Kant: Phenomena [real] - Noumena [FALSE -Illusory]

[Iwannaplato]

1. If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, [then] this is a Noumenon in the negative Sense of the term. B307

2. But if we understand by it an Object of a non-Sensible Intuition, we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Intuition, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive Sense of the term.

If 1. we take the noumena in the empirical sense, then it can only be taken in the negative sense as a marker or an imaginary limit [e.g. not-p] and not as something real.

If 2. we take the noumena in the non-empirical sense, [e.g. freedom, soul, god] we can take it in the positive sense, but only as a positive illusion.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. CPR B397

However regarding 'freedom' Kant was extremely clear that morality was impossible without it. And he clearly considered morality and being a moral agent possible. So, it must be false that he considered noumena false and illusory. Because he considered it required for something he thought was possible. Why would he spend so much time declaring what is moral, if it was grounded on something that did not and could not exist?

In your response to Will Bouman it is extremely hard to tell what you are saying Kant said and what you are saying you think is the case. He was obviously asking about and challenging what you were saying Kant believed. To throw in your own justifications for your own added beliefs is avoiding presenting clearly what Kant actually asserted himself, which is what you need to do to justify, for example, the title of the thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However regarding 'freedom' Kant was extremely clear that morality was impossible without it. And he clearly considered morality and being a moral agent possible. So, it must be false that he considered noumena false and illusory. Because he considered it required for something he thought was possible. Why would he spend so much time declaring what is moral, if it was grounded on something that did not and could not exist?

It is like saying for an omni-based theist to claim
it is impossible for a God to exist which does not have omni-based qualities.

Santa is impossible without the white beard and all features that make a Santa.

The above does not confirm God or Santa is real.

For Kant, morality is impossible without freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.

It is just a like a perfect circle must have certain qualities;
“A perfect circle is a set of points that are all the same distance from a center point,” Cousins said. The equation for a circle is simple: r2=x2+y2.

If the above features are absent, a circle is impossible.
But this is merely theoretical and an ideal conditions.

There are no perfect circle in reality.

Same for Kant, morality is impossible without [ideal] freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.
In reality, there are no real freedom.
There is no such things as real freedom but only noumenal freedom which is an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

It is like saying for an omni-based theist to claim
it is impossible for a God to exist which does not have omni-based qualities.

Santa is impossible without the white beard and all features that make a Santa.

The above does not confirm God or Santa is real.

For Kant, morality is impossible without freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.

No, he was saying that it was impossible on any level, without freedom. If freedom does not exist, then we are not moral agents, and he was clearly not ruling out the possibility of us being moral agents.

It is just a like a perfect circle must have certain qualities;
“A perfect circle is a set of points that are all the same distance from a center point,” Cousins said. The equation for a circle is simple: r2=x2+y2.

If the above features are absent, a circle is impossible.
But this is merely theoretical and an ideal conditions.

There are no perfect circle in reality.

Same for Kant, morality is impossible without [ideal] freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.
In reality, there are no real freedom.
There is no such things as real freedom but only noumenal freedom which is an illusion.

This does not fit with what Kant said, nor of most interpretations of Kant and this was explained in earlier posts.

These arguments may work for you and what you think of these things, but it is not what Kant thought of these things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is like saying for an omni-based theist to claim
it is impossible for a God to exist which does not have omni-based qualities.

Santa is impossible without the white beard and all features that make a Santa.

The above does not confirm God or Santa is real.

For Kant, morality is impossible without freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.

No, he was saying that it was impossible on any level, without freedom. If freedom does not exist, then we are not moral agents, and he was clearly not ruling out the possibility of us being moral agents.

It is just a like a perfect circle must have certain qualities;
“A perfect circle is a set of points that are all the same distance from a center point,” Cousins said. The equation for a circle is simple: r2=x2+y2.

If the above features are absent, a circle is impossible.
But this is merely theoretical and an ideal conditions.

There are no perfect circle in reality.

Same for Kant, morality is impossible without [ideal] freedom within the IDEAL condition of pure morality.
In reality, there are no real freedom.
There is no such things as real freedom but only noumenal freedom which is an illusion.

This does not fit with what Kant said, nor of most interpretations of Kant and this was explained in earlier posts.

These arguments may work for you and what you think of these things, but it is not what Kant thought of these things.

That is the problem with arrogance based on ignorance.

I studied Kant for 3-years-full-time long ago and had been continually refreshing on it.
So there is some degrees of credibility on my part in contrast to someone who had not read Kant's CPR at all.

Kant is very difficult to grasp fully and even those with 40 years of experience [e.g. Allison] did miss out critical points.

Where reliance is from AI, that must be taken with a lot of reservations.

If anyone want to refute my arguments re Kant, bring on the exact references and quotations from Kant's book and not merely based on hearsays.

[Iwannaplato]

That is the problem with arrogance based on ignorance.

I studied Kant for 3-years-full-time long ago and had been continually refreshing on it.
So there is some degrees of credibility on my part in contrast to someone who had not read Kant's CPR at all.

Kant is very difficult to grasp fully and even those with 40 years of experience [e.g. Allison] did miss out critical points.

Where reliance is from AI, that must be taken with a lot of reservations.

If anyone want to refute my arguments re Kant, bring on the exact references and quotations from Kant's book and not merely based on hearsays.

1) you do realize the arrogance of taking the high ground in a philosophy argument while clearly being ignorant of what the argumentum ad hominem fallacy is. That entire post is ad hom.
2) I have read the CPR.
3) It is not based on hearsay. Earlier in the thread I quoted Kant, explained relevant portions of the quotes and put these quotes in context.
I had to remind you again and again - to no avail - when you falsely framed what I had done and not done. If you don't want to read my posts, fine. But the farcical way you 'respond' to them by not responding to them, falsely categorizing them and now, because you have nothing to actually argue, jumping to ad hom arguments....
that's arrogance.

Repeating your own position without integrating the responses you get to them makes for weak to null arguments.

But thanks for making it clear why you think you are right. One person's subjective estimation of himself - something that is not objective and according to you, not even real.
Good stuff!

I''ll leave you to a thread no one else seems interested in.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I studied Kant for 3-years-full-time long ago and had been continually refreshing on it.
So there is some degrees of credibility on my part in contrast to someone who had not read Kant's CPR at all.

I did not claim to be an expert but has a reasonable degrees [/b]of credibility on my part in contrast to someone who had not read Kant's CPR at all.

I post for my private reasons.
Those who wanted me to be banned for frivolous reasons should not be bothered with what I had posted.

[Iwannaplato]

wI did not claim to be an expert but has a reasonable degrees [/b]of credibility on my part in contrast to someone who had not read Kant's CPR at all.

That doesn't matter at all, this point you are now making. It was still argumentum ad hominem, apart from the faulty assumption in it or nuances to the degree you want to add it to it now, it is an ad hom, a rather basic fallacy that you seem not to understand, even when it is pointed out.

I post for my private reasons.

Which justifies nothing.

Those who wanted me to be banned for frivolous reasons should not be bothered with what I had posted.

I didn't ask for you to be banned, idiot. The only thing I ever asked a moderator to do to you was to send you a message asking you to start fewer threads. I thought you might respect a moderator's request. I did that in a PM to the mods.

In that thread I suggested....

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:24 pm
Censorship is out of place in a philosophy forum

Well, you could combine some of his threads and encourage him to do this on his own. But, I get it, you're not interested in doing such things. We'll deal.

I thought their binary interpretation of their role and the options available was confused.

or here

VA is annoying and he creates noise. But that's part and parcel with a nearly competely unmoderated forum.

But, yeah, I can't expect you to read anything with any diligence, my participation in FDPs thread to the mods. And you happily communicate - and quote - a poster who did directly ask for you to be banned. IOW he gets notifications when you respond to him, which I do not. So, you're just doing more after the fact, confabulation of your motives.

And this post does not justify your repeated practice of just restating your positions, misrepresenting repeatedly my participation in this thread, nor the confusion you have about the value of ad hom arguments.

And then you added a misrepresentation of what I had done as far as you're getting banned. Which, even if it was true, would have been silly justification for what you did in this thread. Again, you can ignore my posts if you want, obviously. I get to respond to whatever I want to, just as you do.

Nice work.