ontological_realist
Member
Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.
Do you agree or disagree and why?
Do you agree or disagree and why?
I like Ayn Rand's explanation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html I tend to sit back and listen.
A little hyperbole, I would say, but maybe true for philosophers and other Witch Doctors who take his conclusions seriously. But his ideas are excusable as he not only had no idea of Ads/CFT ---Kant is the most evil man in mankind’s history.
, --- but also lived in an era when such a concept was impossible as the necessary tools for it did not exist. Modern philosophers have no such excuse.
I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.
Do you agree or disagree and why?
Because,Although a hologram is two-dimensional, it encodes information about all three dimensions of the object it represents.
A counterexample.
- 2. No two-dimensional space could possibly encode the totality of a three-dimensional space.
I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.
Do you agree or disagree and why?
That being said, I agree that I don't know the noumenon behind most of the phenomena I know. But I also don't know if there's any, which would also be a noumenon and therefore unlnowable. So how did Kant knew there was any noumenon to begin with if they were to be all unknowable?
Either you define a noumenon as what is unknowable behing the phenomena that we know and then of course it's trivially true that all noumena are unknowable, or you say that a noumenon is something else but then you couldn't possibly say it's unknowable since you've already said you know it to be this particular something else.
EB
Yes, I agree.
Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.
If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.
It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.
I think of it like this:-
Noumenon is that which actually exists.
Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.
So then the the question becomes:-
" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
A counterexample.
- 2. No two-dimensional space could possibly encode the totality of a three-dimensional space.
I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.
That being said, I agree that I don't know the noumenon behind most of the phenomena I know. But I also don't know if there's any, which would also be a noumenon and therefore unlnowable. So how did Kant knew there was any noumenon to begin with if they were to be all unknowable?
Either you define a noumenon as what is unknowable behing the phenomena that we know and then of course it's trivially true that all noumena are unknowable, or you say that a noumenon is something else but then you couldn't possibly say it's unknowable since you've already said you know it to be this particular something else.
EB
I think of it like this:-
Noumenon is that which actually exists.
Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.
So then the the question becomes:-
" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
But that which you are saying is the case surely is a noumenon. And, either you know it or you don't. If you do, then you know a noumenon, which contradicts Kant's alleged claim. If you don't know it, then you are claiming something to be the case even though you actually don't know that it is the case.Yes, I agree.
Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.
If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.
It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.
This definitely seems true yet how would you know it is true since it is a noumenon?Yes, I agree.
Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.
If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.
It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.
Yes, and the view points need not be only human view points. View points can be of any conscious being whether human or not. Also you really can not know from the view point of any body else except your own, you can try to think empathecally and imaginatively from somebody else's point of view but it is finally your own mind which is thinking this and the limitations of your own mind still apply.
I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.I think of it like this:-
Noumenon is that which actually exists.
Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.
So then the the question becomes:-
" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
EB
Time is the third dimension. Given an initial state, which is a two dimensional infinite matrix of ones and zeros, the setting of each cell at every future time is determined by the initial state and a small finite set of rules. So the totality of the three dimensional matrix is encoded by a two dimensional boundary condition. Down at the bottom of the wikipedia page they show the 6,366,548,773,467,669,985,195,496,000th layer of such a three dimensional matrix, computed from the first layer.
But Speakpigeon is right. Sure, philosophers have been debating this for centuries; and the ones who said knowledge is impossible were wrong. Sure, you really cannot know from the viewpoint of anybody else; but you don't have to see something from every viewpoint to know that it exists. Sometimes one viewpoint is enough. Sure, the limitations of your own mind still apply; but that only means you can't know everything; it doesn't mean you can't know anything. Knowledge isn't all or nothing. There are some things we can know and other things we can't know.I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.
EB
I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. Perhaps you are aware that philosophers have been debating for centuries whether knowledge is even possible. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?
I think of it like this:-
Noumenon is that which actually exists.
Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.
So then the the question becomes:-
" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
The Brain and its activity is inseparable from that which actually exists, the Brain and its activity exists, that includes its own 'mental' rearrangement/interpretation of physical information. Information processing that is tested against the objects and events of the World on a daily basis. Therefore, at least to some degree, that which exists is indeed knowable.
The Brain and its activity is inseparable from that which actually exists, the Brain and its activity exists, that includes its own 'mental' rearrangement/interpretation of physical information. Information processing that is tested against the objects and events of the World on a daily basis. Therefore, at least to some degree, that which exists is indeed knowable.
I am inclined to think that all physical objects are subject ( cognizer ) dependent. Brain is a physical object. What you write here is right in observer dependent phenomenal reality but not in noumenal reality.
What is a physical object?
Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it?
If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.
If a man from some jungle tribe who has never come out from there, is brought in to this room, what objects he will make in his mind from from this room? Right now the objects you are making from this room are also in your mind perhaps? I mean all what ever is there is there but dividing the totality in to separate objects is done by the cognizer or the subject.
All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not imagine or even conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required.