• Mww

    One of us has grossly misinterpreted the Critique.
  • Arthur Rupel
    Kant, at the start stated the concept of the "thing in itself." Later on, one of the uses of noumena is
    what exists when all perception is taken from from the "observeables". It would seem that it is the remarkable capability of the mind to take what is utterly beyond awareness and give it an appearance in awareness. How this can happens is one of the great ignored questions.

    Bishop Berkley had previously that that it is ridiculous to believe that anything exists outside our minds since everything we see is inside our minds. God is the great coordinator. Kant got us out of this annoying statement by the very logical statement that there is a real existence outside our minds which is given an appearance inside our minds

    Kant did not write a lot about noumena other than it is there. What I am doing is simply exploring and speculating further what noumena is. This is not part of Kant. But this is an exploration and speculation of idea.I claim nothing else.

    My main point is that physics have studied phenomena with remarkable success. Physics explains, predicts and is experimental verified. If noumena is the actual external reality, it should be calling the shots. This is an contradiction of two statements that are obviously true.
  • Mww

    Kant is notoriously hard to grasp, so right off the top, I shouldn’t present myself as an expert by any means.

    That being said, I haven’t found anything on the removal of perception from “observables” that leaves behind anything but space and time, which do not fit the explanation for noumena.

    And the mind does indeed give appearance to that which is far beyond it. Such is called transcendental illusion and is PRECISELY why the critique was written in the first place, to direct reason to its proper domain. Kant states definitively the illusion cannot be removed because of the nature of the mind itself, only exposed and controlled.

    Explore to your metaphysical content.
  • Arthur Rupel
    Thanks for the comment. I was looking a little more deeply into the concept of nonmena on Utube. One presentation gave the example of a sunset. Perception sees it as the color yellow (as an example).
    However if we look at the science yellow is in the electromagnetic spectrum I thing (and I could be wrong) in the range of 500 nm,

    Many would say this is the noumenal interpretation of the color yellow, However how is a nm? It is a measurement in space. What is space? It would be Kant's interpretation that an inherent quality of our mind, a seed, in consort with perception, to give order to our perceptions (phenomenal objects in space).

    Or space could very well be (not Kant's interpretation) of something in noumenon..

    Electric and magnetic fields were based on Faraday's perceptions and thought.
    Perceptions are representations of noumenon. The external real gives, with the interaction of the mind, the phenomenal real (what's in our minds).

    I would guess that giving noumenon a conscious representation is some how a part of evolution. Somewhat along the line evolution and maybe something else kicked in to improve our chances for survival.

    To say that what we see is really out there is a questionablel assumption. To say that what we see is what represents what we cannot see may be a more reasonable assumption

    Another Utube presentation was given by Amy HABER,The Noumenon of Kant gives a very enlightening discussion of this. Crudely put she discusses noumenon as triparte:
    1. It is the utterly unperceivable interacting with the mind to give the perceivable. The external reality and the mind interacts to give the world reality,

    One interesting point that feeling of "outside" is a mental impression (Kant). This simple short statement
    knocks the wind out of a lot of stuff.

    2. The noumenon of the I, "das ich."

    3. Tjhe noumenon of the whole (I could be wrong on this one).
Add a Comment