It seems that phenomena is noumena. — Gregory
I thought "thing-in-itself", "noumena", and "phenomena" are just different ways we perceive objects. — Gregory
According to evolutionary biology, H Sapiens' intellectual faculties are the culmination of millions years of evolution. For all these millions of years, our sensory and intellectual abilities have been honed and shaped by the exigencies of survival, through billions of lifetimes in various life-forms - fish, lizard, mammal, primate and so on - in such a way as to eventually give rise to the mind that we have today.
Recently, other scientific disciplines such as cognitive and evolutionary psychology have revealed that conscious perception, while subjectively appearing to exist as a steady continuum, is actually composed of a heirarchical matrix of interacting cellular transactions, commencing at the most basic level with the parasympathetic system which controls one’s respiration, digestion, and so on, up through various levels to culminate in that peculiarly human ability of rational thought (and beyond).
Consciousness plays the central role in co-ordinating these diverse activities so as to give rise to the sense of continuity which we call ‘ourselves’ - and also the apparent coherence and reality of the 'external world'. Yet it is important to realise that the naïve sense in which we understand ourselves, and the objects of our perception, to exist, is in fact totally dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness, the bulk of which are completely unknown to us.
When you perceive something - large, small, alive or inanimate, local or remote - there is a considerable amount of work involved in ‘creating’ the object from the raw material of perception. Your eyes receive the lightwaves reflected or emanated from it, your mind organises the image with regards to all of the other stimuli impacting your senses at that moment – either acknowledging it, or ignoring it, depending on how busy you are; your memory will then compare it to other objects you have seen, from whence you will (hopefully) recall its name, and perhaps know something about it ('star', 'tree', 'frog', etc).
And you will do all of this without you even noticing that you are doing it; it is largely unconscious.
In other words, your consciousness is not the passive recipient of sensory objects which exist irrespective of your perception of them. Instead, your consciousness is an active agent which constructs reality partially on the basis of sensory input, but also on the basis of of unconscious processes, memories, intentions, and on the basis of the ways in which the understanding categorises the phenomena of experience. This is what reality is - it's not simply 'out there' waiting for us to take it in, our taking it in is a constructive process.
On the other hand Karl Rahner in the last century built a vibrant Christian theology on Kantian thought. — Gregory
The Critique of Pure Reason feels mechanistic to me — Gregory
The word "noumena" originally meant "that which is thought" and it seemed to me Kant choose this for a reason. — Gregory
”thing-in-itself", "noumena", and "phenomena" are just different ways we perceive objects. — Gregory
there is no mention of conatus in the Critique of Pure Reason. — Gregory
The Critique of Pure Reason feels mechanistic to me — Gregory
some in Kant's time said he had merely rehashed Leibniz. — Gregory
I think Hume really disturbed Kant and the three critiques can be seen as his attempt to heal his faith and psychology — Gregory
Then you go on to write:Malebranche defended the theory that we don't really see material objects through perception, but instead, because our minds are so connected to the divine source — Gregory
Quite a combination in historiology to arrive to that idea.So there are several different forms of idealism. I think it's easy to at least understand what is being said when one is told "everything around you is really only thoughts". Materialism makes sense to me too. — Gregory
Something can be real and me, it can be real as me, or it can be real and not me: all 3 being different things. If real and me is rejected, there is spiritual collapse; if real and not me collapses, there is physical collapse. — Claude
whatever knowledge and experience I have relies on the constructive power of the mind — Wayfarer
In any case you seem pretty certain of your well researched comments, just wanted to post a participation on here, I don't think I can add anything more interesting that would not be just confusing. — Claude
I would say it depends on the observer. — Claude
because it is also conscious, and yet should be discarded as a real valuable experience if taken just by itself.the objects of our perception, to exist, is in fact totally dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness, the bulk of which are completely unknown to us.
Did you find any usefull insights yet? — Claude
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.