![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Philosophy is hard to restrict to people who have 'studied' it. Philosophy, along with all arts, fine arts, and social sciences, pertain to everyone. And the proletariat can hardly be expected to go deeply into all fields of enquiry. People like Larry (who rewrote the article, I think) should keep up the good work, without delusions of intellectual grandeur. Humans shouldn't be relegated to the world of noumena!
I agree. My studies of Physics involved a great deal of discussion of philosophy, and so have my wife's studies of art history. Not everyone qualified to discuss the topic needs to be an actual philosopher. MichaelCrawford 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The etymology of "noumena" is perfectly fine, but the explanation of "noesis" seems abysmally bad. "Noesis" is indeed from the same root as "noumena"; it is an abstract noun made with the regular formative suffix "sis." It just means "thought." I'm going to delete this sentence in the article, unless anyone can support the "tendency towards the new" interpretation. Andrew Ollett 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
First, one might wonder how Kant could say noumenon and phenomenon stand in any kind of relationship insofar as the categories of relation cannot be applied to noumenon. But of course, if the form of logical judgments are distinguished from the categories of understanding, it's easy to show that whilst we can *judge* that they stand in a logical relation, we can only make *negative* claims about the metaphysics underlyling it (e.g. that the relationship is not one of inherence/subsistence, cause/effect or community/reciprocity). Perhaps this element of the connection between noumenon and phenomenon could be made clearer in the article?
Second, Perhaps you might also mention the scope of overlap between the following distinctions: noumenon / thing-in-itself / transcendental object. Are they the same thing? Is there any merit to claims we should treat them differently? I reckon that, in general, flagging these kinds of debates in philosophy articles might be useful, given the amount of students who rely on wikipedia. 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC) zenpea
I am re-adding my article on indeterminacy in philosophy since critics of Kant's noumenon consider it to be indeterminate for reasons expressed in that article. If someone wishes to remove it, then he or she should discuss the reasons for doing so here. Thanks, Tastyummy 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is my article in that I wrote it in its entirety a few days ago. I have given Wikipedia all rights to it, but I assert my right to take pride in my own work. I apologize for the mixup over the redirection thing, though. The body of the article only links to indeterminacy's disambig, which itself links to several articles. I thought it would be useful to the reader not to have to go through an extra step, no? (If not, no problem here.) Thanks for your advice; I do try generally to follow Wikipedia policies. Please let me know if there is any further problem. Tastyummy 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link is broken. I'm too new to know how to fix this quickly, although I'll try to figure it out. If you know how, please do so, since I'll have to look up how that kind of link works. Tastyummy 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. Fixed already. Thanks. Tastyummy 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that my statement that Nietzscheanistic criticism of the Noumenon arguably precursed the scientific method was recently removed due to its being an "erroneous personal argument". I'd love to see the evidence that I am in error in asserting that Nietzsche's critique of the noumenon did, in fact, precurse the scientific method:
The following quotation is from Beyond Good and Evil, the "Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy" edition, in the chapter entitled "On the prejudices of philosophers":
Nietzsche's argument against the thing-in-itself focuses, throughout his work, on its intangibility, its indeterminacy, that it is unobservable, et cetera. And science can only deal with observable phenomena, or processes which can be logically deduced from observable phenomena, and which thus are, in their own way, observable. How is Nietzschean thought, then, in its opposition to the possibility of faith-based "knowledge", not precursive of a scientific worldview in those regards?
It seems to me that the user who deleted the section I had written was, in fact, himself making an argument that was both erroneous and personal: without giving any further reason than that he thought it was incorrect, he deleted my statement. I, for my part, can provide evidence that the statement I have made here is correct. The reason I suggest that the other user's removal of the section was on personal grounds was, quite simply, that no other grounds are immediately evident: I certainly am not making the argument "for personal reasons"-- whatever that even means-- any more than does a physicist argue that the atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons "for personal reasons": I am presenting an evidentially-based argument as such: you will note that I say that Nietzsche arguably precursed the scientific method, and not that he definitely did, and that to support my argument I refer to Nietzsche's treatment of the inobservable in general, which is supported in all of Nietzsche's works. The above citation is further evidence that I'm not just making this up: read Nietzsche yourself if you doubt this. I have read almost all of his works available in English translation several times; if there is evidence that I have been wrong about Nietzsche in all the years that I have studied his works, I would like to see it immediately.
I am reverting this article to the previous edit, and if there are evidential grounds that the section I am re-adding is "erroneous" or "personal", then I implore the offended readers to discuss this evidence before re-deleting them.
Thank you,
Tastyummy 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
One further note: this argument isn't original, by any means, and I am not the only person of the above opinion. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett, the author quotes Hollingdale:
You now have user:tastyummy quoting Dennett, quoting Hollingdale, quoting Nietzsche. Dennett, as a bright, is a proponent of a naturalistic worldview, and his extensive quotation of Nietzsche throughout the aforementioned work indicates that he, too, finds Nietzscheanistic thought precursive of scientific analysis. This is clearly not "personal", whether or not it's "erroneous".
Tastyummy 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The idea that Nietzsche was a "precursor" to the scientific method
is simply preposterous. He was writing in the late 19th century
when science was well established -- indeed it was something of
a golden age. Disucssion of the scientific method goes back
at least as far as Bacon (1620). The stuff about Dennett and evolution is
irrelevant.
1Z1Z
I've removed this sentence due to the fact that it does not accurately represent Nietzsche's place in 19th Century philosophy with respect to scientific method. ... Kenosis 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Kant's use of noumenon sets up modern scientific method to stick with phenomena (the empirically "observable"). Nietzsche's approach had absolutely nothing to do with it. ... Kenosis 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link in the "see also" section to Discordianism. I can sort of see a connection between this statement
and the article on the noumenon as it currently stands either via the dualism of noumenon and phenomenon or via Nietzsche's and Popper's statements on falsifiability.
However, there are certainly many more ideologies which reject falsifiability and/or dualism than Discordianism (since, as its own article asserts, such rejection is "not in concept different from postmodernism or certain trends in the philosophy of mathematics"). Postmodernism, as a much more influential movement than Discordianism, would deserve a place here too if Discordianism does (and if, indeed, postmodernism in general actually and necessarily includes this position), as would such diverse "isms" as Dadaism and nihilism. But linking to every concept that is related to the Kantian noumenon only in rejecting an aspect of one of its criticisms would be a pretty monumental task.
It would be preferable-- but nevertheless not, in my opinion, terribly necessary-- to link to "dualism", for example, since the separation of the noumenon and phenomenon can be seen as a type of dualism; however, even this isn't specifically relevant to this article since, to be fair in using this connection as justification for adding this link, we'd then have to attempt to provide a link to dualism in all other articles on philosophical positions that either imply or are criticised by some given dualistic view of things. And as far as falsifiability goes, I've now linked to it in the body of the article; if this was the connection you saw between Discordianism and the Kantian noumenon, I'd suggest adding Discordianism to some kind of category for falsifiability in general, since Discordianism doesn't seem to relate specifically to the concept of the noumenon in its treatment of falsifiability in general (and if I'm wrong on this point, then the article on Discordianism ought to be changed to reflect this connection, since it currently describes Discordianism as a philosophical position in rather vague terms).
I think the person who linked to it here should create (or use) some category for ideologies (or, for that matter, religions) that are critical of dualism and/or falsifiability. I actually think that this is probably too general a category to be useful-- anything that purports to be "monistic" and to access "absolute" (unfalsifiable) truth would have to go in there, for example-- but that's a problem that should be addressed in the article on Discordianism. The "citation needed" tags on its statements about postmodernism and the philosophy of mathematics are there because that the statement wasn't clearly demonstrated to whoever placed them, and they're not being clearly demonstrated to me either. While the concept of the noumenon can indeed be connected to Discordianism, it can also be connected to Hinduism, or to Platonism, or even to sponges via the following sequence of already-existing links: Noumenon -> Natural world -> Animal -> Porifera (which redirects to "sea sponge", which includes a disambiguation page that links to other types of sponge). For a page to be put in the "see also" section of an article, it should be specifically relevant to the subject matter of that article and not just connected with via very general concepts, unless the article is a category, list, etc.
If I'm missing something here, and there really is a relevant and specific connection between Discordianism and the thing-in-itself that isn't shared by hundreds of other philosophical worldviews, please fix the article on Discordianism to include this connection before linking to it here.
Thanks,
Tastyummy 02:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following material in keeping with the request for citations in the article represented by the template at the head of the article. I inserted this material some months ago, but I wouldn't know where to source it because it's my explanation. Here's what I removed: ... Kenosis 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The rest of the second paragraph I left intact, such as the references to the specific classes of transcendental aesthetic. They can be sourced quite easily (cite to the Critique of Pure (Speculative) Reason or some appropriate secondary source). ... Kenosis 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've realised that I may have spent more space in trying to make a point about Nietzsche than in writing an article on the noumenon. Looking back at it, I feel like I've all but written "Nietzsche was a scientist". This was not my intention. Nietzsche was a "proto-scientist", and he was definitely a psychologist, etc., but so, too, in his way, was Kant. While, in my opinion, Nietzsche's critique of Kant was a direct step toward modern scientific thought, it was necessitated by Kant's own work, as Kenosis said earlier. Despite the fact that I do think Kantianism has had a negative influence on philosophy, I'm trying not to put my personal opinions on WP without evidence supporting them. If I've failed to do this, please bring it to my and other editors' attention.
I'm going to modify the section on his critique anyway, since elements of Nietzsche's own philosophy (i.e., his Will to Power) are arguably noumenal themselves ("This, too, is will to power and nothing more[...]"-- Nietzsche's attempted monism can sometimes be reformulated as noumenon/phenomenon, so it's not fair to make it sound like Nietzsche figured the whole thing out. (You can make a Nietzscheanistic criticism of Nietzsche on the grounds that he contradicted his own critique of the noumenon: "The causa sui is a type of logical rape and abomination" (from Beyond Good and Evil) versus the "self-propelled wheel" of the total affirmation of life (from Zarathustra) is an example of this. And while he did influence science, he was not a scientist; I'll make it clear that Nietzscheanism and Popper's falsificationism are not interchangeable and that the two critiques are really quite separate, even though Nietzsche's quote on falsifiability does, I think, deserve to remain in his criticism, as he did make it before Popper formulated his epistemology.
I'm trying to revamp the "criticisms" sections to make them as NPOV as possible; if anyone thinks other work needs to be done to achieve this, please discuss it here. The Kantian noumenon and noumenality in philosophy in general are a touchy subject among philosophers, but I think that if we work together we can turn this into an article of outstanding quality.
I also might add a Wittgenstein quote, "of that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent," if I can track down the source.
This article also needs to be updated to reflect Hegel's use of the term. I haven't read much Hegel, but I'll try to track down a lecture of his I once read in which he "criticised" Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at length but fails to eliminate noumenal elements from his phenomenology. I'm also going to discuss Kant's influence on Derrida and Hegel in the "Influences on Modern Philosophy" section, since it's really quite important to much of their work, for better or for worse.
Good night/morning/afternoon/evening, wherever you are, Tastyummy 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone's re-inserted the assertion that Occam's Razor is noumenal into the section on criticism of the noumenon via Occam's Razor. I will continue to argue against this for the simple reason that Occam's Razor, being, as it is, a descriptible principle, is phenomenon rather than noumenon. If, as this article currently says, "for Kant, the noumenal realm is radically unknowable", (and with this I agree), then unless Occam's razor is unknowable it is not the noumenon or "part of" the noumenon, whatever that would mean. If Occam's Razor is a principle necessarily expressed in words, which are observable, then it is phenomenon. If it demonstrably relates to observable things-- i.e., if there is a causal relationship between it and anything empirical, such as a theory X derived in part from the elimination of redundant elements from a more complex, but no more informative, theory Y, etc.-- then it is phenomenon.
Even the word "noumenon" is phenomenal; it is a word, which is observable. Unless Occam's Razor is not descriptible, it is not noumenal.
Unless I am mistaken, this is consistent with the rest of the article as it stands as well as with Kantianism; if there is an opposing claim, please discuss it here.
Thanks,
Tastyummy 16:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The sections on science and occam's razor present poor arguments one-sidedly. I am considering merging them and offering counter-arguments, but it will be harder to add citations. Not that there are any currently.
1Z 15:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The relationship between the thing-in-itself and noumena needs to be clarified. A TII is only a negative noumemenon. Positive noumena are another issue. I should be able to add a section clarifying this with citations.
1Z 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The article needs a discussion of the question of whether the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears-to-us are two different things are two aspects of the same thing. Most of the criticisms in the current article assume the former.
1Z 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The article now states "Noumenon is linguistically unrelated to "numinous" ". When I read our article about nouminous, I seem to perceive a likeness. __ meco 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert. 1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'.
Do you have a source for that? 1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"
1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.
2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.
"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today".
I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":
"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."
You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.
1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the lead reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I only have a few moments right now, and will need to get back to this later on. But as any decent encyclopedia of philosophy or basic exposition of Kant will tell, what Kant was essentially saying is that the thing in itself is the object of consciousness when we inquire into how things in the world work. We can't know the thing in itself, but instead must deduce its nature based on its appearances (phenomena) and by applying certain rational processes (about which he wrote in great detail) to figure out the nature of the thing in itself, the object of our consciousness, the object of our investigation. It was Kant's response to the debate of the day that ran from Descartes through Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. It also was sufficiently groundbreaking that it led to the use of the term "phenomena" to define the limits of investigation by modern scientific method. Criticisms by Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, certainly are appropriate to include because they are easily verified by many reliable sources. A firsthand analysis of the Critique asserting that Kant may not have meant "thing in itself" as the object of consciousness, such as was just added to the article, appears to be original research. Note, however, that I did not delete it outright, but instead only placed a tag on the section and moved it into "criticisms" for now. In due time, I'm sure we'll be able to sort it through. ... Kenosis 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1Z 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've several times needed to remove or move !Z's comments placed in the middle of my submissions. Please do not break up others' submissions. Instead, kindly reproduce what's necessary in a separate submission, in quotes or italics, as needed to make clear what's being responded to. ... Kenosis 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have written nothing suggesting noumenon=TII is controversial. 1Z 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not, since I am only using one primary source. 1Z 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Removal of non-introductory material". what are you trying to achieve here? If you state in the introduction that noumena are "intelligible" and then give an unqualified airing to the "noumena are unknowable" claim , as per most potted versions of Kant, you are just going to leave the article in a state of contradiction. 1Z 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) What's "alternative" about the negative/positive distinction? 1Z 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes last night to the [as yet uncited] first subsection of Kant's usage. These changes included some reintroduction of previous material that had been deleted by one or more editors who evidently viewed "phonomenal" and "noumenal" as different "realms" of existence, along with a number of other changes to the approach. I hope this helps move the article forward. All of this, of course, will need to be cited at some point, in keeping with the current move of Wikipedia from the expectation of being verifiable to being actually cited to reliable sources. Thanks, Peterdjones (1Z) and also to Jim62sch, for the incentive and action to improve. ... Kenosis 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ... I also proceeded to add s few preliminary citations for the "Overview". ... Kenosis 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A reader comes here to get a general idea of what the thing is, and they don't find out really in the first screenful. Instead we get an entire page a drivel about how "Ding an sich" which means "noumenon" which comes from the present passive participle of "νοείν" also known as (noein) which of course originates from "nous" (roughly, "mind"). And it takes a whole screenful to say that much. What I wanted to know is, what generally does "ding in sich" mean, and I got a whole lot of nothing. The answer is in here if you read far enough, but a general idea of what we're dealing with up front would make the rest of the article easier to digest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.71.112 ( talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"The philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon more-or-less synonymously with the phrase thing in itself (German: Ding an sich)"
This statement needs a more precise citation than "the CPR".
There is a searchable edition here
As it stands, the article is somewhat contradictory. It is stated in general terms that Kant holds the two to be synonymous, but quotations from the primary source included in the article indicate otherwise.
Alternatively, the claim could be rephrased along the lines of "it is often stated that..", which is of course supportable by secondary sources. 1Z 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlike noumenon which is mental entity, and subject to thoughts or judgments, the thing-in-itself is more of a necessary condition for world's material existence or it's "reality". The thing-in-itself can be thought, and talked about (as I just did), but merely as noumenon. Discussing the "real existence", "material reality", "external being" etc. of thing-in-itself is out of scope of Kantian philosophy, or if you like: it's simply a metaphysical postulate, a part of Kant's general rejection of idealism (see Prolegomena - Part one of the main transcendental problem. How is pure mathematics possible? - Remark II). Note that questions like: "is there a thing-in-itself?" or "does the Thing exist?" make no sense from this point of view. I call it "the ontological anchor" - you cannot see the seabed, you cannot tell if the ship is moving. Now that it's been dropped you cannot see the anchor either. And yet you assume being tied to something firm all along. Pragmatic choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.11.152 ( talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"A noumenon cannot be the actual object that results in the phenomenon in question" but routledge quotes kant "The noumenal element in some way affects us, giving rise to the representations through which phenomena are presented and constituted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 ( talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone has removed the offending sentence. 1Z ( talk) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Because that's what it seems like.-- Loodog ( talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't understood a word of this. Read the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.254 ( talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It is a mistake that leads to misunderstanding for the concept of Thing in itself to redirect, in Wikipedia, to Noumenon. As can be understood in the section on Schopenhauer's criticism, Noumenon's original meaning of "that which is thought" is totally different from the "thing–in–itself." The latter signifies things and/or objects as they exist apart from being images in the mind of an observing subject. This is the significance of the phrase "in itself," meaning "not for something else," such as an observer. Lestrade 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I don't think the redirect is necessarily misleading; the article could do more to explain the pre-Kant meaning of "noumenon" and less to emphasise the equation with the T-I-I; however other editors disagree. 1Z 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that your personal opinion or is it an objective fact? I, for one, have interest in the concept as it was used by the Greeks. If there was a separate article on Thing in itself, then the difference between it and noumena could be clearly shown. Instead, a reader who searches for the Thing in itself is redirected to Noumena. There they are told that Kant's thing in itself is the same as noumena, which is definitely not the case. Lestrade 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
We need some sort of clear poll on the subject. I suspect that if the articles were separated, they would only end up being merged. 1Z ( talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lestrad, the noumenon for the ancient Greeks is an esoteric philosophical concept barely discussed in any classrooms; Kant is iconic figure in every philosophy department where the noumenon is a central concept in his philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy studies will observe Plato and maybe some sophists and presocratics. Kant's noumenon would be familiar to any major in philosophy. The greek's noumenon? Not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I added this section under the general criticism section; basically its all on George Berkeley. I understand that since Berkeley pre-dates Kant, he cannot technically be considered a critic of Kant. I acknowledge this fact in the paragraph so that a reasonable reader will not be led astray. A reasonable reader will infer that he may need to investigate Berkeley to determine if his philosophy illuminates criticism of noumenon. Berkeley's ideas on immaterialism seem to drive to the heart of the matter. I'm fairly well versed on Berkeley. If anyone can point out substantively why immaterialism is not a valid critique (and in essence a summary of critiques), notwithstanding its temporal precedence, please attest to those substantive issues within the section. If you can't substantively argue it please "talk" to me and tell me why you think its innappropriate.
I should also point out that this ongoing debate about the "thing in itself" is very important. We need to resolve it. I'm no scholar of Kant, but when I read of the "thing in itself" my first inclination is that it means that which exists independent of an observant mind (the Greek definition), not a human mind. It may be that Kant meant only a human mind, and thus the example of the "sun" and "babies" is entirely appropriate. However, my gut tells me he must have meant more than this. Yet maybe I'm suffering from indigestion!
The definition under debate seems so limited and provincial as to be entirely useless. You might as well argue that any substance is noumena since there is no means of creating somthing out of nothing. If that is the case then all you are saying is that something is because it was, (not very helpful). Even we are noumena, as we are but the product of chemicals and nutrients that we have consumed and reformulated. In essence noumena is anything except for the geist. I cannot accept this. Instead I'm forced to incline that somewhere, deep in his work in a place we have not acknowledged, he (Kant) talks about a higher mind, and its relation to or causation of noumena. A man so learned could not have ignored such a distinction. Yet like I said I'm no scholar of Kant.
Butlmat (
talk)
05:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)butlmat
Kant suggests that God or some other being perhaps, if they had an intellectual intuition, could experience the noumenon; just not humans. This is because our categories of the understanding only apply to sensible intuitions of time and space (which he is at a loss to explain why these and only these are forever our limits, but does believe so. Also they are merely ideal and have no ontological status outside of their function) Even if we had other intuitions, he believes our categories would only apply to the sensible intuitions, not to any intellectual intuition that can accurately think of things in themselves without employing them strictly to a sensuous (sensible- meaning of sensation- meaning an empirically informed intuitions (time/space again).
Remember the noumenon is not just a thing-in-self, by reason of that it is also unconditioned, and so cannot 'survive' the conditions our minds impose on all thoughts. He says this like every page.
Also, Kant doesn't believe we can know anything about substances, all the 'different' substances you might think of, if they are imaginable (or consistent with being in time and space) then they are not anything but phenomena.
This is Kant fundamentals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Could we get a pronunciation guide in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvar ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The current pronunciation guide is wrong. 'Noumenon' is four syllables - 'no-umenon' - not three as indicated. 82.21.56.93 ( talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's three. It's pronounced Noo-ma-non — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"Noumenon is distinguished from phenomenon (Erscheinung), the latter being an observable event or physical manifestation capable of being observed by one or more of the human senses."
This is completely wrong, because you haven't understood phenomena at all! Phenomena are *not* observable events, they *are* the result of observation! The event would be the Noumenon and the appearance of it is the Phenomenon! It is a common mistake of the non-philosopher to think that Phenomena happen outside and are then perceived - this is complete bullshit and rightly has to be criticized, because then the whole distinction of Phenomena/Noumena wouldn't work any more. Please, get a better understanding of this complex but very interesting matter! Simple example concerning the visual sense, an experiment you can do yourself: touch your eye carefully with a finger so that you see sparks of light (typically one sees a ring of light) - now, is this light you see caused by photons? No, it is not even of the nature of photons. The light you see is the Phenomenon and your finger, in this set up, would represent the Noumenon. This shows very clearly the relation of Phenomena to Noumena. -- 146.60.184.54 ( talk) 11:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Events and fingers happen in time and space. If the noumenon exists, neither item you used would count. The whole point is we can say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the noumenon, except that we know exists and we can't say anything further.
But those analogies 'help' only if you realize that they fall short of the concept which can only be explained in a definition and not with examples. This is because of the unique nature of the thing, that it cannot have any knowledge about it other than what I pointed out. So, do we know about fingers? Yes, they're not noumenon then. If there is a self that exists noumenally, it doesn't have fingers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.80.171.38 (
talk)
23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else bothered by the phonetics presented for Noumenon? The article specifies: /ˈnɒuːmᵻnɒn/. I do not see the need for the "ɒ". Also, in all references I could find on the web for the IPA encoding, that "ɒ" is not present. Same thing with the multiple examples of english pronunciation available on the web. Vincent Lextrait ( talk) 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Noumenon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That transformation is a Being in transition. [1] 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 02:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Arnold
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Philosophy is hard to restrict to people who have 'studied' it. Philosophy, along with all arts, fine arts, and social sciences, pertain to everyone. And the proletariat can hardly be expected to go deeply into all fields of enquiry. People like Larry (who rewrote the article, I think) should keep up the good work, without delusions of intellectual grandeur. Humans shouldn't be relegated to the world of noumena!
I agree. My studies of Physics involved a great deal of discussion of philosophy, and so have my wife's studies of art history. Not everyone qualified to discuss the topic needs to be an actual philosopher. MichaelCrawford 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The etymology of "noumena" is perfectly fine, but the explanation of "noesis" seems abysmally bad. "Noesis" is indeed from the same root as "noumena"; it is an abstract noun made with the regular formative suffix "sis." It just means "thought." I'm going to delete this sentence in the article, unless anyone can support the "tendency towards the new" interpretation. Andrew Ollett 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
First, one might wonder how Kant could say noumenon and phenomenon stand in any kind of relationship insofar as the categories of relation cannot be applied to noumenon. But of course, if the form of logical judgments are distinguished from the categories of understanding, it's easy to show that whilst we can *judge* that they stand in a logical relation, we can only make *negative* claims about the metaphysics underlyling it (e.g. that the relationship is not one of inherence/subsistence, cause/effect or community/reciprocity). Perhaps this element of the connection between noumenon and phenomenon could be made clearer in the article?
Second, Perhaps you might also mention the scope of overlap between the following distinctions: noumenon / thing-in-itself / transcendental object. Are they the same thing? Is there any merit to claims we should treat them differently? I reckon that, in general, flagging these kinds of debates in philosophy articles might be useful, given the amount of students who rely on wikipedia. 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC) zenpea
I am re-adding my article on indeterminacy in philosophy since critics of Kant's noumenon consider it to be indeterminate for reasons expressed in that article. If someone wishes to remove it, then he or she should discuss the reasons for doing so here. Thanks, Tastyummy 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is my article in that I wrote it in its entirety a few days ago. I have given Wikipedia all rights to it, but I assert my right to take pride in my own work. I apologize for the mixup over the redirection thing, though. The body of the article only links to indeterminacy's disambig, which itself links to several articles. I thought it would be useful to the reader not to have to go through an extra step, no? (If not, no problem here.) Thanks for your advice; I do try generally to follow Wikipedia policies. Please let me know if there is any further problem. Tastyummy 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link is broken. I'm too new to know how to fix this quickly, although I'll try to figure it out. If you know how, please do so, since I'll have to look up how that kind of link works. Tastyummy 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. Fixed already. Thanks. Tastyummy 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that my statement that Nietzscheanistic criticism of the Noumenon arguably precursed the scientific method was recently removed due to its being an "erroneous personal argument". I'd love to see the evidence that I am in error in asserting that Nietzsche's critique of the noumenon did, in fact, precurse the scientific method:
The following quotation is from Beyond Good and Evil, the "Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy" edition, in the chapter entitled "On the prejudices of philosophers":
Nietzsche's argument against the thing-in-itself focuses, throughout his work, on its intangibility, its indeterminacy, that it is unobservable, et cetera. And science can only deal with observable phenomena, or processes which can be logically deduced from observable phenomena, and which thus are, in their own way, observable. How is Nietzschean thought, then, in its opposition to the possibility of faith-based "knowledge", not precursive of a scientific worldview in those regards?
It seems to me that the user who deleted the section I had written was, in fact, himself making an argument that was both erroneous and personal: without giving any further reason than that he thought it was incorrect, he deleted my statement. I, for my part, can provide evidence that the statement I have made here is correct. The reason I suggest that the other user's removal of the section was on personal grounds was, quite simply, that no other grounds are immediately evident: I certainly am not making the argument "for personal reasons"-- whatever that even means-- any more than does a physicist argue that the atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons "for personal reasons": I am presenting an evidentially-based argument as such: you will note that I say that Nietzsche arguably precursed the scientific method, and not that he definitely did, and that to support my argument I refer to Nietzsche's treatment of the inobservable in general, which is supported in all of Nietzsche's works. The above citation is further evidence that I'm not just making this up: read Nietzsche yourself if you doubt this. I have read almost all of his works available in English translation several times; if there is evidence that I have been wrong about Nietzsche in all the years that I have studied his works, I would like to see it immediately.
I am reverting this article to the previous edit, and if there are evidential grounds that the section I am re-adding is "erroneous" or "personal", then I implore the offended readers to discuss this evidence before re-deleting them.
Thank you,
Tastyummy 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
One further note: this argument isn't original, by any means, and I am not the only person of the above opinion. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett, the author quotes Hollingdale:
You now have user:tastyummy quoting Dennett, quoting Hollingdale, quoting Nietzsche. Dennett, as a bright, is a proponent of a naturalistic worldview, and his extensive quotation of Nietzsche throughout the aforementioned work indicates that he, too, finds Nietzscheanistic thought precursive of scientific analysis. This is clearly not "personal", whether or not it's "erroneous".
Tastyummy 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The idea that Nietzsche was a "precursor" to the scientific method
is simply preposterous. He was writing in the late 19th century
when science was well established -- indeed it was something of
a golden age. Disucssion of the scientific method goes back
at least as far as Bacon (1620). The stuff about Dennett and evolution is
irrelevant.
1Z1Z
I've removed this sentence due to the fact that it does not accurately represent Nietzsche's place in 19th Century philosophy with respect to scientific method. ... Kenosis 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Kant's use of noumenon sets up modern scientific method to stick with phenomena (the empirically "observable"). Nietzsche's approach had absolutely nothing to do with it. ... Kenosis 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link in the "see also" section to Discordianism. I can sort of see a connection between this statement
and the article on the noumenon as it currently stands either via the dualism of noumenon and phenomenon or via Nietzsche's and Popper's statements on falsifiability.
However, there are certainly many more ideologies which reject falsifiability and/or dualism than Discordianism (since, as its own article asserts, such rejection is "not in concept different from postmodernism or certain trends in the philosophy of mathematics"). Postmodernism, as a much more influential movement than Discordianism, would deserve a place here too if Discordianism does (and if, indeed, postmodernism in general actually and necessarily includes this position), as would such diverse "isms" as Dadaism and nihilism. But linking to every concept that is related to the Kantian noumenon only in rejecting an aspect of one of its criticisms would be a pretty monumental task.
It would be preferable-- but nevertheless not, in my opinion, terribly necessary-- to link to "dualism", for example, since the separation of the noumenon and phenomenon can be seen as a type of dualism; however, even this isn't specifically relevant to this article since, to be fair in using this connection as justification for adding this link, we'd then have to attempt to provide a link to dualism in all other articles on philosophical positions that either imply or are criticised by some given dualistic view of things. And as far as falsifiability goes, I've now linked to it in the body of the article; if this was the connection you saw between Discordianism and the Kantian noumenon, I'd suggest adding Discordianism to some kind of category for falsifiability in general, since Discordianism doesn't seem to relate specifically to the concept of the noumenon in its treatment of falsifiability in general (and if I'm wrong on this point, then the article on Discordianism ought to be changed to reflect this connection, since it currently describes Discordianism as a philosophical position in rather vague terms).
I think the person who linked to it here should create (or use) some category for ideologies (or, for that matter, religions) that are critical of dualism and/or falsifiability. I actually think that this is probably too general a category to be useful-- anything that purports to be "monistic" and to access "absolute" (unfalsifiable) truth would have to go in there, for example-- but that's a problem that should be addressed in the article on Discordianism. The "citation needed" tags on its statements about postmodernism and the philosophy of mathematics are there because that the statement wasn't clearly demonstrated to whoever placed them, and they're not being clearly demonstrated to me either. While the concept of the noumenon can indeed be connected to Discordianism, it can also be connected to Hinduism, or to Platonism, or even to sponges via the following sequence of already-existing links: Noumenon -> Natural world -> Animal -> Porifera (which redirects to "sea sponge", which includes a disambiguation page that links to other types of sponge). For a page to be put in the "see also" section of an article, it should be specifically relevant to the subject matter of that article and not just connected with via very general concepts, unless the article is a category, list, etc.
If I'm missing something here, and there really is a relevant and specific connection between Discordianism and the thing-in-itself that isn't shared by hundreds of other philosophical worldviews, please fix the article on Discordianism to include this connection before linking to it here.
Thanks,
Tastyummy 02:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following material in keeping with the request for citations in the article represented by the template at the head of the article. I inserted this material some months ago, but I wouldn't know where to source it because it's my explanation. Here's what I removed: ... Kenosis 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The rest of the second paragraph I left intact, such as the references to the specific classes of transcendental aesthetic. They can be sourced quite easily (cite to the Critique of Pure (Speculative) Reason or some appropriate secondary source). ... Kenosis 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've realised that I may have spent more space in trying to make a point about Nietzsche than in writing an article on the noumenon. Looking back at it, I feel like I've all but written "Nietzsche was a scientist". This was not my intention. Nietzsche was a "proto-scientist", and he was definitely a psychologist, etc., but so, too, in his way, was Kant. While, in my opinion, Nietzsche's critique of Kant was a direct step toward modern scientific thought, it was necessitated by Kant's own work, as Kenosis said earlier. Despite the fact that I do think Kantianism has had a negative influence on philosophy, I'm trying not to put my personal opinions on WP without evidence supporting them. If I've failed to do this, please bring it to my and other editors' attention.
I'm going to modify the section on his critique anyway, since elements of Nietzsche's own philosophy (i.e., his Will to Power) are arguably noumenal themselves ("This, too, is will to power and nothing more[...]"-- Nietzsche's attempted monism can sometimes be reformulated as noumenon/phenomenon, so it's not fair to make it sound like Nietzsche figured the whole thing out. (You can make a Nietzscheanistic criticism of Nietzsche on the grounds that he contradicted his own critique of the noumenon: "The causa sui is a type of logical rape and abomination" (from Beyond Good and Evil) versus the "self-propelled wheel" of the total affirmation of life (from Zarathustra) is an example of this. And while he did influence science, he was not a scientist; I'll make it clear that Nietzscheanism and Popper's falsificationism are not interchangeable and that the two critiques are really quite separate, even though Nietzsche's quote on falsifiability does, I think, deserve to remain in his criticism, as he did make it before Popper formulated his epistemology.
I'm trying to revamp the "criticisms" sections to make them as NPOV as possible; if anyone thinks other work needs to be done to achieve this, please discuss it here. The Kantian noumenon and noumenality in philosophy in general are a touchy subject among philosophers, but I think that if we work together we can turn this into an article of outstanding quality.
I also might add a Wittgenstein quote, "of that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent," if I can track down the source.
This article also needs to be updated to reflect Hegel's use of the term. I haven't read much Hegel, but I'll try to track down a lecture of his I once read in which he "criticised" Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at length but fails to eliminate noumenal elements from his phenomenology. I'm also going to discuss Kant's influence on Derrida and Hegel in the "Influences on Modern Philosophy" section, since it's really quite important to much of their work, for better or for worse.
Good night/morning/afternoon/evening, wherever you are, Tastyummy 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone's re-inserted the assertion that Occam's Razor is noumenal into the section on criticism of the noumenon via Occam's Razor. I will continue to argue against this for the simple reason that Occam's Razor, being, as it is, a descriptible principle, is phenomenon rather than noumenon. If, as this article currently says, "for Kant, the noumenal realm is radically unknowable", (and with this I agree), then unless Occam's razor is unknowable it is not the noumenon or "part of" the noumenon, whatever that would mean. If Occam's Razor is a principle necessarily expressed in words, which are observable, then it is phenomenon. If it demonstrably relates to observable things-- i.e., if there is a causal relationship between it and anything empirical, such as a theory X derived in part from the elimination of redundant elements from a more complex, but no more informative, theory Y, etc.-- then it is phenomenon.
Even the word "noumenon" is phenomenal; it is a word, which is observable. Unless Occam's Razor is not descriptible, it is not noumenal.
Unless I am mistaken, this is consistent with the rest of the article as it stands as well as with Kantianism; if there is an opposing claim, please discuss it here.
Thanks,
Tastyummy 16:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The sections on science and occam's razor present poor arguments one-sidedly. I am considering merging them and offering counter-arguments, but it will be harder to add citations. Not that there are any currently.
1Z 15:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The relationship between the thing-in-itself and noumena needs to be clarified. A TII is only a negative noumemenon. Positive noumena are another issue. I should be able to add a section clarifying this with citations.
1Z 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The article needs a discussion of the question of whether the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears-to-us are two different things are two aspects of the same thing. Most of the criticisms in the current article assume the former.
1Z 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
The article now states "Noumenon is linguistically unrelated to "numinous" ". When I read our article about nouminous, I seem to perceive a likeness. __ meco 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert. 1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'.
Do you have a source for that? 1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"
1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.
2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.
"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today".
I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":
"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."
You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.
1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the lead reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I only have a few moments right now, and will need to get back to this later on. But as any decent encyclopedia of philosophy or basic exposition of Kant will tell, what Kant was essentially saying is that the thing in itself is the object of consciousness when we inquire into how things in the world work. We can't know the thing in itself, but instead must deduce its nature based on its appearances (phenomena) and by applying certain rational processes (about which he wrote in great detail) to figure out the nature of the thing in itself, the object of our consciousness, the object of our investigation. It was Kant's response to the debate of the day that ran from Descartes through Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. It also was sufficiently groundbreaking that it led to the use of the term "phenomena" to define the limits of investigation by modern scientific method. Criticisms by Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, certainly are appropriate to include because they are easily verified by many reliable sources. A firsthand analysis of the Critique asserting that Kant may not have meant "thing in itself" as the object of consciousness, such as was just added to the article, appears to be original research. Note, however, that I did not delete it outright, but instead only placed a tag on the section and moved it into "criticisms" for now. In due time, I'm sure we'll be able to sort it through. ... Kenosis 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1Z 19:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've several times needed to remove or move !Z's comments placed in the middle of my submissions. Please do not break up others' submissions. Instead, kindly reproduce what's necessary in a separate submission, in quotes or italics, as needed to make clear what's being responded to. ... Kenosis 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have written nothing suggesting noumenon=TII is controversial. 1Z 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not, since I am only using one primary source. 1Z 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Removal of non-introductory material". what are you trying to achieve here? If you state in the introduction that noumena are "intelligible" and then give an unqualified airing to the "noumena are unknowable" claim , as per most potted versions of Kant, you are just going to leave the article in a state of contradiction. 1Z 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) What's "alternative" about the negative/positive distinction? 1Z 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes last night to the [as yet uncited] first subsection of Kant's usage. These changes included some reintroduction of previous material that had been deleted by one or more editors who evidently viewed "phonomenal" and "noumenal" as different "realms" of existence, along with a number of other changes to the approach. I hope this helps move the article forward. All of this, of course, will need to be cited at some point, in keeping with the current move of Wikipedia from the expectation of being verifiable to being actually cited to reliable sources. Thanks, Peterdjones (1Z) and also to Jim62sch, for the incentive and action to improve. ... Kenosis 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ... I also proceeded to add s few preliminary citations for the "Overview". ... Kenosis 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A reader comes here to get a general idea of what the thing is, and they don't find out really in the first screenful. Instead we get an entire page a drivel about how "Ding an sich" which means "noumenon" which comes from the present passive participle of "νοείν" also known as (noein) which of course originates from "nous" (roughly, "mind"). And it takes a whole screenful to say that much. What I wanted to know is, what generally does "ding in sich" mean, and I got a whole lot of nothing. The answer is in here if you read far enough, but a general idea of what we're dealing with up front would make the rest of the article easier to digest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.71.112 ( talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"The philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon more-or-less synonymously with the phrase thing in itself (German: Ding an sich)"
This statement needs a more precise citation than "the CPR".
There is a searchable edition here
As it stands, the article is somewhat contradictory. It is stated in general terms that Kant holds the two to be synonymous, but quotations from the primary source included in the article indicate otherwise.
Alternatively, the claim could be rephrased along the lines of "it is often stated that..", which is of course supportable by secondary sources. 1Z 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlike noumenon which is mental entity, and subject to thoughts or judgments, the thing-in-itself is more of a necessary condition for world's material existence or it's "reality". The thing-in-itself can be thought, and talked about (as I just did), but merely as noumenon. Discussing the "real existence", "material reality", "external being" etc. of thing-in-itself is out of scope of Kantian philosophy, or if you like: it's simply a metaphysical postulate, a part of Kant's general rejection of idealism (see Prolegomena - Part one of the main transcendental problem. How is pure mathematics possible? - Remark II). Note that questions like: "is there a thing-in-itself?" or "does the Thing exist?" make no sense from this point of view. I call it "the ontological anchor" - you cannot see the seabed, you cannot tell if the ship is moving. Now that it's been dropped you cannot see the anchor either. And yet you assume being tied to something firm all along. Pragmatic choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.11.152 ( talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"A noumenon cannot be the actual object that results in the phenomenon in question" but routledge quotes kant "The noumenal element in some way affects us, giving rise to the representations through which phenomena are presented and constituted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 ( talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone has removed the offending sentence. 1Z ( talk) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Because that's what it seems like.-- Loodog ( talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't understood a word of this. Read the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.254 ( talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It is a mistake that leads to misunderstanding for the concept of Thing in itself to redirect, in Wikipedia, to Noumenon. As can be understood in the section on Schopenhauer's criticism, Noumenon's original meaning of "that which is thought" is totally different from the "thing–in–itself." The latter signifies things and/or objects as they exist apart from being images in the mind of an observing subject. This is the significance of the phrase "in itself," meaning "not for something else," such as an observer. Lestrade 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I don't think the redirect is necessarily misleading; the article could do more to explain the pre-Kant meaning of "noumenon" and less to emphasise the equation with the T-I-I; however other editors disagree. 1Z 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that your personal opinion or is it an objective fact? I, for one, have interest in the concept as it was used by the Greeks. If there was a separate article on Thing in itself, then the difference between it and noumena could be clearly shown. Instead, a reader who searches for the Thing in itself is redirected to Noumena. There they are told that Kant's thing in itself is the same as noumena, which is definitely not the case. Lestrade 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
We need some sort of clear poll on the subject. I suspect that if the articles were separated, they would only end up being merged. 1Z ( talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lestrad, the noumenon for the ancient Greeks is an esoteric philosophical concept barely discussed in any classrooms; Kant is iconic figure in every philosophy department where the noumenon is a central concept in his philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy studies will observe Plato and maybe some sophists and presocratics. Kant's noumenon would be familiar to any major in philosophy. The greek's noumenon? Not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I added this section under the general criticism section; basically its all on George Berkeley. I understand that since Berkeley pre-dates Kant, he cannot technically be considered a critic of Kant. I acknowledge this fact in the paragraph so that a reasonable reader will not be led astray. A reasonable reader will infer that he may need to investigate Berkeley to determine if his philosophy illuminates criticism of noumenon. Berkeley's ideas on immaterialism seem to drive to the heart of the matter. I'm fairly well versed on Berkeley. If anyone can point out substantively why immaterialism is not a valid critique (and in essence a summary of critiques), notwithstanding its temporal precedence, please attest to those substantive issues within the section. If you can't substantively argue it please "talk" to me and tell me why you think its innappropriate.
I should also point out that this ongoing debate about the "thing in itself" is very important. We need to resolve it. I'm no scholar of Kant, but when I read of the "thing in itself" my first inclination is that it means that which exists independent of an observant mind (the Greek definition), not a human mind. It may be that Kant meant only a human mind, and thus the example of the "sun" and "babies" is entirely appropriate. However, my gut tells me he must have meant more than this. Yet maybe I'm suffering from indigestion!
The definition under debate seems so limited and provincial as to be entirely useless. You might as well argue that any substance is noumena since there is no means of creating somthing out of nothing. If that is the case then all you are saying is that something is because it was, (not very helpful). Even we are noumena, as we are but the product of chemicals and nutrients that we have consumed and reformulated. In essence noumena is anything except for the geist. I cannot accept this. Instead I'm forced to incline that somewhere, deep in his work in a place we have not acknowledged, he (Kant) talks about a higher mind, and its relation to or causation of noumena. A man so learned could not have ignored such a distinction. Yet like I said I'm no scholar of Kant.
Butlmat (
talk)
05:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)butlmat
Kant suggests that God or some other being perhaps, if they had an intellectual intuition, could experience the noumenon; just not humans. This is because our categories of the understanding only apply to sensible intuitions of time and space (which he is at a loss to explain why these and only these are forever our limits, but does believe so. Also they are merely ideal and have no ontological status outside of their function) Even if we had other intuitions, he believes our categories would only apply to the sensible intuitions, not to any intellectual intuition that can accurately think of things in themselves without employing them strictly to a sensuous (sensible- meaning of sensation- meaning an empirically informed intuitions (time/space again).
Remember the noumenon is not just a thing-in-self, by reason of that it is also unconditioned, and so cannot 'survive' the conditions our minds impose on all thoughts. He says this like every page.
Also, Kant doesn't believe we can know anything about substances, all the 'different' substances you might think of, if they are imaginable (or consistent with being in time and space) then they are not anything but phenomena.
This is Kant fundamentals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Could we get a pronunciation guide in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvar ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The current pronunciation guide is wrong. 'Noumenon' is four syllables - 'no-umenon' - not three as indicated. 82.21.56.93 ( talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's three. It's pronounced Noo-ma-non — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 ( talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"Noumenon is distinguished from phenomenon (Erscheinung), the latter being an observable event or physical manifestation capable of being observed by one or more of the human senses."
This is completely wrong, because you haven't understood phenomena at all! Phenomena are *not* observable events, they *are* the result of observation! The event would be the Noumenon and the appearance of it is the Phenomenon! It is a common mistake of the non-philosopher to think that Phenomena happen outside and are then perceived - this is complete bullshit and rightly has to be criticized, because then the whole distinction of Phenomena/Noumena wouldn't work any more. Please, get a better understanding of this complex but very interesting matter! Simple example concerning the visual sense, an experiment you can do yourself: touch your eye carefully with a finger so that you see sparks of light (typically one sees a ring of light) - now, is this light you see caused by photons? No, it is not even of the nature of photons. The light you see is the Phenomenon and your finger, in this set up, would represent the Noumenon. This shows very clearly the relation of Phenomena to Noumena. -- 146.60.184.54 ( talk) 11:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Events and fingers happen in time and space. If the noumenon exists, neither item you used would count. The whole point is we can say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the noumenon, except that we know exists and we can't say anything further.
But those analogies 'help' only if you realize that they fall short of the concept which can only be explained in a definition and not with examples. This is because of the unique nature of the thing, that it cannot have any knowledge about it other than what I pointed out. So, do we know about fingers? Yes, they're not noumenon then. If there is a self that exists noumenally, it doesn't have fingers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.80.171.38 (
talk)
23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else bothered by the phonetics presented for Noumenon? The article specifies: /ˈnɒuːmᵻnɒn/. I do not see the need for the "ɒ". Also, in all references I could find on the web for the IPA encoding, that "ɒ" is not present. Same thing with the multiple examples of english pronunciation available on the web. Vincent Lextrait ( talk) 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Noumenon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That transformation is a Being in transition. [1] 45.49.226.155 ( talk) 02:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Arnold
References