And forget noumena; the notion of them is utterly irrelevant in discussions by humans about humans. — Mww
The "thing-in-itself" is a crucial part of Kant's philosophy.
Thus,
And forget noumena; the notion of them is utterly irrelevant in discussions by humans about humans.
— Mww
Is a bit ridiculous. And probably the source of his confusion. — Xtrix
Hmmmm......here’s ridiculous: the claim, or even the intimation, that because noumena and the thing in itself are both unknowable to or by means of the human system, they are therefore the same thing. — Mww
If it was crucial, why didn’t he talk about it, other than to say there’s nothing there to talk about? — Mww
Hell.....I can do this chit all day. — Mww
You use wiki, I use Kant. — Mww
Phenomena and representation are different qualifications of the same thing, that being the external object. Representations are general things known to reason a priori, phenomena are unknown particulars. — Mww
If they're physical objects, or anything else whatsoever, then they're representations. — Xtrix
. Matter, causality, phenomena or objects of any kind are experienced through these forms -- as representations. — Xtrix
I think the correct description of Kant's view is that they're not representations, they're phenomena, appearance. — Wayfarer
I’m talking more about Kant’s variation- that we as subjects have representations of the outside world (the phenomenon, the object). — Xtrix
What I mean is, that to say that there's a representation of, or a representation and, is suggestive of representative realism, which is more like Locke's philosophy. — Wayfarer
No, you haven't. If you'd like to, feel free. I won't hold my breath. — Xtrix
All my quotes are right out of CPR 1787. — Mww
The "thing in itself" and "noumenon" is essentially the same thing, yes. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be glad to hear it. — Xtrix
The "thing in itself" and "noumenon" is essentially the same thing, yes. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be glad to hear it.
— Xtrix
Which you then claim you gave, while I merely cite Wikipedia.
So the point stands: you haven't. — Xtrix
The point doesn’t stand; I specifically said I gave no quotes on the distinction. The claim I referenced has to do with the phenomena/representation distinction. — Mww
(Bold mine)The conception of a noumenon, that is, of a thing which must be cogitated not as an object of sense, but as a thing in itself (solely through the pure understanding), is not self-contradictory, for we are not entitled to maintain that sensibility is the only possible mode of intuition. — Mww
Noumena is not thing-in-itself. — Mww
Thing-in-itself is external to us, noumena are intellectual intuitions given from pure understanding, thus necessarily within us. — Mww
You told me this was all basic stuff, but you didn’t seem to understand any of it. — Mww
Happy now? — Mww
(My italics)for things in themselves, which lie beyond its province, are called noumena for the very purpose of indicating that this cognition does not extend its application to all that the understanding thinks — Mww
The only justification for conceiving noumena is because we are not entitled to claim our form of cognition is the only kind there is. — Mww
you still maintain that somehow he's saying the thing in itself is "external" and the noumenon "necessarily within us." That's telling. — Xtrix
That you don’t know he talks about the thing-in-itself in another section, describing it as the real, albeit known object of sensibility, — Mww
and here, on noumena, he talks of the pure understanding cogitating noumena in the same way it cogitates the thing-in-itself. — Mww
Can you be more specific? How does falsifiability and paradigm shift, for example, imply a subject/object dualism?
— Andrew M
Both deal with scientific theories, and a knowing subject is thus assumed.
And again, I’m not necessarily talking about mind/body dualism. I’m talking more about Kant’s variation- that we as subjects have representations of the outside world (the phenomenon, the object). — Xtrix
The view from nowhere exists because science has to abstract from human perceptual relativity to get at the way things are, and not just as they appear to us. Otherwise, we're left with ancient skepticism or some form of idealism. — Marchesk
That's nice and all, but one still has to deal with intentionality, consciousness and epistemology. — Marchesk
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.