Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Kant and appearances...
    #15099296 -

Why is Kant so sure that the objects we experience are only appearances? What if there were no appearances? I'm having a hard time with Kant, so I think these questions will allow me to gain a little bit better understanding...thanks.


--------------------
"a note for asses: what is very convincing, is not necessarily true - it is merely convincing"

primus------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------mama didn't raise no fool

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant and appearances... [Re: unsui888]
    #15099574 -

if there were no appearences then what are you looking at?

do you believe you are accessing the object directly?

does that mean that you consider reality to actually enter your brain? or do you consider that reality is just THERE in the same way you are seeing it?

how do you explain the things that you have experienced on shrooms (for example) if you do not think that the reality you experience is an appearence modulated by the brain? Do you believe that the shrooms are actually making the walls breath?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant and appearances... [Re: unsui888]
    #15099864 -

Quote:
Why is Kant so sure that the objects we experience are only appearances? What


As far as I know Kant does not claim objects are merely apperances he is simply pointing out that all we can know about an object is limited by our perceiving of that object.

So what we can know about an object is limited by our perception but Kant did not go so far as to claim the object does not exist apart from perception.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant and appearances... [Re: soldatheero]
    #15100140 -

"does that mean that you consider reality to actually enter your brain? "

At what point does reality need to "enter" your brain?

A brain in a vat inside a bigger brain in a vat is still inside reality. Which can only be seen by the brain in a vat.

Philosophers simplify things too much and then it becomes overly complicated. We are all brains in vats. Those vats are called "human bodies".


--------------------


"Everything there is, and all that there is, is a Pattern of unspeakable proportion. The Pattern contains everything that is, completely fixed in succession, all the minimal particles interconnected in every way that is. Every way that is is not every conceivable way, because not everything that can be conceived is manifest in the pattern."

"THE Human, you, is a miniscule but essential part of that pattern. In it lies complete fulfillment. It will never become something it is not, but it will never need to be anything else." - Wiccan_Seeker

"If boring drudgery was the way of the universe, everything would have killed itself long ago." - Spacerific

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant and appearances... [Re: crkhd]
    #15100658 -

Ok i was using the phrase as imagery really, you can take whatever scenario you want - without appearances it would mean that reality would be right there - you would be reality, you would be the objects you are looking at, but youd only be certain aspects of them - those aspects that you are able to percieve. But then you have a distinction between that which you percieve or not and that becomes a matter of appearences again. The only way you can avoid this is if you consider there to only exist the sensations you have and they are not appearences but are actually the real stuff of reality that exists.

BUT even in that case you end up equivocating with Kant - through investigation you would find that there still exists some thing a noumenon that we cannot express through our consciousness.

In fact in order to have imagination it seems you need to have a concept of appearences.
I dunno if you could ever escape the need of an appearence/reality distinction, but I think there are two basic ones. First one is the Kantian one - the difference between phenomenon and neuomenon, appearence and underlying reality, maya or brahma. The second is an analytical one - differentiating details that are experienced (subjective) from details that could or ought to be experienced (Objective).


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant and appearances... [Re: Noteworthy]
    #15100951 -

"Through investigation you would find that there still exists some thing a noumenon that we cannot express through our consciousness"

This one time, I ate everything in sight. Then I took an infinitely long and heavy dump. I am not yet sure if I have exited the premises of my lavatory.

The above post was handed to you after having been handed down from generation to generation over eons gone by. Use it well padwan.


--------------------


"Everything there is, and all that there is, is a Pattern of unspeakable proportion. The Pattern contains everything that is, completely fixed in succession, all the minimal particles interconnected in every way that is. Every way that is is not every conceivable way, because not everything that can be conceived is manifest in the pattern."

"THE Human, you, is a miniscule but essential part of that pattern. In it lies complete fulfillment. It will never become something it is not, but it will never need to be anything else." - Wiccan_Seeker

"If boring drudgery was the way of the universe, everything would have killed itself long ago." - Spacerific

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity SkorpivoMusterion 1,521 8 04/22/06 07:40 AM
by fresh313
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,914 13 01/24/05 12:34 PM
by shroomydan
* Kant's Grounding for the metaphysics of Morals shroominsmurf 1,490 19 05/10/04 03:15 AM
by shroominsmurf
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 23,316 157 12/21/04 08:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Reality: Our objective, benelovent friend SkorpivoMusterion 1,348 10 11/19/05 05:04 PM
by Ped
* Has Kant experienced 'suchness'?
( 1 2 all )		 Patisotagami 2,775 22 09/11/08 09:17 PM
by Boots
* What is the opposite position to moral relatavism? Moonshoe 984 6 03/26/06 03:25 PM
by EternalCowabunga
* Kant's Philosophy of God Psychoactive1984 547 2 03/05/05 08:01 PM
by Psychoactive1984

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
555 topic views. 1 members, 42 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.