Gidingansiich

Kant says that our reality is broken down into two areas-the noumenal and the phenomenal

This is how I see the connection of us coming to know something, if that’s possible. In order for us to know something, a perception or sense must travel first, from your body to the objects of perception, then reflects back to and hopefully the perception skips the head and comes directly out of your mouth as knowledge. In my opinion, this is why I think it is impossible for us to know anything. Because we do not know what it is that we "really" are in relation to our existence.

The phenomenal world is a world made up of all the sensible and perceivable objects within our range of experience, Hegel calls this the "sensuous consciousness.

The phenomenal objects, Kant said, is the sum total of relations of something in general to the senses. These objects appear to us as we experience them and, according to Kant, we perceive these objects as something other than what they really are and these concepts are in opposition to the "ding an sich" or the German phrase for “things as they truly are” or a thing in itself.

It is interesting to me that Kant says the noumena of an object can not be known. If this is true then how is it that he knows the universal concept of what can not be known.

The difference between the noumenal and the thing in itself (ding an sich) could be better explained after you see what Kant said…
"…though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."

"But in that case a noumenon is not for our understanding a special [kind of] object, namely, an intelligible object; the [sort of] understanding to which it might belong is itself a problem. For we cannot in the least represent to ourselves the possibility of an understanding which should know its object, not discursively through categories, but intuitively in a non-sensible intuition".

To the best of my understanding. The noumenon and the ding an sich are the same thing except that the thing in itself is the object you are perceiving. Once you are away from the object that you perceived, your head then idealizes that perception and makes it the truth, according to Fichte, this is an automatic process,(metaphysical determinism), your brain or whatever deduces the things that make up an idea until it sufficiently has what it needs. I am not sure what it is that makes this determination possible though. Anyways, So we have the thing in itself as the experienced object (a posteriori) and the idea of the object in your head (a priori). Now, I think that the noumena are the things that make up an idea from the thing in itself or else the noumena are just some magical thing.

(1) In summary, the thing in itself (ding an sich) is outside of your head but you cannot perceive it and cannot know it and the noumenon (what the thing in itself is made out of) is inside your head (perceived). So yes, there are differences between the ding an sich and the noumenon, the difference is mostly a matter of perspective, ones outside (ding an sich) and the other is inside (noumenon).

(2) Here is another possibility, the noumenon are determinations cast from the ding an sich for us to perceive. We can not know what these things (noumenon) are because they are coming from "the thing, I know not what". So in that sense, it would still be a matter of location? as too the differences between the two.

(3) Ding an sich (thing we know)=noumenon (thing we do not know)=ideas, or the thing in itself=stuff of things (a priori material?)=concept

(4) the ding an sich is the false world and the moumenon is the real one that we do not know.

(5)

(6) The phenomena is what you percieve through your senses, either what you see of what you have learned about a particular object (concept). The noumena is made up of what the thing in itself really is and we do not know.

Take a person, for example, when I look at a person or a human being, what I see is just that, a person or what many call a human being and that only consists of what I see or what I have been taught about what a person or human being is. However, this is false, there is no such thing as a person. What I think we are is these rediculously shaped things that appear to move around apart from the static surface below me in some kind of organized way. The true nature of what we really are slides further and further away from our cognition seemingly because of our fear of reality or nature and what we really are are what the noumenon consist of, our real thing that we do not know. Words are just created and by no means create a meaning, not even the closest of understanding do we have of what we really are. What we really are, I think , science does not know. And it is because of this that we can and do not know anything.

(7) The phenomenon is a representation of the thing in itself or the ding an sich. What we see is the phenomenon which is our intellects perception of the ding an sich.

italic text

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License