Kant's Phenomena and Noumena Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- Kant's transcendental idealism was Kant's approach to the philosophy of perception. Kant's theory believed that reality was split into two parts, the Phemnomena, the things which we experience, and the Noumena, the things as they truly exist outside of our perception. Watch as these concepts are explained.
This video is an extract. Full video...
Kant's Transcendental Idealism: • Kant's Transcendental ...
Get the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/phil...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
Get the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe3
Well, Kant would maintain that the noumena does not have the structure of the phenomena. So the carrot wouldn't be a carrot, it would be something completely different, and the way we represent this something completely different to ourselves is a carrot.
This squares well with Schopenhauer's understanding, where he believed that space and time and physical objects were the representation of Will, a mental substrate grounding nature.
Exactly, noumenally objects aren't "objects" to begin with, as the notion of an object requires it to be spatially or temporally distinct from "other" ( another concept also only have purchase in a spatiotemporal context ) objects. That means, there are no "carrots", brains, atoms or other stuff for real, but these are simply the ways in which the noumenon appears to us.
I wish I found this channel when I took philosophy classes. Wondeful work
Thank you!
Transcendent and transcendental are not the same.
The first means beyond our ability to know anything about, while the second is inherent in our knowledge (time and space, for instance).
This is crucial, in the video it is presented wrongly by using these terms interchangeably
Very clear and explanation! Thanks gonna use It in my classes:))
Glad we could help.
Fantastic! Concise and clear!
Thank you :D
If it is the case, at the same time why can we change the color?, make it tasteless, why we say some apples are sweeter than others? Some smells pretty good some bad. Why some apples are preferred over the others?
Wonderful work
Thank you.
Nice quick summary of Kant’s theory. Thank you.
Welcome :D
Kant was into Lebanese kush
Mind is preprogrammed
Blown
Would the phenomena be like accidental properties and the noumena be like the essential properties of Aristotle?
No. Phenomena is anything at all you know about an object, including it’s determination in space and time as well as all sensation such as color, taste, sound, etc.
Noumena is completely unknowable, even whether it exists or not is subject to debate or interpretation in Kant’s work. I believe Kant wants noumena to exist because he is against absolute idealism.
Cool
So how did Kant himself transcend away from the human mind interpretation to observing objects in it's noumena form?
Also how come all human mind interpretation of a carrot is the same? We all know what a carrot looks like? If there was a noumena form, not all humans will be able to correctly interprete it's phenomenal properties. This means there would be discrepancies in the final human interpretation.
And if it isn't possible to see things in it's noumena form, what is the point of all this in the first place?
What does a carrot even look like in it's noumena form?
I have so many questions.
True life form, of all life forms is just a type of energy, or mass with no definite shape. In reality that TV in front of you doesn't actually look like a TV, but it is energy in front of your own energy, our minds make the image and shape of it. All human brains share the same imaginary because how the genes for that got created in the first humans, it's just replicating on repeat for all humans after. Insects of course do not see the same imaginary as humans, and certain animals don't either.
Life is crazy when you think of all the phenomenons we deal with. From how we can observe black holes actually on a telescope, to finding out that the actual imaginary what they see is actually coming from the past, to kants theory from this video, if what we actually see is false in space , that means the universe could actually be anything, if we are just energy floating around, we could be living our existence in the same realm of universe, or matter, just floating thru nothingness as a piece of meaningless energy. It can raise the question as how does the reality in our dreams correlate to the reality when we're awake if both visuals are made up.
And of course you can't forget the basic building blocks, atoms, electrons. Scientifically proven they act differently when they are being observed, compared to when not, and one might correlate if a particle that small could detect that, it could be why when it evolved into humans we developed our own system of changing our structure when being observed.
My thoughts exactly. I am really trying to understand why Kants theories revolutionized metaphysics like they did. This seems like a science fiction plot rather than reality
1) Kant never claims to have transcended away from the human mind to see noumena, he simply says we must be agnostic about the things-in-themselves. He even says we can really only refer to it in a negative sense.
2) Considering that most human minds are capable of the same reasoning and understanding, it is clear that we would all share the same intuitions of space and time. Space and time are the most basic level of sensibility. You need a sense of space to know there are any multiple objects and you need a sense of time to perceive alteration. You can experience spaceless and timelessness by sleeping without dreaming, where because there is no space or sense of time you almost seem to time travel towards being awake.
3) When you ask what the point is if we cannot see the noumena, you are misunderstanding Kant’s place in philosophy. Kant is limiting reason to the phenomena to avoid metaphysical error. If you apply the concept of causality to things that are not sensible, you are making a grave error, as this is the only place where causality is known to exist.
4) A carrot does not look like anything in it’s noumenal form. Noumena are simply unconditioned objects, ie. uncognized. The phenomena is the cognition of the object, so it is in a sense, what it looks like.
Any other questions?
No! Not a good account of the noumena at all!
why