![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If you have any quote from the Critique of Pure Reason or the Prolegomena that says that noumena are knowable because they correspond to phenomena, I would be very interested in seeing it. However, please give an accurate citation of the source with a page reference. The quote should be in the exact words of Kant--not in the words of some third party who claims to understand Kant.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:31 am wrote:If you have any quote from the Critique of Pure Reason or the Prolegomena that says that noumena are knowable because they correspond to phenomena, I would be very interested in seeing it. However, please give an accurate citation of the source with a page reference. The quote should be in the exact words of Kant--not in the words of some third party who claims to understand Kant.
Why am I being asked to produce a quote for something I never claimed?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » January 21st, 2015, 9:08 pm wrote:The idea that there is no external states which corresponds to any of our mental ideas or mental impressions probably more correctly attributed to George Berkeley, not Kant.
hyksos wrote:The stronger claim that the "external world doesn't even exist" is something we today call solipsism. The German man, Immanuel Kant, is on record saying that "this is something even Berkeley will not commit to." In other words, Kant was saying even among the most solipsistic in our little circle of intellectuals, even Berkeley won't go that far. Yes, he did actually write that.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:02 am wrote:Since neither Kant nor Berkeley nor anyone in this thread is arguing for solipsism, I don't see the relevance of this point.
Neri wrote:For example, reason would dictate that if a man stands in front of a speeding carriage and is run down, he will either be killed or seriously injured. Yet, to Kant, all of this is mere appearance, for in a timeless world the carriage could never close the distance between it and the man. Time is just the “inner sense” that creates the illusion of motion, not only in whatever may lie outside of us but also in the very progression of our own thoughts. Now, if as a result of the collision with the carriage, the man appears to be dead to all outside observers—he must appear to be dead to himself. But, to say that it appears to him that he is dead is nonsense; for if it appeared to him that he was dead, nothing would appear to him in the first place.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:23 pm wrote:Kant believed that we all exist as minds, albeit with native limitations to know external reality as it really is. He did not deny the reality of things outside of us. He only denied that we have the power to know them as they really are. Therefore, Kant was not a solipsist.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
owleye » January 22nd, 2015, 3:41 pm wrote:You were very much on top of what Neri was writing and seemed to be supporting him from a different part of that same post. Are you being amply critical in how you interpret what Neri is saying by some sort selective reading?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » January 22nd, 2015, 7:32 pm wrote:Hyksos,
Read Positor’s post if you have any interest in focusing your thinking.
I would only add two things: (1) Kant’s philosophy is such that nothing in science can be said to vindicate it; for, to Kant, all science concerns itself with phenomena and has nothing to do with noumena. (2) Kant did not change is views on the phenomena-noumena distinction in subsequent additions of the Critique of Pure Reason. The quotes I provided are from the latest addition.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » January 22nd, 2015, 7:02 pm wrote:So what idea would it be correct to attribute to Kant? How did he view the relation between external states and our mental ideas/impressions? As far as I can tell, his view in the Critique of
Since neither Kant nor Berkeley nor anyone in this thread is arguing for solipsism, I don't see the relevance of this point.
1. Our world is the world of phenomena (appearances, mental impressions)
2. Thus, Kant argues that our experience of consciousness in its temporality and of our very selves is merely an appearance (phenomenon)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
owleye » January 22nd, 2015, 5:36 pm wrote:I wish you luck in dealing with Neri, especially on matters, Kantian. This last response of his is a common tactic. However, I applaud that your insights are more penetrating and much clearer than mine. Over the years I'd been attempting to get into the nitty gritty with Neri, only to find he is very slippery. I've lost interest and resolve. My guess is that only in places like open forums can he get away with such nonsense. Were he actually trying to submit a paper for peer-review or for acceptance in some publication, I daresay he would find he is not welcome.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The idea that there is no external states which corresponds to any of our mental ideas or mental impressions probably more correctly attributed to George Berkeley, not Kant.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » January 23rd, 2015, 2:40 am wrote:A realist is one who believes that the senses present to the mind the world as it really is. Kant was an anti-realist because he did not believe this.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:40 pm wrote:James,
A realist is one who believes that the senses present to the mind the world as it really is. Kant was an anti-realist because he did not believe this. However, the fact that he held that the senses do not give us the world as it really is, does not make him a solipsist. This is Philosophy 101. You ought to know better.
What is your answer to my question?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:26 pm wrote:owleye » January 22nd, 2015, 3:41 pm wrote:You were very much on top of what Neri was writing and seemed to be supporting him from a different part of that same post. Are you being amply critical in how you interpret what Neri is saying by some sort selective reading?
Positor wrote:The argument about the man run down by a carriage is a difficult point. I see it as a reductio ad absurdum, roughly along the following lines:
1. Things-in-themselves are timeless; it is only our intuition that arranges them into a temporal progression.
2. Therefore my intuition itself (and hence my existence) must be independent of (logically prior to) that temporal progression.
3. Therefore my existence and intuition must be timeless.
4. Therefore the totality of the noumenal world (insofar as it affects me) must affect me all at once.
5. Part of this noumenal world, somehow 'decoded' and temporally arranged by my intuition, must relate to states-of-affairs in which I am dead (or not yet born).
6. Therefore, according to this argument, I can (at some phenomenal time) perceive phenomenal states-of-affairs in which I am dead (or not yet born).
7. But this is absurd; I know by experience that I cannot (at any phenomenal time) perceive such states-of-affairs.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Neri » January 23rd, 2015, 3:11 pm wrote:.... and he insists that all phenomena, because they are only appearances, can tell us nothing about things as they really are (noumena).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » January 23rd, 2015, 9:36 pm wrote:Go with what works - success, not absolute truth, is what matters in the marriage of phenomenon and noumenon.
Go with what works - success, not absolute Reason, is what matters in the marriage of phenomenon and noumenon.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests