GENIUS FORUMS

We are currently reading about Kantian epistemology, on a very basic level. In other words, there are only a few pages dedicated to his whole thought in this area. I am trying to get an understanding of what he actually holds. Stephen Toulmin said that Kant was showing bad faith using noumena as an explanation for what cannot be truly known, but I'm not so sure I agree. I am not experienced in specific philosopher's thought, so pardon the rudimentary nature of my questions to follow:

In order to understand better, a scenario of visiting an art museum and a Picasso hangs in the gallery. Two people are viewing the painting, you and me. Given Kant's philosophy:

1. Does the painting exist because there is a consensus between two that it exists, even though our perceptions of the painting may differ, or is it a mental construct?

2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

3. If the painting does exist, is it a part of the noumenal world? That is, is our personal perception of the painting in the phenomenal world and the object itself in the noumenal world?

4. This may be a really stupid question, but would he consider us to be noumena? If the real object outside our mind could be a whole different object than what we perceive, could this not apply to ourselves? Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)? And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

P. S. This is not homework but something I made up to understand, the real homework has to do with relating Kant to Barry Stroud, but before I can go there, I have to understand Kant first. Are you game?

passthrough wrote:

Are you game?

Yes. So, here's the challenge. You take a definite position and prepare to defend it, and we'll see what I can come up with.

Are you game?

passthrough wrote:We are currently reading about Kantian epistemology, on a very basic level. In other words, there are only a few pages dedicated to his whole thought in this area. I am trying to get an understanding of what he actually holds. Stephen Toulmin said that Kant was showing bad faith using noumena as an explanation for what cannot be truly known, but I'm not so sure I agree. I am not experienced in specific philosopher's thought, so pardon the rudimentary nature of my questions to follow:

From what I know of Kant, he believed that the world was composed of discrete objects, but that consciousness doesn't have direct access to them. Consciousness only knows objects through the senses, which have no access to the thing-in-itself, but only an appearance of what's real. Knowledge of objects is the phenomenal world and the things-in-themselves are the noumenal world.

I'm not sure what Toulmin had in mind about bad faith, but around here we would say Kant had bad faith because he believed in objects outside the mind. The noumena is actually the Totality of existence, which is a boundless and boundary-less continuum, and exists by definition so there can be no doubt about it.

In order to understand better, a scenario of visiting an art museum and a Picasso hangs in the gallery. Two people are viewing the painting, you and me. Given Kant's philosophy:

1. Does the painting exist because there is a consensus between two that it exists, even though our perceptions of the painting may differ, or is it a mental construct?

For Kant, it exists because it is an object in the noumenal world.

2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

Both.

3. If the painting does exist, is it a part of the noumenal world? That is, is our personal perception of the painting in the phenomenal world and the object itself in the noumenal world?

Yes.

4. This may be a really stupid question, but would he consider us to be noumena?

Yes, I think so.

If the real object outside our mind could be a whole different object than what we perceive, could this not apply to ourselves?

Yes.

Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)? And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

I don't know what he thought about this. I think he probably thought that the soul is part of the noumenal.

Leyla Shen wrote: Yes. So, here's the challenge. You take a definite position and prepare to defend it, and we'll see what I can come up with. Are you game?

I am not sure I know what you mean by taking a definite position and prepare to defend it. In other words, do you want me to tell you what I understand Kant's position to be and be ready to argue why I understand it as such?

If so, then I did because my take is stated but in the form of a question...

Edit: to clarify

Matt:

From what I know of Kant, he believed that the world was composed of discrete objects, but that consciousness doesn't have direct access to them. Consciousness only knows objects through the senses, which have no access to the thing-in-itself, but only an appearance of what's real. Knowledge of objects is the phenomenal world and the things-in-themselves are the noumenal world.

Good, that's what I was thinking it to be.


Matt:

I'm not sure what Toulmin had in mind about bad faith, but around here we would say Kant had bad faith because he believed in objects outside the mind.

He recoiled at the idea of giving a name to something that we can never know, possibly then making it something more than what it is.

Matt:

The noumena is actually the Totality of existence, which is a boundless and boundary-less continuum, and exists by definition so there can be no doubt about it.

So, if Kant was acting in bad faith stating that objects exist outside of the mind, how is this any different than your Totality of existence? Noumena, as I understand it, means reality that cannot be directly accessed by the mind, therefore we cannot ever understand its true nature, only what we perceive it to be...

Also, from what I understand, Kant believed in cause and effect, it was one of his relationship categories in the mind that assimilates sensory experiences.

Exists by definition? Can you explain a little more what you mean?

In order to understand better, a scenario of visiting an art museum and a Picasso hangs in the gallery. Two people are viewing the painting, you and me. Given Kant's philosophy:

1. Does the painting exist because there is a consensus between two that it exists, even though our perceptions of the painting may differ, or is it a mental construct?

For Kant, it exists because it is an object in the noumenal world.

Good. I'm with you so far.

2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

Both.

When you say both, I assume you mean my perception of you is the mental construct and you, as noumena, exist.

3. If the painting does exist, is it a part of the noumenal world? That is, is our personal perception of the painting in the phenomenal world and the object itself in the noumenal world?

Yes.

I'm still with you.

4. This may be a really stupid question, but would he consider us to be noumena?

Yes, I think so.

Given all of the other answers, this would seem only logical.

If the real object outside our mind could be a whole different object than what we perceive, could this not apply to ourselves?

Yes.

Good.

Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)? And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

I don't know what he thought about this. I think he probably thought that the soul is part of the noumenal.

We haven't quite gotten that far, I think this issue is discussed in a future chapter, but while I was on a roll, I thought I'd ask.

What is your personal opinion regarding these same questions, other than where it is obvious?

Well, this is not exactly a demonstration of what I call game on your part, passthrough.

Sorry to interrupt.

Carry on.

Leyla:

Well, this is not exactly a demonstration of what I call game on your part, passthrough.

Then tell me what you had in mind. I was attempting to find out whether my understanding of Kant was close or if I fell off the path, and my game was a simple one - Q&A with a pretext. I apologize if I was misleading in my intentions. I am still game if you will define it, but I am easy pickins for someone that is more educated in this area, such as yourself...however, I'm willing to give it a go.

Sorry to interrupt.
Carry on.

There was no interruption. In fact, at first I anticipated that you wanted me to give you my personal ideas on the subject and in thinking about what I thought and relating it to Kant's theory, I finally came to an understanding that allowed me to finish the comparative analysis between Stroud's analogy and Kant's theory.

By that time I got back here (On US time) and working all day, Matt had been gracious enough to confirm my understanding.

Passthrough,

Matt: I'm not sure what Toulmin had in mind about bad faith, but around here we would say Kant had bad faith because he believed in objects outside the mind.

Pass: He recoiled at the idea of giving a name to something that we can never know, possibly then making it something more than what it is.

Ah, I think that's more or less what my view is.

Matt: The noumena is actually the Totality of existence, which is a boundless and boundary-less continuum, and exists by definition so there can be no doubt about it.

Pass: So, if Kant was acting in bad faith stating that objects exist outside of the mind, how is this any different than your Totality of existence?

Because the Totality has no boundaries (beyond what the mind creates). Boundaries are dependent on a mind to create them, so outside the mind there are no boundaries. An object can't exist without a boundary to delineate it from the things that it is not. So, without boundaries there are no objects, just the Totality.

Pass: Noumena, as I understand it, means reality that cannot be directly accessed by the mind, therefore we cannot ever understand its true nature, only what we perceive it to be...

Reality can't be accessed by a deluded mind, but it can be fully known and accessed by a mind imbued with wisdom, although it would be more accurate to say that the mind submits to Reality rather than accesses it.

Pass: Also, from what I understand, Kant believed in cause and effect, it was one of his relationship categories in the mind that assimilates sensory experiences.

I don't know about that. Haven't got that far. Can you tell me anything else about it?

Pass: Exists by definition? Can you explain a little more what you mean?

If we define "Totality" to mean "everything that exists", then all it takes to prove that it is real is to prove that one thing exists, because even if the universe only consisted of that one thing, then the Totality would simply be that one thing. Or, alternatively, if the universe consists of more than just that one thing, then the Totality would consist of that one thing plus everything else that is not that thing. Now, in order to prove that one thing exists, all we have to do is look to experience, which is definitely happening and can't be doubted. This is because to try and doubt it would leave you with the experience of doubt. So, experience is definitely an existence, therefore the totality of all existences is real.

Pass: 2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

Matt: Both.

Pass: When you say both, I assume you mean my perception of you is the mental construct and you, as noumena, exist.

Yes.

Pass: Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)? And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

Matt: I don't know what he thought about this. I think he probably thought that the soul is part of the noumenal.

Pass: We haven't quite gotten that far, I think this issue is discussed in a future chapter, but while I was on a roll, I thought I'd ask.

It's good exercise to formulate questions and think about them.

Pass: What is your personal opinion regarding these same questions, other than where it is obvious?

Okay, but I'm going to go by what David Quinn's book says, so that if you've read it then what I'm saying might ring a bell, or if you read it in the future maybe what I'm saying here will clarify it a little.

1. Does the painting exist because there is a consensus between two that it exists, even though our perceptions of the painting may differ, or is it a mental construct?

Existence is a concept, so the painting exists if you think it exists. This is actually more complicated than it sounds because there are a lot of factors involved in the thought that something exists, but that's the basic rule.

If you and I go to the gallery and look at the painting, then you will think it exists and therefore it will exist.

But if I then told you that I was at the gallery last week and learned that this painting is actually not a painting, but a hologram of a painting, then you might not believe me and, although you would still think it exists, its existence would be doubtful to you, so the painting still exists but there's a chance that it might not exist.

If I then prove to you that the painting isn't real by passing my hand through the hologram, then you would think the painting doesn't exist, therefore the painting wouldn't exist.

But if I started laughing and told you that I was only joking and that it's not the painting that's a hologram, but my hand is a hologram because it got cut off in a car accident and I have a hi-tech wristwatch that gives me a holographic hand, so my hand is actually the illusion, not the painting, then once again you would think that the painting exists, so it would exist.

Then if we walked around the gallery for awhile and came back to find that someone took the painting down and burned it to ashes while we were gone, then you would no longer think the painting exists, and it wouldn't exist. Notice that while we were gone there was a time that you thought the painting existed, while the painting had turned to ashes.

In truth, existence is something consciousness creates so it can deal with the world. There really is no painting outside of the mind. The painting is just a piece of the Totality, a temporary creation of the never-ending flow of Nature, that you have given a name.

2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

I'm just like the painting.

3. If the painting does exist, is it a part of the noumenal world? That is, is our personal perception of the painting in the phenomenal world and the object itself in the noumenal world?

The painting only exists in the phenomenal world (in the mind). Nothing exists in the noumenal world, yet nothing is separate from it, either. The duality between the two is not real, but the product of delusion. I'm not going to explain that, though. Just chew on it for awhile.

4. [Would you] consider us to be noumena?

We're both noumena and phenomena, but deluded people are mesmerized by phenomena and so they can't detect the noumena. So they see body and mind as phenomena.

If the real object outside our mind could be a whole different object than what we perceive, could this not apply to ourselves?

This question doesn't apply to my way of thinking. The real object is what we perceive and what we perceive is the real object.

Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)?

Yes. Wisdom is what we need to apprehend the noumena (Truth).

And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

Basically, by loving Truth with all your heart, by thinking about it all the time, and giving your life over to it can you come to know your true being and the true being of everyone and everything. You want to totally reject phenomena and strive to understand the noumena. It's quite a feat, actually, but if you succeed, your accomplishment will never be forgotten.

Matt wrote:

In truth, existence is something consciousness creates so it can deal with the world. [There really is no painting in the Totality (in Nature).] The painting is just a piece of the Totality, a temporary creation of the never-ending flow of Nature, that you have given a name.

I think you should delete the part in square brackets. You're likely to confuse somebody with it!

I am still game if you will define it, but I am easy pickins for someone that is more educated in this area, such as yourself...however, I'm willing to give it a go.

passthrough, I am winging it in this respect just as much as you are--if not more. Unless, that is, you consider an education up to a year 11 secretarial course as substantial.

PS: Oh, and of course, I have Alice in Wonderland and Sex & character and David's Wisdom of the Infinite under my belt...and a few years arguing on this forum; and many more years arguing with just about everyone else. So, yeah, education...

Leyla Shen wrote:Matt wrote:

In truth, existence is something consciousness creates so it can deal with the world. [There really is no painting in the Totality (in Nature).] The painting is just a piece of the Totality, a temporary creation of the never-ending flow of Nature, that you have given a name.

I think you should delete the part in square brackets. You're likely to confuse somebody with it!

Thanks, I meant there is no painting outside of the mind. Fixed.

Matt:

Because the Totality has no boundaries (beyond what the mind creates). Boundaries are dependent on a mind to create them, so outside the mind there are no boundaries. An object can't exist without a boundary to delineate it from the things that it is not. So, without boundaries there are no objects, just the Totality.

After reading about Werner Heisenberg, Kip Thorne, and the Unified Field Theory on a really basic level in our Philosophy book (I am not a physicist), in my simple take on it that if you synthesize gravitational and electromagnetic forces that matter disappears altogether. All you have left is a field. Would this field be comparable, metaphorically speaking, to the Totality?

Pass: Noumena, as I understand it, means reality that cannot be directly accessed by the mind, therefore we cannot ever understand its true nature, only what we perceive it to be...

Matt: Reality can't be accessed by a deluded mind, but it can be fully known and accessed by a mind imbued with wisdom, although it would be more accurate to say that the mind submits to Reality rather than accesses it.

And what does one, whose mind is not deluded, see?

Pass: Also, from what I understand, Kant believed in cause and effect, it was one of his relationship categories in the mind that assimilates sensory experiences.

Matt: I don't know about that. Haven't got that far. Can you tell me anything else about it?

Well, our book isn’t very detailed about it either, but he talks of 12 categories of a priori knowledge. From what I gather it is an assimilation process innate in our minds that allow us to make sense out of chaos. It tries to answer the Humean problem of consistent copies of objects that your mind perceives when it senses things as if what you sensed was willy nilly shapes, colors, and lines floating about. Our book doesn’t get into it much either which is why I wanted to find out a little more, but apparently, Kant states that causality exists in the world because the mind put it there in order to make sense out of chaos.

Causality is a relationship between sensations and the mind, but make note…causality is always a part of the world as we PERCEIVE it. What we perceive may not be the true reality, this he terms the phenomenal world. That which is truly apart from our world is the noumenal world.

Matt:

Now, in order to prove that one thing exists, all we have to do is look to experience, which is definitely happening and can't be doubted. This is because to try and doubt it would leave you with the experience of doubt. So, experience is definitely an existence, therefore the totality of all existences is real.

Well, I guess the way I look at might be a slight bit different but the product is the same. You be the judge. Even though Hume did not buy into solipsism, obviously you could get drawn into that, sort of like a god syndrome. You are then left with two choices, one, you could either be your own god or freeze in the notion that you cannot trust anything to be real and drive yourself crazy, or, two, you could live in the reality you experience, but it still doesn’t change the fact that it is your perception of reality…you cannot know another’s.


Matt:

Okay, but I'm going to go by what David Quinn's book says, so that if you've read it then what I'm saying might ring a bell, or if you read it in the future maybe what I'm saying here will clarify it a little.

I have read it completely through one time. I have read certain sections of it more than twice. I have asked more questions about this stuff than I can venture to guess, but I still walked away not having a grasp on the point because everyone uses terms and ideas that they understand but have intrinsic meaning that I just could not grasp. It’s not that we aren’t agreeing to the same thing, but it’s like comparing a red, irregularly shaped roundish object to another, in reality they are apples, but I am looking at the verbage not the description. But you canot just look at the description either because apples connotes a whole other variety of discrimination: Gala, Red Delicious, Rome, etc.

But all this was done prior to taking this class. David Quinn’s book is one reason, among many, that I am taking this class because I do not have enough rudimentary knowledge to understand the concepts he declares. I have very little understanding of Buddhist concepts which puts me at an even further disadvantage. This class is touching lightly into Eastern thought, but concentrates more on the Western theories in depth…saying that Eastern philosophy is so wide and varied it could fill its own book.

Even though David writes in plain English vs philospeak, he still cannot help but go into concepts that are foreign to me. You can understand cause and effect simply enough but the ramifications to his paper are paramount if you do not understand how it affects nature as a whole…or anything. So, I plan to re-read it in its entirety, after I have finished this class. Think about it and, at the very least, I hope I will understand it even if I may not agree with it…but who knows, I might.

1. Does the painting exist because there is a consensus between two that it exists, even though our perceptions of the painting may differ, or is it a mental construct?

Existence is a concept, so the painting exists if you think it exists. This is actually more complicated than it sounds because there are a lot of factors involved in the thought that something exists, but that's the basic rule.

Those factors of which you speak are part of the process I was talking above about Kant’s 12 categories. I would like to study them more, but I may have to read Critique of Pure Reason and study some Aristotle, apparently these ideas originated with him in some form.

2. Do you exist or are you my mental construct?

Matt: I'm just like the painting.

I was afraid you’d say something like that, but given what I’ve read I had to consider it.

Matt: The duality between the two is not real, but the product of delusion. I'm not going to explain that, though. Just chew on it for awhile.

Yes, I need to because it is a bit overwhelming, but I will return to it later.

4. [Would you] consider us to be noumena?

We're both noumena and phenomena, but deluded people are mesmerized by phenomena and so they can't detect the noumena. So they see body and mind as phenomena.

Didn’t you just explain it then? Not that I am not deluded for I still must be but theoretically, there would be no phenomena or noumena in your world it is all just one thing – Totality?

If the real object outside our mind could be a whole different object than what we perceive, could this not apply to ourselves?

This question doesn't apply to my way of thinking. The real object is what we perceive and what we perceive is the real object.

Now I see why you agree with Toulmin.

Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)?

Yes. Wisdom is what we need to apprehend the noumena (Truth).

This is indeed liberating, I’m not sure why I think this but it’s like you are trying to remember something and it is just right at the tip of your tongue…that’s the sensation I have right now. I've been here before with something Kevin was discussing with me and have experienced this personally, why can I not jump over the fence with it?

And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

Basically, by loving Truth with all your heart, by thinking about it all the time, and giving your life over to it can you come to know your true being and the true being of everyone and everything. You want to totally reject phenomena and strive to understand the noumena. It's quite a feat, actually, but if you succeed, your accomplishment will never be forgotten.

Because you’ve found all the answers and left behind what is not.

Leyla Shen wrote:PS: Oh, and of course, I have Alice in Wonderland and Sex & character and David's Wisdom of the Infinite under my belt...and a few years arguing on this forum; and many more years arguing with just about everyone else. So, yeah, education

passthrough, I am winging it in this respect just as much as you are--if not more. Unless, that is, you consider an education up to a year 11 secretarial course as substantial.

You put me to shame. It all goes to prove that what really matters in life has nothing to do with what I originally thought, how blind is that?

passthrough:

It all goes to prove that what really matters in life has nothing to do with what I originally thought, how blind is that?

So, what is your position on what matters, now?

Leyla Shen wrote:So, what is your position on what matters, now?

Certain parts of this post, but not all, were posted on another board at school for argument. The"not all" was not relevant to the issue.

Finally, do I exist? If so, am I phenomenal or noumenal? I believe that we are conscious beings apart from our physical nature. Obviously, we carry a perception that is manifested in the self. Sometimes, thoughts come to me that enlarge my perception in areas I have never explored or thought about, they come, in effect, “out of the blue.” How could I have knowledge of something that was not derived from any of the five senses if it were not given me from an external source? In effect, there is a relationship between what is beyond the mind and the mind…a bridge from one world to another – even if these two worlds are one and the same…like dreaming in reality.

Therefore, it would seem that I am part of the noumenal world only as much as there exists this bridge between the phenomena of me and the noumena of some other consciousness. The problem comes in when trying
to understand it because you cannot observe yourself perceiving something.

Another person wrote:

This belies common sense. Kant would agree by saying that surely there IS something corresponding to the picture in the real world, but we can never know it.

Logically, yes, but theoretically, we can believe there is. It seems it must be what separates those who believe in an after life from those that do not, that is - hope.

There was another article in the book that spoke about how observation of subjects tends to change their nature. Even when observing quantum particles, something must be introduced in order for us to observe them, thus changing their nature.

I don't know where you stand with the belief in God (according to your signature you don't believe), but if God is in the noumena and our true selves are also there, but we can only know what we perceive of ourselves, not our true nature...then, perhaps we cannot see God for these same reasons....

Bertrand Russell said that in seeking truth you must look at its opposite - falsehood. In the above observation, if we had the cognitive skills to see without aid of any interfering device, perhaps we could see things for what they truly are. If you know that you will change things by introduction, then would it
not logically follow that you wouldn't change things if you didn't? The opposite? If it would hold true for quantum particles, why not for everything else? Including God (however that is defined)?

After thinking about what I said for an hour, that "interfering device" may be our consciousness, without it we would not be any more informed but would have no anxiety about it either, it is even debatable that we would have a perceived world for we would not have the mastered ability to reason, we would simply live. But we all know this has its own problems, so where I am is where I left Matt, wondering how to jump the fence consciously and be that way.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:

I want to create, write, sing, dance, really feel like i am living. But the Nietzscean family of mine just laughs at my morals, my ideals, my quest to be what I think normal is.

I have not studied Nietzsche, but I understand her frustration having these same issues but at a much older age. Have I come to any hard core answers, the answer to that you should know. But I have come to know what I should do about what she was speaking of. The answer to that conundrum doesn’t lie in her purported path, but working towards the end of being who or what one needs to be or do in order to live. She can help herself to attain her goals, but she must be sure they are worth living for or she will be caught in a perpetual cycle of being what others expect her to be while dying inside from a slower form of suicide…that is what manifests the psychological issues. I learned this by experience not medical education. I have also learned that I can control these psych issues without medication (I am told I am fortunate) but I have also had the ability to change a few things in my life that caused the schism in the first place. I am still not free...but working to that end.

“Normal” Maturity really doesn’t have a thing to do with it, but attempting to understand the mergence of noumena (true reality) with phenomena (perceived reality) to make life truly real is the maturity…

Leyla, I am a simple person and in no way as calculated as you might think. If some people can think that Bush blew up the Twin Towers, then there is room to believe that some people can truly believe in Christianity to the point of staunch defense of it or for that matter, David's Wisdom of the Infinite. If it is all they know but they are on a quest to find the truth, they fight until their world starts crumbling around their feet…then they begin rebuilding, and that is where I am. You know all there is to know.

Your move.

passthrough:

p: Therefore, it would seem that I am part of the noumenal world only as much as there exists this bridge between the phenomena of me and the noumena of some other consciousness. The problem comes in when trying to understand it because you cannot observe yourself perceiving something.

Another person wrote:
This belies common sense. Kant would agree by saying that surely there IS something corresponding to the picture in the real world, but we can never know it.

If this is an accurate estimation of Kant’s view, then he and I depart company henceforth. However, from the couple of paragraphs of Kant’s Critique that I have read, he seems to hold that certain knowledge is pure a priori; that is, not derived from experience (not of this objective “real” world) but, in fact, essential to it with “sensuous impressions* providing merely the occasion.” How we get from that to the “noumena of some other consciousness” or a “something corresponding to the picture in the real world that can never be known” I have no idea.

Perhaps, to start, you can explain to me how you think such a thing is possible; how it is not** "common sense." I'd just like to see your thinking on the idea.

I'm not really interested in superfluous citations (too much clutter for me to bother with). If you agree with someone's ideas, present them as your own. If you don't, I ain't interested in them insofar as this question here goes.

*Edit: changed to "sensuous impressions" from "experience."
**Edit: sorry, left out an important word!

PS: What is your given name? I would like to use it when speaking with you.

PPS:

This belies common sense. Kant would agree by saying that surely there IS something corresponding to the picture in the real world, but we can never know it.

Bear in mind that Kant couldn’t possibly hold such a view without falling into contradiction, since he has clearly articulated the bases of all knowledge and experience in the Critique (pure and impure a priori and a posteriori). And in that light, again I ask you, what does this person really mean by “common sense”?

Deleted--operator error.

passthrough:
Quote:
p: Therefore, it would seem that I am part of the noumenal world only as much as there exists this bridge between the phenomena of me and the noumena of some other consciousness. The problem comes in when trying to understand it because you cannot observe yourself perceiving something.

Another person wrote:
This belies common sense. Kant would agree by saying that surely there IS something corresponding to the picture in the real world, but we can never know it.


Leyla: If this is an accurate estimation of Kant’s view, then he and I depart company henceforth.

Which one mine or the other person’s?

Leyla:

However, from the couple of paragraphs of Kant’s Critique that I have read, he seems to hold that certain knowledge is pure a priori; that is, not derived from experience (not of this objective “real” world) but, in fact, essential to it with “sensuous impressions* providing merely the occasion.”

From what I understand, his theory of acquiring knowledge is twofold:
1. empirical is the basis of true knowledge, however;
2. there exists certain a priori knowledge gleaned by pure reason within the mind, such as causality, time and space…there are twelve of them, which he refers to as categories and is derived from Aristotle’s categories.

We can perceive things through our senses but we cannot connect the impressions or form relationships with the impressions, this is done through a priori knowledge, aka categories.

Leyla:

How we get from that to the “noumena of some other consciousness” or a “something corresponding to the picture in the real world that can never be known” I have no idea. Perhaps, to start, you can explain to me how you think such a thing is possible; how it is "common sense." I'd just like to see your thinking on the idea.

It won’t be common sense, I wish it were that easy nor is it easy to explain something I’m having difficulty grappling with myself. However, I will try, keeping in mind that I am going to integrate my understanding of Kant’s idea and relate it to my own, the distinction will be made.

Kant separates things existing in the universe as phenomena, that which we perceive, and noumena, that which is reality. So, it would follow, to me, that what we perceive is not really true but an illusion of what is real. You, in reality, are in the noumena…there is a true Leyla, but what I perceive is the illusory version, my version, the phenomenal version of Leyla. You, yourself, perceive yourself, but it, too, is just illusory. You know only your perceived, phenomenal self. No one knows the true Leyla because she is in the noumena. You cannot step outside your mind or have access to that which is beyond your mind. Kant agrees with this, so does Hume.

I would compare this to looking at an abstract painting. The painting is real. What I see when I look at the painting is an abstract of a man’s portrait, but what you may see are chaotic shapes and forms…both our perceptions are only phenomenal…the painting is noumenal. You cannot watch yourself perceiving the painting.

Which leads me to this statement, which looking at it now is a bit confusing:

Therefore, it would seem that I am part of the noumenal world only as much as there exists this bridge between the phenomena of me and the noumena of some other consciousness. The problem comes in when trying to understand it because you cannot observe yourself perceiving something.

If I have knowledge of something that was not a priori or sensory impression, how did I come to know it? Several philosophers say that we obtain knowledge of the universe from before birth and it is only through our impure acts that we are not aware of all knowledge of the universe. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I do believe in God…a term used to define three pages of experiences and not necessarily the Christian God…as a First Cause, the creator. In the most basic explanation, if God is First Cause, he is both matter and consciousness. If God created us, we are then made with the same stuff. God is noumenal because God created reality.

What I wrote earlier is that perhaps we cannot know God because we are blinded by our phenomenal view of the world. But there are moments of awareness of things from a source of which I have no idea, then did it come from the noumena…that is, God to the real self and form a bridge through my mind? In other words, did I lower the “me” shield long enough for some true reality to leak through? It’s a bit of an academic argument rather than real because it is hard to explain something like this for me.

But in order to actually interpret the source you would have to observe yourself perceiving…and you cannot do this…which is why the other person said it belies common sense.

Leyla:

Bear in mind that Kant couldn’t possibly hold such a view without falling into contradiction, since he has clearly articulated the bases of all knowledge and experience in the Critique (pure and impure a priori and a posteriori).

Keep in mind I am still a student...yes, but he also heavily revised Pure Reason later, wrote another work called the Critique of Practical Reason and another one. It is my understanding he held a belief in God although he said it defied reason…we haven’t gotten to his theological ideology yet, it is upcoming, but listed the main issues of eternal life, God and our immortality as issues that we can never know….and yet, it seems some here think they do know but perhaps it is just a misunderstanding on my part…again, part of the reason why I am taking the class among other reasons…to gain a better understanding of the way others view the world and God or lack thereof.

I am beginning to see a tenuous thread that runs through a variety of beliefs coming from the Pre-Socratics, Western and Eastern philosophy past and present, which is the main reason why I am taking this class. I have mentioned this guy before but he is a Hindu philosopher by the name of Sarvapelli Radhakrishnan who bridged Eastern and Western thought into a work called An Idealist View of Life. It is one that I intend to read after this class is done…it is on-line, if you are interested. An Idealist View of Life

passthrough, I'm in a rush at the moment but I wanted to post an immediate question that comes to mind (I'll attend to the rest of your post later) even though you might feel you have already addressed it in conversing with Matt:

You wrote:

Kant separates things existing in the universe as phenomena, that which we perceive, and noumena, that which is reality. So, it would follow, to me, that what we perceive is not really true but an illusion of what is real. You, in reality, are in the noumena…there is a true Leyla, but what I perceive is the illusory version, my version, the phenomenal version of Leyla. You, yourself, perceive yourself, but it, too, is just illusory. You know only your perceived, phenomenal self. No one knows the true Leyla because she is in the noumena. You cannot step outside your mind or have access to that which is beyond your mind. Kant agrees with this, so does Hume.

If it is true that one cannot step outside of mind or have access to that which is beyond mind, on what grounds can it be said that there is anything other than what you are perceiving, in whatever form you choose to articulate it?

I would compare this to looking at an abstract painting. The painting is real. What I see when I look at the painting is an abstract of a man’s portrait, but what you may see are chaotic shapes and forms…both our perceptions are only phenomenal…the painting is noumenal. You cannot watch yourself perceiving the painting.

Is not "the painting is noumenal" a part of mind and, therefore, phenomenal?

To elaborate:

The Buddhist concept Emptiness--"all things lack inherent existence"--also means that there can be no such thing as an absolute form.

As my son puts it, nothing can ever have a true form since every observer perceives it differently according to their senses. So, there can’t be noumena--that is, no thing has a true (absolute) form even though all things have form.

For instance, we see a spider web as a particular form. A spider’s perception of the form is based primarily on its strongest sense perception, which is sound. How do you suppose “spider web” looks to a spider? Does that difference necessarily mean it has an absolute form none can know, or it has all forms perceptible to all possible observers?

In hindsight, passthrough, my last two posts cover the guts of the matter so I'll leave it at that--unless there's something else in particular that you'd like addressed.

Passthrough,

Matt: Because the Totality has no boundaries (beyond what the mind creates). Boundaries are dependent on a mind to create them, so outside the mind there are no boundaries. An object can't exist without a boundary to delineate it from the things that it is not. So, without boundaries there are no objects, just the Totality.

Pass: After reading about Werner Heisenberg, Kip Thorne, and the Unified Field Theory on a really basic level in our Philosophy book (I am not a physicist), in my simple take on it that if you synthesize gravitational and electromagnetic forces that matter disappears altogether. All you have left is a field. Would this field be comparable, metaphorically speaking, to the Totality?

Not really, because a field is still subject to philosophical arguments like the Brain in a Vat argument. The Totality is immune to all of this. It transcends both the physical and the mental.

Pass: Noumena, as I understand it, means reality that cannot be directly accessed by the mind, therefore we cannot ever understand its true nature, only what we perceive it to be...

Matt: Reality can't be accessed by a deluded mind, but it can be fully known and accessed by a mind imbued with wisdom, although it would be more accurate to say that the mind submits to Reality rather than accesses it.

Pass: And what does one, whose mind is not deluded, see?

The noumena: reality as it truly is.

Matt: Now, in order to prove that one thing exists, all we have to do is look to experience, which is definitely happening and can't be doubted. This is because to try and doubt it would leave you with the experience of doubt. So, experience is definitely an existence, therefore the totality of all existences is real.

Pass: Well, I guess the way I look at might be a slight bit different but the product is the same. You be the judge. Even though Hume did not buy into solipsism, obviously you could get drawn into that, sort of like a god syndrome. You are then left with two choices, one, you could either be your own god or freeze in the notion that you cannot trust anything to be real and drive yourself crazy, or, two, you could live in the reality you experience, but it still doesn’t change the fact that it is your perception of reality…you cannot know another’s.

Well, remember, I was going through a proof of the Totality, and this proof holds true no matter what kind of world view you hold, whether it's solipsistic or whatever. But yeah, I agree. We can't know any other mind than our own.

Pass: David Quinn’s book is one reason, among many, that I am taking this class because I do not have enough rudimentary knowledge to understand the concepts he declares.

Just keep in mind that David's book is a difficult one, mostly because he's talking about deep and subtle truths that can take a lot of effort to understand. I've read through it five or six times over the course of however many years ago he released it. Three or four, I guess? And I've been on this forum reading his posts forever. Of course, that could just be a reflection of my own limitations, but I think it's safe to say that it's difficult.

Pass: 4. [Would you] consider us to be noumena?

Matt: We're both noumena and phenomena, but deluded people are mesmerized by phenomena and so they can't detect the noumena. So they see body and mind as phenomena.

Pass: Didn’t you just explain it then? Not that I am not deluded for I still must be but theoretically, there would be no phenomena or noumena in your world it is all just one thing – Totality?

Well, the noumena is the Totality, and phenomena are its parts. The noumena is clearly apparent in all phenomena, but the deluded mind just isn't awake to it. The deluded mind is constantly pouring emotional stuff all over everything, and blocking out God. You have to purify yourself from within in order to stop projecting stuff that isn't there in reality.

Pass: Is our true being (noumena) different than that which we perceive ourselves to be (phenomena)?

Matt: Yes. Wisdom is what we need to apprehend the noumena (Truth).

Pass: This is indeed liberating, I’m not sure why I think this but it’s like you are trying to remember something and it is just right at the tip of your tongue…that’s the sensation I have right now. I've been here before with something Kevin was discussing with me and have experienced this personally, why can I not jump over the fence with it?

Fear. Fear has to be eliminated, which is done by eliminating greed, anger and delusion. The reason for this is that we have to cease being concerned with the things of this world because they're all going to perish, and our concern for them makes us perish with them, which causes suffering.

Pass: And if so, how would one ever truly perceive oneself as one's true being...impossible?

Matt: Basically, by loving Truth with all your heart, by thinking about it all the time, and giving your life over to it can you come to know your true being and the true being of everyone and everything. You want to totally reject phenomena and strive to understand the noumena. It's quite a feat, actually, but if you succeed, your accomplishment will never be forgotten.

Pass: Because you’ve found all the answers and left behind what is not.

Yes, you've found the root of Reality and can use it at will.