The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon

[Veritas Aequitas]

Imo VA seems to think that "oxymoron" means "moot". And he also programmed the AI with the lie that I claimed knowledge of the unknowable noumenon, which would indeed be oxymoronic, and that's what the AI agreed with.

So because he deceived the AI and then even misunderstood the output of the deceived AI, he now thinks that he has successfully crushed my position. A position that I, in fact, never even held at all, and a position that the AI never really addressed either, except on a side note.

These are at least 3-4 fatal mistakes in an argument. Nicely chained together.

I think the actual point he wanted to make was that Kant ultimately thought that thinking about the noumenon was moot. And he thinks that he has an epic gotcha with AI support where he showed me wrong on this.

Except I never talked about this before, and of course I know that this was moot for Kant. And only Heaven knows how this was relevant anyway, what did VA counter with it?

Not gonna lie, sometimes I think that VA provides us with a kind of entertainment that money can't buy.

You are lying.

Your basic claim is indirect realism substantiates an absolute mind-independent reality which is indirect realism as defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

I then pointed out whatever that absolute mind-independent reality, i.e. noumenon or thing-in-itself is an illusion, something which is non-existent.

You countered the absolute mind-independent thing/reality nevertheless exists as real but unknowable. You stated this is what science is all about; but you did not take into account there are two perspective to science, i.e. scientific realism [philosophical] [yours] and scientific empirical realism [mine].

Seed and IWP has insisted Kant stated this:

At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves. * For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears—which would be absurd.

You, Seed and IWP insisted that Kant meant there is still a real noumenon out there but it is unknown.

I countered the above, the 'unknowable noumenon' is a limited interpretation of noumenon as in the Aesthetic of the CPR/
Ultimately in the finer phase of the CPR [the dialectic], to insist there is an unknowable noumenon, that is an oxymoron. [thus moot, redundant, a non-starter]

[Atla]

Imo VA seems to think that "oxymoron" means "moot". And he also programmed the AI with the lie that I claimed knowledge of the unknowable noumenon, which would indeed be oxymoronic, and that's what the AI agreed with.

So because he deceived the AI and then even misunderstood the output of the deceived AI, he now thinks that he has successfully crushed my position. A position that I, in fact, never even held at all, and a position that the AI never really addressed either, except on a side note.

These are at least 3-4 fatal mistakes in an argument. Nicely chained together.

I think the actual point he wanted to make was that Kant ultimately thought that thinking about the noumenon was moot. And he thinks that he has an epic gotcha with AI support where he showed me wrong on this.

Except I never talked about this before, and of course I know that this was moot for Kant. And only Heaven knows how this was relevant anyway, what did VA counter with it?

Not gonna lie, sometimes I think that VA provides us with a kind of entertainment that money can't buy.

You are lying.

Your basic claim is indirect realism substantiates an absolute mind-independent reality which is indirect realism as defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

I then pointed out whatever that absolute mind-independent reality, i.e. noumenon or thing-in-itself is an illusion, something which is non-existent.

You countered the absolute mind-independent thing/reality nevertheless exists as real but unknowable. You stated this is what science is all about; but you did not take into account there are two perspective to science, i.e. scientific realism [philosophical] [yours] and scientific empirical realism [mine].

Seed and IWP has insisted Kant stated this:

At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves. * For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears—which would be absurd.

You, Seed and IWP insisted that Kant meant there is still a real noumenon out there but it is unknown.

I countered the above, the 'unknowable noumenon' is a limited interpretation of noumenon as in the Aesthetic of the CPR/
Ultimately in the finer phase of the CPR [the dialectic], to insist there is an unknowable noumenon, that is an oxymoron. [thus moot, redundant, a non-starter]

Right, and you are legit retarded for repeating this strawman about 50 times, even though I corrected it about 50 times. You still have no idea what you're talking about.

[Iwannaplato]

You, Seed and IWP insisted that Kant meant there is still a real noumenon out there but it is unknown.

I never said that. I said that it was obvious Kant did not rule out the existence of some noumena. And I demonstrated this with quotes from Kant. So, you are lying here or incompetent or both.

Do you understand the difference between not ruling out the existence of and saying we know X doesn't exist? Do you understand that Kant thought freedom was a noumenon, but at the same time, utterly necessary for morality. I showed quotes where he said that.

That does not mean I said freedom is real and I know it but it's unknowable. Please don't attribute things to me I never said and are not in any way entailed by what I said.

All you could do in response was to say that I needed to read the CPR more. You probably think that actually rebutting my points and the quotes.

The verb 'insisted' is just another implied put down. I assert things. You assert things.
Get over the propaganda.

I countered the above, the 'unknowable noumenon' is a limited interpretation of noumenon as in the Aesthetic of the CPR/
Ultimately in the finer phase of the CPR [the dialectic], to insist there is an unknowable noumenon, that is an oxymoron. [thus moot, redundant, a non-starter]

Here's what you might be trying to say. To assert that there is something and we know it and it is unknowable is a contradiction.

The phrase unknowable noumena is not an oxymoron and we are right in pointing that out.

I have not asserted that that we can know something unknowable.

In fact, the title of the thread implies this heavily by calling that phrase an oxymoron.

[Atla]

You, Seed and IWP insisted that Kant meant there is still a real noumenon out there but it is unknown.

I never said that. I said that it was obvious Kant did not rule out the existence of some noumena. And I demonstrated this with quotes from Kant. So, you are lying here or incompetent or both.

The verb 'insisted' is just another implies put down. I assert things. You assert things.
Get over the propaganda.

His brain just can't process the bare minimum of Kantian philosophy

[Iwannaplato]

You, Seed and IWP insisted that Kant meant there is still a real noumenon out there but it is unknown.

I never said that. I said that it was obvious Kant did not rule out the existence of some noumena. And I demonstrated this with quotes from Kant. So, you are lying here or incompetent or both.

The verb 'insisted' is just another implies put down. I assert things. You assert things.
Get over the propaganda.

His brain just can't process the bare minimum of Kantian philosophy

Is it possible that English being our native or vastly more fluent language (than his) we might sometimes be on to something. No, he'll spend the next five years fucking defending an idiotic non-oxymoron as an oxymoron.

I think he means something like 'you are saying we can't know x, but also saying it exists and you know it exists' so that's a contradiction. Which might be what someone said, but it sure wasn't me, or it might be his interpretation of what they said or what was entailed. But given how terribly he communicates, who knows what he actually meant. I don't think I'm being charitable, because I think he's tried to say what I saw above, but so problematically, it gets us nowhere.


No. He'll probably build a whole new wing of his philosophy based on some articles that 'prove' that really it is an oxymoron.

[Atla]

I never said that. I said that it was obvious Kant did not rule out the existence of some noumena. And I demonstrated this with quotes from Kant. So, you are lying here or incompetent or both.

The verb 'insisted' is just another implies put down. I assert things. You assert things.
Get over the propaganda.

His brain just can't process the bare minimum of Kantian philosophy

Is it possible that English being our native or vastly more fluent language (than his) we might sometimes be on to something. No, he'll spend the next five years fucking defending an idiotic non-oxymoron as an oxymoron.

I think he means something like 'you are saying we can't know x, but also saying it exists and you know it exists' so that's a contradiction. Which might be what someone said, but it sure wasn't me, or it might be his interpretation of what they said or what was entailed. But given how terribly he communicates, who knows what he actually meant. I don't think I'm being charitable, because I think he's tried to say what I saw above, but so problematically, it gets us nowhere.


No. He'll probably build a whole new wing of his philosophy based on some articles that 'prove' that really it is an oxymoron.

That's what he meant (for years now) and what he told his AI too, which his AI even recited later. As I suspected from the start.

I appreciate your eternal optimism but imo no, this isn't about English. He simply either has a too low IQ for Kant, or has a good IQ but is missing some higher cognitive function that we take for granted.

He simply can't process what Kant was actually saying in his entire effing book: the uncertain status of the noumenon, including the uncertain status of its existence. Many dumb people fundamentally can't process uncertainty, and it's not that they are bad at it. They literally can't process uncertainty.

VA can only process two positions: either the noumenon definitely can't exist or it definitely exists.

[Iwannaplato]

I appreciate your eternal optimism but imo no, this isn't about English. He simply either has a too low IQ for Kant, or has a good IQ but is missing some higher cognitive function that we take for granted.

He simply can't process what Kant was actually saying in his entire effing book: the uncertain status of the noumenon, including the uncertain status of its existence. Many dumb people fundamentally can't process uncertainty, and it's not that they are bad at it. They literally can't process uncertainty.

VA can only process two positions: either the noumenon definitely can't exist or it definitely exists.

It seems that way.
I do often find myself shaking my head wondering how he could have managed not to understand what I wrote and not to respond to it, despite quoting what I wrote and then writing stuff after the quote.

[seeds]

I never said that. I said that it was obvious Kant did not rule out the existence of some noumena. And I demonstrated this with quotes from Kant. So, you are lying here or incompetent or both.

The verb 'insisted' is just another implies put down. I assert things. You assert things.
Get over the propaganda.

His brain just can't process the bare minimum of Kantian philosophy

Is it possible that English being our native or vastly more fluent language (than his) we might sometimes be on to something. No, he'll spend the next five years fucking defending an idiotic non-oxymoron as an oxymoron.

I think he means something like 'you are saying we can't know x, but also saying it exists and you know it exists' so that's a contradiction. Which might be what someone said, but it sure wasn't me, or it might be his interpretation of what they said or what was entailed. But given how terribly he communicates, who knows what he actually meant. I don't think I'm being charitable, because I think he's tried to say what I saw above, but so problematically, it gets us nowhere.

No. He'll probably build a whole new wing of his philosophy based on some articles that 'prove' that really it is an oxymoron.

Staying with the theme of consulting AIs about this subject, I asked Bing's "Ask Me Anything" the following question...

"Did Kant ever insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real?"

...to which it replied with...

• Did not insist
  
  Kant did not insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real. He argued that the phenomenal world is an expression of power, and the source of this power can only be the noumenal world beyond.
  However, Kant also maintained that the thing-in-itself is unknowable.

And when the same question was addressed by Bing's AI Copilot, it said the following...

• Kant did not assert that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is absolutely impossible to exist as something real. Instead, he considered it a problematic notion, acknowledging that it cannot lead to true knowledge.
  
  Kant defended its use as a limiting concept, emphasizing that it sets clear boundaries for our understanding and reminds us of the unknowable reality behind phenomena.
  
  While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond.
  
  However, he also maintained that we cannot know substantive and positive details about specific things in themselves. So, while Kant didn’t deem noumena impossible, he recognized their inherent limitations.

The problem with VA's interpretation of this noumena business is that regardless of how consistently these AIs insist that Kant never ruled out the existence of the noumenal realm, and, in fact, proclaim that Kant actually defended...

"...its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

...VA, nevertheless, has taken it upon himself to proclaim that Kant unequivocally insisted that the noumenal realm is absolutely impossible to be real.

And why does VA do this?

Well, I suggest that it all stems from his earlier efforts (his deeper M.O.) to try and prove that God is an impossibility to exist as real.

In other words, he posits God as being nothing more than the equivalent of a Kantian noumenon.

In which case, if he can just get everyone in the world to believe that his infallible hero Uncle Kant says that the noumenon is an impossibility to exist as real, then,...

...ipso facto, God is an impossibility to exist as real.

And that would be a fulfillment of one of his primary goals --> the proving of the nonexistence of God.

Therefore, in order to get the AIs to agree with him, I have no doubt that VA twists and tortures Kant's writings in such a way that they (the AIs) will try to see his point and "politely" make him think that they are agreeing with his "nuanced" arguments.

However, in the process, they inevitably end up pumping out a slew of statements that, in essence, contradict the generally agreed upon consensus of how Kant actually felt about the noumenal realm, which is clearly suggested in this earlier quote from Bing's Copilot...

• "...While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

Now, of course, with VA being a self-proclaimed super-expert on Kant, indeed, the world's leading authority on all things Kantian,...

(and that's because of his unprecedented 3 whole years of reading Kant's writings)

...with a Ceasar-esque wave of his hand, he will simply dismiss the misunderstandings of the entire rest of the world and proclaim that only he truly comprehends what Kant actually believed about the noumenal realm.
_______

[Atla]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that VA indeed speed-read the CPR 30 times over, misunderstanding it 30 times. In his deleted comment, he even wrote something like 'I speed-read the CPR', although maybe he was just sulking and really tried to read the book, dunno.

Okay let's read seeds's last comment using VA's speed technique:

Staying with the theme of consulting AIs about this subject, I asked Bing's "Ask Me Anything" the following question...

"Did Kant ever insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real?"

...to which it replied with...

• Did not insist
  
  Kant did not insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real. He argued that the phenomenal world is an expression of power, and the source of this power can only be the noumenal world beyond.
  However, Kant also maintained that the thing-in-itself is unknowable.

And when the same question was addressed by Bing's AI Copilot, it said the following...

• Kant did not assert that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is absolutely impossible to exist as something real. Instead, he considered it a problematic notion, acknowledging that it cannot lead to true knowledge.
  
  Kant defended its use as a limiting concept, emphasizing that it sets clear boundaries for our understanding and reminds us of the unknowable reality behind phenomena.
  
  While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond.
  
  However, he also maintained that we cannot know substantive and positive details about specific things in themselves. So, while Kant didn’t deem noumena impossible, he recognized their inherent limitations.

The problem with VA's interpretation of this noumena business is that regardless of how consistently these AIs insist that Kant never ruled out the existence of the noumenal realm, and, in fact, proclaim that Kant actually defended...

"...its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

...VA, nevertheless, has taken it upon himself to proclaim that Kant unequivocally insisted that the noumenal realm is absolutely impossible to be real.

And why does VA do this?

Well, I suggest that it all stems from his earlier efforts (his deeper M.O.) to try and prove that God is an impossibility to exist as real.

In other words, he posits God as being nothing more than the equivalent of a Kantian noumenon.

In which case, if he can just get everyone in the world to believe that his infallible hero Uncle Kant says that the noumenon is an impossibility to exist as real, then,...

...ipso facto, God is an impossibility to exist as real.

And that would be a fulfillment of one of his primary goals --> the proving of the nonexistence of God.

Therefore, in order to get the AIs to agree with him, I have no doubt that VA twists and tortures Kant's writings in such a way that they (the AIs) will try to see his point and "politely" make him think that they are agreeing with his "nuanced" arguments.

However, in the process, they inevitably end up pumping out a slew of statements that, in essence, contradict the generally agreed upon consensus of how Kant actually felt about the noumenal realm, which is clearly suggested in this earlier quote from Bing's Copilot...

• "...While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

Now, of course, with VA being a self-proclaimed super-expert on Kant, indeed, the world's leading authority on all things Kantian,...

(and that's because of his unprecedented 3 whole years of reading Kant's writings)

...with a Ceasar-esque wave of his hand, he will simply dismiss the misunderstandings of the entire rest of the world and proclaim that only he truly comprehends what Kant actually believed about the noumenal realm.
_______

See much better, why waste time reading all those words when we can just focus on the essentials?

[Iwannaplato]

Well, I suggest that it all stems from his earlier efforts (his deeper M.O.) to try and prove that God is an impossibility to exist as real.

In other words, he posits God as being nothing more than the equivalent of a Kantian noumenon.

In which case, if he can just get everyone in the world to believe that his infallible hero Uncle Kant says that the noumenon is an impossibility to exist as real, then,...

...ipso facto, God is an impossibility to exist as real.

Which, of course, Kant did not say. In fact he considers the existence of God and the immortality of the soul to be noumena AND necessary for us to be moral agents. We can't know if they real, since they are not empirically available to us. But if they are not real, we cannot be moral agents according to Kant. He obviously thought it was possible for us to be moral agents so it is utterly impossible that he believed no noumena can exist.

[Atla]

Kinda pathetic though that Kant-1 created a whole trash philosophy of unknowable noumena and Kant-2 built upon this by saying that we totally should believe in some noumena anyway. Talk about inconsistent due to an ulterior motive. It's things like this why I don't even consider him a serious philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

His brain just can't process the bare minimum of Kantian philosophy

Is it possible that English being our native or vastly more fluent language (than his) we might sometimes be on to something. No, he'll spend the next five years fucking defending an idiotic non-oxymoron as an oxymoron.

I think he means something like 'you are saying we can't know x, but also saying it exists and you know it exists' so that's a contradiction. Which might be what someone said, but it sure wasn't me, or it might be his interpretation of what they said or what was entailed. But given how terribly he communicates, who knows what he actually meant. I don't think I'm being charitable, because I think he's tried to say what I saw above, but so problematically, it gets us nowhere.

No. He'll probably build a whole new wing of his philosophy based on some articles that 'prove' that really it is an oxymoron.

Staying with the theme of consulting AIs about this subject, I asked Bing's "Ask Me Anything" the following question...

"Did Kant ever insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real?"

...to which it replied with...

• Did not insist
  
  Kant did not insist that it is absolutely impossible for the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) to exist as something that is real. He argued that the phenomenal world is an expression of power, and the source of this power can only be the noumenal world beyond.
  However, Kant also maintained that the thing-in-itself is unknowable.

And when the same question was addressed by Bing's AI Copilot, it said the following...

• Kant did not assert that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is absolutely impossible to exist as something real. Instead, he considered it a problematic notion, acknowledging that it cannot lead to true knowledge.
  
  Kant defended its use as a limiting concept, emphasizing that it sets clear boundaries for our understanding and reminds us of the unknowable reality behind phenomena.
  
  While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond.
  
  However, he also maintained that we cannot know substantive and positive details about specific things in themselves. So, while Kant didn’t deem noumena impossible, he recognized their inherent limitations.

The problem with VA's interpretation of this noumena business is that regardless of how consistently these AIs insist that Kant never ruled out the existence of the noumenal realm, and, in fact, proclaim that Kant actually defended...

"...its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

...VA, nevertheless, has taken it upon himself to proclaim that Kant unequivocally insisted that the noumenal realm is absolutely impossible to be real.

And why does VA do this?

Well, I suggest that it all stems from his earlier efforts (his deeper M.O.) to try and prove that God is an impossibility to exist as real.

In other words, he posits God as being nothing more than the equivalent of a Kantian noumenon.

In which case, if he can just get everyone in the world to believe that his infallible hero Uncle Kant says that the noumenon is an impossibility to exist as real, then,...

...ipso facto, God is an impossibility to exist as real.

And that would be a fulfillment of one of his primary goals --> the proving of the nonexistence of God.

Therefore, in order to get the AIs to agree with him, I have no doubt that VA twists and tortures Kant's writings in such a way that they (the AIs) will try to see his point and "politely" make him think that they are agreeing with his "nuanced" arguments.

However, in the process, they inevitably end up pumping out a slew of statements that, in essence, contradict the generally agreed upon consensus of how Kant actually felt about the noumenal realm, which is clearly suggested in this earlier quote from Bing's Copilot...

• "...While the noumenon remains hidden from direct access, Kant persisted in defending its absolute reality, suggesting that the phenomenal world is an expression of power sourced from the noumenal realm beyond..."

Now, of course, with VA being a self-proclaimed super-expert on Kant, indeed, the world's leading authority on all things Kantian,...

(and that's because of his unprecedented 3 whole years of reading Kant's writings)

...with a Ceasar-esque wave of his hand, he will simply dismiss the misunderstandings of the entire rest of the world and proclaim that only he truly comprehends what Kant actually believed about the noumenal realm.
_______

The fact is Kant's CPR is presented in three main phases.
1. The Transcendental Aesthetic
2. The Transcendental Analytic
3. The Transcendental Dialectic

In phase 1, Kant did state 'the noumenon is unknown' but that is relevant only to the Aesthetic.
Most AIs will agree with the above.
However, what is noumenon in Kant terms is not the same thing as "what you think it is".
Rather than a thing of substance theory, [Kant was not specific on this] the noumenon is more likely an emergent.

If you further discuss with AI giving it the relevant references and bring in the other two phases of the CPR, these AIs will agree 'an unknowable noumenon is a oxymoron' [moot, redundant, non-starter, a paradox, self-contradicting and the like'

I have already discussed the point with CoPilot which agreed with me, i.e.;

Your Interpretation:
Your understanding aligns well with Kant’s nuanced view. The noumenon is not an external reality; it is a thought, a useful idea for organizing our thinking.
In summary, your reasoning is sound, and you’ve grasped Kant’s position accurately. When discussing this with your interlocutor, focus on clarifying Kant’s perspective and avoiding misrepresentations.

Any AI when presented with what is stated in the full CPR will agree with me.

You should ask AI whether your interlocutor's view [mine] is reasonable from the full perspective of the three phases of the CPR. i.e.
1. The Transcendental Aesthetic
2. The Transcendental Analytic
3. The Transcendental Dialectic
together with the relevant quotes and and my arguments from the CPR.

[Atla]

The word "oxymoron" is a figure of speech in which two seemingly contradictory terms are combined to create a paradoxical effect (e.g., "deafening silence" or "jumbo shrimp"). Among the words provided:

Paradox: Closely related to "oxymoron," as both involve contradictions. An oxymoron is a type of paradox.

Self-contradicting: Related, but not synonymous. While an oxymoron is a specific type of self-contradiction used for effect, "self-contradicting" more broadly describes anything that contradicts itself.

The other words—"moot," "redundant," and "non-starter"—are not synonymous with "oxymoron."

Then again VA can't process logic and therefore contradictions, even though almost every male can. So that would explain why he can't process the above.

[Iwannaplato]

The word "oxymoron" is a figure of speech in which two seemingly contradictory terms are combined to create a paradoxical effect (e.g., "deafening silence" or "jumbo shrimp"). Among the words provided:

Paradox: Closely related to "oxymoron," as both involve contradictions. An oxymoron is a type of paradox.

Self-contradicting: Related, but not synonymous. While an oxymoron is a specific type of self-contradiction used for effect, "self-contradicting" more broadly describes anything that contradicts itself.

The other words—"moot," "redundant," and "non-starter"—are not synonymous with "oxymoron."

Then again VA can't process logic and therefore contradictions, even though almost every male can. So that would explain why he can't process the above.

Yes, VA's unknowable noumenon is a Pleonasm, like true fact, ATM machine, past history, round circle......
or in this case

stubborn recalcitrance.