![]() ![]() Also, I want to discuss why philosophers of the epistemological variety state noumena to be a jibberish philosophical term. I also want to map out a few things that reside within noumena. First, I want to talk about noumena in the sense Kant talked about it in that sense does not have to be the only means that we intuit something. I do not want this writing to go that way because about 50% of my other writings do just that. Now, I do not want to make this writing into a transition into telling everyone that you have to believe in God, even though that you do. When I think of noumena as having faith that a certain thing that we cannot sense exists. Things that count as noumena are intuited based on pure understanding. One thing I also find amazing is that Kant is so bold as to state that we arent entitled to state that senses are our only way of intuiting things. Epistemologists discredit noumena right there because it cannot be perceived of the senses. So in essence noumena (noumenon in the singular sense) is the exact opposite of phenomena in that phenomena is intuited by sense, while noumena is not. Noumena is defined by Kant as the following: “….of a thing which must be cogitated not as an object of sense, but as a thing in itself (solely through the pure understanding), is not self-contradictory, for we are not entitled to maintain that sensibility is the only possible mode of intuition” and “by the term noumenon, we understand a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensuous intuition, thus making abstraction of our mode of intuiting it.” (Kant). We can perceive it and not have to go through any thought process to know that it exists and to understand its nature. ![]() Phenomena is justified by epistemologists and philosophers to exist because of its sense data and of its analytic nature. Phenomena has sense data and has all properties of something that we see. Phenomena defined by Kant is this: “…objects of a possible experience…” (Kant). I do, however, have some logic to put within it however.įirst, I want to describe and discuss phenomena so that I can contrast it with the main topic of discussion in noumena. It is noumena that I wish to take up for discussion, and claim that it does in fact exist regardless of a philosophical principle’s qualification to have logic within it. Phenomena is a wide known thing that is justified to exist, but noumena however can be claimed by epistemologists and other philosophers as to be nonexistent. This chapter makes the distinction between phenomena and noumena. This part of the book is the Transcendental Doctrine of Faculty and Judgement aka Analytic of Principles in the third chapter. ![]() Again I write something about Kant’s awesome Critique of Pure Reason, because it is simply awesome, and I should stop saying/writing the word awesome. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |