About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass!

Would logical I belong to the category of Thing-in-Self? — Corvus

Absolutely not, in Kantian metaphysics, at least. The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing, says so right there in the name. The logical “I” can never be found in space, so......

And no....noumena are not things-in-themselves. Never were. Overlook those instances where Kant seems to contradict himself.....think: contextual oversight....at least with respect to that text where he says with authority, how he wants noumena to be conceived in conjunction with the understanding, from which all conceptions arise.

I think the novel is fantastic.

About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass! — javi2541997

"The Plague" will remind you the Pandemic we have had. A great work of Camus.

The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing, — Mww

Any examples of them? I used to understand The "Thing-in-Itself" was impossible for us to know or perceive with out sensical perception. Could we then say, they do exist? How can we even talking about things that we don't perceive or know?

I think, Burroughs, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Kundera and especially Beckett in my early twenties ruined a lot of other "counterculture" writers for me. — 180 Proof

But

I think [The Plague] is fantastic. — 180 Proof

Always look on the bright side of life, eh?

The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing,
— Mww

Any examples of them? — Corvus

Yeah......every single thing there ever was or ever will be. All things are external to us, so exists in its own right. Exists as itself. Exists in-itself.

I used to understand The "Thing-in-Itself" was impossible for us to know or perceive with out sensical perception. — Corvus

True enough, but that doesn’t take anything away from the existence of it as such. It should be obvious the thing that affects the senses is not the thing of experience. Transitions into it, but is not it. The thing of perception is a real physical object out there, the thing of experience is a mental copy of it, a representation, in here. It is impossible that the totality of the thing of perception registers on the system, for such would necessarily be a simple thing, and there are no simple things in Nature**. In fact, even if it does register in concreto, it is quite clear the thing does not so register in summa, and if it doesn’t, it is impossible to know those parts, which leaves us with just logical inference.

So, from the human perspective.....the only one we care about....that which is represented in us, a function of sensibility, and subsequently cognized, a function of understanding, constitutes the reality of the thing for us; that part of the thing not represented hence not cognizable, constitutes merely the possible reality of the thing. Then, carrying the logic to its end, that which is not represented at all, is neither perceived nor cognized in our-selves, is the thing in it-self. All of it being out there, none of it being in here. And if all of it is out there and none in here, what of it is there for us to know?
(** transcendental refutation of Leibnitzian monadology)
————-

How can we even talking about things that we don't perceive or know? — Corvus

That which we don’t perceive or know we can still talk about logically. That which is impossible to perceive or know, should not be talked about at all, which means we should have no business with it. But we do sometimes indulge in that business, because reason left alone has no innate self-control, that being acquired from experience alone.

Are we good?

Sure. Great post thanks :fire:
I will embark on CPR reading soon, and your posts are going to be good foundation for the read. :up:

Good one downloadable from Gutenburg. Searchable, jumpable and C&P enabled.

Guyer/Wood, C&P enabled, non-searchable, scroll only, but with good translator intro: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

Have fun.

wow nice full copy of CPR !! Thank you. I also have ordered a 1950 hb copy of CPR translated by NK Smith printed by Macmillan, and it is on the way to me.

BRAVO!!!! No substitute for the book, I must say.

Norman Kemp Smith was the standard translation from 1929, until the Guyer/Wood came along. Typically, one accuses the other of mis-translating a notoriously difficult language in the first place, and a extremely difficult text in the second.

I was just telling somebody the other day about my excellent quality 1929 first edition NKS.

The 1929 1st edition must be super rare copy to find these days. :up:

Dunno about that, but I was told this one has special provenance, what with the ex libris Cambridge University bookplate.....which might simply indicate it was stolen......and antiquarian bookseller’s condition report.

yeah, I heard that Norman Kemp Smith is the de facto Kant scholar, but he is also well known for his works on Hume and Descartes I believe. Not sure on the bookplates and antiquarian bookseller stories, but it would be certainly nice to have the 1st edition copy from 1920s.

It is great that I can have both NKS and the Guyer/Wood copy(file from the link) of CPR, and take turns in the reading when one version is not clear to me, I can always go to the other version.