• KantDane21
    47
    Paul Guyer's book "Kant" (Routledge).

    He says, "To be able to decipher the nature of a thing does not imply that a person is directly acquainted with all aspect of this thing"... Kant "reveals to us the nature of the noumenon. But this is not to say—and Kant himself acknowledges this—that he can speculate as to what the noumenon is (if
    anything at all) besides from manifesting or objectifying itself as the human will.

    I reconstruct the argument as:

    (i.) If some object/thing A manifests as some object/thing B, then B is the nature of A,

    (ii.) The noumenal world manifests as the human will; thus,

    (iii.) the human will is the nature of the noumenal world.

    What is the name of the form...modus tollens I think? It seems deductively valid, but unsound because of (i.). e.g. i can say the “if depression manifests as body-trembling, then a body-trembling is the nature of depression”. But this seems to be false since body-trembling is not the "nature" of depression, but maybe just one symptom...
    Any feedback much appreciated!
  • bongo fury
    1.6k
    Page number? I can't find the passage, and "besides from" sounds like a typo.

    Anyway, I don't know much about Kant, but I won't let that stop me...

    He's just fleshing out the quote from Kant.

    Kant says: you can decipher the nature of a thing without seeing all its aspects. From P don't infer Q.

    Guyer says: Kant does decipher the nature of the noumenon without claiming to see all its aspects. P, but we don't infer Q. And by the way, the nature thus deciphered is to manifest or objectify as human will. Whatever that means. But how this nature was deciphered isn't mentioned. You seem to be hoping the decipherment is argued or explained. It's just given, as part of P.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k
    (i.) If some object/thing A manifests as some object/thing B, then B is the nature of A,KantDane21

    It seems deductively valid, but unsound because of (i.). e.g. i can say the “if depression manifests as body-trembling, then a body-trembling is the nature of depression”. But this seems to be false since body-trembling is not the "nature" of depression, but maybe just one symptom...KantDane21

    Good point.

    But even if we knew in totality what the nature of depression was through our senses - even if it is arrived at through some piece-meal process - our understanding of depression would converge on what it is in itself independent of its phenomenal attributes. It seems to me that if you take into account the fact that noumenon is necessary as a limiting factor, at least according to Kant, we can't say that something's nature can be identified with the way it manifests to our senses - or we could know everything about depression, or anything, really. So, your conclusion that (i) is unsound seems right.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    So you might be able to decipher that I am a poster on a philosophy forum, and yet not know what I had for breakfast this morning.

    Smart dude, Kant, I can find no fault with his position.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k
    So you might be able to decipher that I am a poster on a philosophy forum, and yet not know what I had for breakfast this morning.

    Smart dude, Kant, I can find no fault with his position.
    unenlightened

    I honestly don't know what to think of Kant. I think he would say that both your status as a poster on the forums and what you had to eat for breakfast are directly knowable as phenomena to the senses, so you aren't addressing the novelty of things-in-themselves or the noumenon.

    If one were instead employing logic to deduce from some premise derived from observation that you must have had eggs for breakfast, then one would be using some sort of transcendental means of deciphering something that is distinct from direct experience and observation - the noumenon.
  • jancanc
    126

    the reconstruction seems pretty damn good to me.....BUT.... some of these terms are vague/and/or ambiguous........ the argument also hinges on precise definitions...
    how did he define terms such as "Noumenon" (it is not always clear with Kant) "human will" and "nature"???
    "nature" that is a big one...how the heck do we define that?? I mean, i see furry stuff on the ground which i walk on....the nature is carpet??
    the argument is a modus ...
  • jancanc
    126
    yes, seems good to me, but i would say it is not clear what some of these terms mean..."nature' being a big one...
  • jancanc
    126
    when you say "nature of depression" what are you referring to?
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k
    yes, seems good to me, but i would say it is not clear what some of these terms mean..."nature' being a big one...jancanc

    I just used the term because it was expedient. I could have said "the totality of all of the things that make depression, depression", but that is cumbersome.

    I'm not sure what Kant would think of my usage of the word, honestly. Haven't seen him use the word at all, or any online resources when they discuss his work.
  • EnPassant
    667
    It is the difference between a synonym and a metaphor. A synonym does not necessarily exhibit the nature of its cause but a metaphor or analogy more closely manifests the nature of the thing it represents.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Modus ponense (IF x THEN y/x//y) [is always valid].
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.