This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I completely rewrote the article. No disrespect for anything other than your philosophical presumptions, guys--but you really shouldn't write articles about stuff that you don't know about. -- Larry Sanger
Because everybody thinks they know about philosophy. It's only because I've actually studied it for a few years that I've learned enough to really understand the scope of my own ignorance. For everybody else, they don't know enough about to realize that they don't know anything. -- LDC
Please leave the link to [[Phenomenon (Kant). I don't know if Larry will actually write an article, but it is an appropriate link from the article as written which addresses mainly the use of noumenon as used by Kant. Fredbauder 16:07 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's Ding an Sich with the statement One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color). Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? Brianshapiro
Wondering if there is space or reason to put a subnote about the very common error of attributing this term and to a degree, Transcendental Idealism as being what the Buddhist notion of the two truths and emptiness is about. ( 20040302)
In the article, one reads "Dinge an sich selbest betrachten." It should be "Dinge an sich selbst betrachten."
I have always heard
no-'u-men-on pronounced as four syllables in English, perhaps because all the people I ever heard mention it knew Greek. I think this pronunciation is correct. Seadowns ( talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Presumably it is also four syllables in German, since if I am right ou is not a diphthong in German. Seadowns ( talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::If you were saying it slowly syllable by syllable you ought to say no-u-men-on, with stress on second syllable, not no-um-en-on (or nou-men-on as misinformed by the dictionaries, it seems). Seadowns ( talk) 17:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I completely rewrote the article. No disrespect for anything other than your philosophical presumptions, guys--but you really shouldn't write articles about stuff that you don't know about. -- Larry Sanger
Because everybody thinks they know about philosophy. It's only because I've actually studied it for a few years that I've learned enough to really understand the scope of my own ignorance. For everybody else, they don't know enough about to realize that they don't know anything. -- LDC
Please leave the link to [[Phenomenon (Kant). I don't know if Larry will actually write an article, but it is an appropriate link from the article as written which addresses mainly the use of noumenon as used by Kant. Fredbauder 16:07 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's Ding an Sich with the statement One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color). Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? Brianshapiro
Wondering if there is space or reason to put a subnote about the very common error of attributing this term and to a degree, Transcendental Idealism as being what the Buddhist notion of the two truths and emptiness is about. ( 20040302)
In the article, one reads "Dinge an sich selbest betrachten." It should be "Dinge an sich selbst betrachten."
I have always heard
no-'u-men-on pronounced as four syllables in English, perhaps because all the people I ever heard mention it knew Greek. I think this pronunciation is correct. Seadowns ( talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Presumably it is also four syllables in German, since if I am right ou is not a diphthong in German. Seadowns ( talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::If you were saying it slowly syllable by syllable you ought to say no-u-men-on, with stress on second syllable, not no-um-en-on (or nou-men-on as misinformed by the dictionaries, it seems). Seadowns ( talk) 17:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)