Thread 24851339

>human knowledge is limited to phenomena, the world as structured by our mind’s categories (space, time, causality, etc)
>the noumenal world, things as they are “in themselves,” independent of perception, is unknowable

this distinction was meant to preserve both empirical science (which studies appearances) and metaphysical limits (beyond which reason cannot go).
but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?

He doesn’t use noumena to designate what is available to metaphysics and spirituality, he designates it as a firm boundary. For Kant all that is available to the senses and even imagination as appearances are phenomena and noumena is precisely that which is not so by definition it can’t be known because we don’t have the faculty to cognize it.
He really makes it a simple and clear distinction.

>>24851339 (OP)
>but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?
We can't, Kant is self-refuting.

>>24851339 (OP)
He never claimed it caused appearance, noumena is purely a negative concept, it's simply that which we can't know or experience, like God

>>24851339 (OP)
i cant fucking believe despite the fact that i have never read a single word of kant in my life i am a KANTIAN
i literally agree with this shit off my own conclusions
fuck dude
now i gotta revise so much shit to give him credit and i had NO IDEA

>>24851339 (OP)
We can't know anything about its character, we know it exists because we know the mind is projecting, you can say it is projecting things based on nothing else, sure, but then that's what noumena is. Kant doesn't make claims about its nature.

>>24851665
It’s save to say we can’t know God. But how can you be so sure that no one experiences God?

>>24851339 (OP)
Read Schopenhauer, He makes a concise argument about how "The will" which resides in the "Noumenal", Which means that that Will also resides in us as it also resides in the objects we perceive

But that's merely just speculation, You can't know what's there is, The unknown can never be know even Kant himself said it

>>24852089
This sounds stupid.

>>24851665
It wouldn’t even be God because we can conceptualize God. Noumena goes further than that in Kant’s definition and noumena simply can not be known because as I said, we don’t have the faculties to cognize it whatsoever, only as what it is not, which according to Kant is appearances.
>>24852089
For Schopenhauer the Will is the thing in itself, the striving force of the universe, which is perceivable as representation (what Kant would call “appearances”) and and is known to us through ourselves as we have Will.
As you said, Will is in everything we see, thus the World as representation, but it is more than that, it’s the essence of the universe and all striving; it’s what makes a magnet point north, the planets orbit the sun, human nature, pain and pleasure, the laws of physics, chemical reactions, so on and so forth.
Schopenhauer’s main divergence from Kant is precisely that the Will, the thing in and of itself can be known and is known immediately through the self.

>>24851339 (OP)
>how can we even assert its existence
By dialectically affirming it as the only existing thing.
>or claim it causes appearances
This is plain wrong.

>>24851339 (OP)
I think Hegel sucks, tried to read his stuff a few times and every time I get so bored, nodding off, rereading the same passages over and over only to realise they're actually very simply just worded totally retardedly
Kant is easy to read, makes sense, Hegel just is pseud waffle galore

>>24852176
huh?

>>24852757
Kant = you can’t know noumena in any way shape or form, point blank period,
Schopenhauer = noumena is the Will, we can have knowledge of it immediately through the self. The Will is in all objects and all matters of causality,

>>24851339 (OP)
>but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?
Because the claim works. The justification for ideas, theories and ultimately language itself is pragmatic. We dice the world up into objects and words by utility, not by a matter of some detached factual knowledge. A house has no rooms. It just has walls. We infer the rooms from lack of walls because it suits our pragmatic ends.

>>24852807
Fichte views knowledge similarly. There is no detached, abstract, pure knowing, everything stands in relation to us as active, autonomous (=moral) beings and it is only because of this practical relation that we can know anything at all. This is also where Kant's thinking leads if you just make him consistent and realize his primary of practical reason.

>>24852820
>Kant's thinking .. if you just make him consistent
What that means?

>>24852856
I mean Kant has a radical division between theoretical and practical reason, but he says in the second Critique that practical reason must actually be first, but he never works this out in a satisfactory way. Kant's system grew organically and it became unwieldy; he started out trying to refute Hume and Leibniz, ends up in totally different waters, but is never able to go back and 'fix' the first Critique or make everything coherent.

>>24851339 (OP)
>>24851622
>if we can't see behind that door how can we assert there's anything inside it?
Stuff keeps coming out of the door you braindead retards.

The alternative is that the concepts in your mind are the same as the fundamental reality they're trying to describe. You'll deny believing this but in practice this is the braindead belief subhumans like you actually act out and the reason basic observations like noting the existence of the noumenal world trigger you.

here's a question for you Kantian that's been bothering me lately. just this year scientists figured out how to engineer nerve endings in the eye so that the eye could see a never-before seen color. well, was the color noumenal until it became phenomenal with this new technique or not?

>>24853825
No

>>24853825
Link to the article?

Btw, tetrachromats exist

>>24852176
>>24852786
Which makes it all the more baffling that he accuses Hegel and others of perverting Kant and learning nothing from him. While he doesn't share Hegel's stylistic offenses, he's just as unfaithful to Kant's central epistemological teaching in the end.

>>24852932
>>The alternative is that the concepts in your mind are the same as the fundamental reality they're trying to describe.
Yes.

>>24854222
But that's not idealism, it's conceptual realism.

there’s no “noumenal world.” even already in Kant’s own formulations the noumenon is a merely necessary postulate of pure reason which turns out to be useful for explaining some otherwise impossible phenomena pertaining to the will

>>24854222
But we know for sure this is false since the concepts in our minds get refined over time as we learn more about thing the concept is representing.
Someone mentioned light and it's one of the best examples, we only see a small strip the spectrum so that was the "phenomena", the thing as it existed in our mind until new scientific instruments and ideas expanded the phenomena to include more. There's no reason to believe we've ever conceptualized any thing entirely as it is, plenty of reasons not to believe that and the way we model the physical world currently using structured logic suggests it's logically, provably impossible.

>>24854353
Recommendations on learning Kant?

>>24854393
I barely know anything about Kant. That post is from stemlord books and philosophy of science.

>>24851339 (OP)
It would be limited to an individual or group basis. Let’s say an entity appeared in your room and turned everything made of wood into gold. Now let’s say this only happens once to you. You wouldn’t be able to prove it to an outside source since you couldn’t replicate the conditions that made it so. But none the less you would have a whole bunch of wooden furniture that is now gold. Some people would believe you some wouldn’t. You would individually know the truth but there would be no scientific way to prove it.

>>24854537
The reply completely misses the point. The wooden-furniture-to-gold scenario is still entirely phenomenal - it's objects in space and time that you experience through your cognitive apparatus. Whether others believe you is irrelevant to the noumenal/phenomenal distinction.