>human knowledge is limited to phenomena, the world as structured by our mind’s categories (space, time, causality, etc)>the noumenal world, things as they are “in themselves,” independent of perception, is unknowablethis distinction was meant to preserve both empirical science (which studies appearances) and metaphysical limits (beyond which reason cannot go).but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?
He doesn’t use noumena to designate what is available to metaphysics and spirituality, he designates it as a firm boundary. For Kant all that is available to the senses and even imagination as appearances are phenomena and noumena is precisely that which is not so by definition it can’t be known because we don’t have the faculty to cognize it.He really makes it a simple and clear distinction.
>>24851339>but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?We can't, Kant is self-refuting.
>>24851339He never claimed it caused appearance, noumena is purely a negative concept, it's simply that which we can't know or experience, like God
>>24851339i cant fucking believe despite the fact that i have never read a single word of kant in my life i am a KANTIANi literally agree with this shit off my own conclusionsfuck dudenow i gotta revise so much shit to give him credit and i had NO IDEA
>>24851339We can't know anything about its character, we know it exists because we know the mind is projecting, you can say it is projecting things based on nothing else, sure, but then that's what noumena is. Kant doesn't make claims about its nature.
>>24851665It’s save to say we can’t know God. But how can you be so sure that no one experiences God?
>>24851339Read Schopenhauer, He makes a concise argument about how "The will" which resides in the "Noumenal", Which means that that Will also resides in us as it also resides in the objects we perceiveBut that's merely just speculation, You can't know what's there is, The unknown can never be know even Kant himself said it
>>24852089This sounds stupid.
>>24851665It wouldn’t even be God because we can conceptualize God. Noumena goes further than that in Kant’s definition and noumena simply can not be known because as I said, we don’t have the faculties to cognize it whatsoever, only as what it is not, which according to Kant is appearances.>>24852089For Schopenhauer the Will is the thing in itself, the striving force of the universe, which is perceivable as representation (what Kant would call “appearances”) and and is known to us through ourselves as we have Will.As you said, Will is in everything we see, thus the World as representation, but it is more than that, it’s the essence of the universe and all striving; it’s what makes a magnet point north, the planets orbit the sun, human nature, pain and pleasure, the laws of physics, chemical reactions, so on and so forth.Schopenhauer’s main divergence from Kant is precisely that the Will, the thing in and of itself can be known and is known immediately through the self.
>>24851339>how can we even assert its existenceBy dialectically affirming it as the only existing thing.>or claim it causes appearancesThis is plain wrong.
>>24851339I think Hegel sucks, tried to read his stuff a few times and every time I get so bored, nodding off, rereading the same passages over and over only to realise they're actually very simply just worded totally retardedlyKant is easy to read, makes sense, Hegel just is pseud waffle galore
>>24852176huh?
>>24852757Kant = you can’t know noumena in any way shape or form, point blank period,Schopenhauer = noumena is the Will, we can have knowledge of it immediately through the self. The Will is in all objects and all matters of causality,
>>24851339>but If we truly can’t know anything about the noumenal world, then how can we even assert its existence or claim it causes appearances?Because the claim works. The justification for ideas, theories and ultimately language itself is pragmatic. We dice the world up into objects and words by utility, not by a matter of some detached factual knowledge. A house has no rooms. It just has walls. We infer the rooms from lack of walls because it suits our pragmatic ends.
>>24852807Fichte views knowledge similarly. There is no detached, abstract, pure knowing, everything stands in relation to us as active, autonomous (=moral) beings and it is only because of this practical relation that we can know anything at all. This is also where Kant's thinking leads if you just make him consistent and realize his primary of practical reason.
>>24852820>Kant's thinking .. if you just make him consistentWhat that means?
>>24852856I mean Kant has a radical division between theoretical and practical reason, but he says in the second Critique that practical reason must actually be first, but he never works this out in a satisfactory way. Kant's system grew organically and it became unwieldy; he started out trying to refute Hume and Leibniz, ends up in totally different waters, but is never able to go back and 'fix' the first Critique or make everything coherent.
>>24851339>>24851622>if we can't see behind that door how can we assert there's anything inside it?Stuff keeps coming out of the door you braindead retards.The alternative is that the concepts in your mind are the same as the fundamental reality they're trying to describe. You'll deny believing this but in practice this is the braindead belief subhumans like you actually act out and the reason basic observations like noting the existence of the noumenal world trigger you.
