post and gotten lost. Where in Kant should I look for what he has to say. — T Clark
His moral theory is the best starting point and the concept of autonomy and the transcendental argument vis-a-vis reason or practical reason, but I would recommend more introductory explanations as it is easy to get confused by him. You can start here and progress to his work later. — TimeLine
'Individuality' is a collectivist ideology constructed to overcome barriers to the system, just as we have laissez-faire to promote capitalism. — TimeLine
I was thinking about this more. I think it explains a lot of the differences of opinion and misunderstandings you and I have had about autonomy and authenticity. I don't see it as having a moral dimension. You do. — T Clark
Without sensibility, no object would be given to us; and without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.
being moral cannot be performed without consciousness, that our instinctual drives or impluses contain nothing of substance — TimeLine
I think that's part of the truth. But we do have unique bodies and unique formative childhoods, so that we are indeed distinct. I agree that this distinctness can be exaggerated or feigned for ideological reasons, but what I have in mind is the genuine uniqueness that is allowed to manifest itself in a person who is not being self-conscious, who is not performing. — foo
Let's imagine the differing behavior of those who are not being watched. Maybe the rest of humanity is somehow gone. No one will ever know how they choose to pass their time in this thought experiment. I'll grant that we carry virtual societies within ourselves, and that selves are largely constructed in relation to and dependent upon other selves. Nevertheless, I think you can see the continuum I'm pointing at. In short, I think that people can indeed more or less authentic, which is roughly to say more or less flowing, trusting, uncensored. — foo
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.