Mikie

Exactly. Strange too, see as how Aristotle put quite an emphasis on the polis and political engagement. One can’t simply live in an Ivory Tower and ca...

See, here I disagree. Derrida is on par with Zizek in my view -- a completely incoherent waste of time. Please point me to what you're referring to re...

Being-towards-death plays a role in human life and temporality, yes, but I don't see how it's very problematic. In fact the above is rather vague. Par...

Repeat: your interpretation is wrong, but I don't care. It's not beneath discussion -- I started this discussion. Feel free to start another one. Or r...

I've never placed too much importance on Heidegger's views on death. Authenticity is interesting. But you're right -- his phenomenological analysis of...

No, it doesn't. As I said above -- does it negate the conception you mentioned? No. And that's all I care about. Try as I did I still don't see your i...

Regarding the last part: you could argue, maybe, that later Heidegger narrows himself to language (and poetry), but earlier Heidegger certainly not. H...

Yes I've read his lectures on Aristotle and Hegel. I didn't find Blattner's book all that convincing. I haven't heard of "The Young Heidegger." Intere...

Thanks again - I wasn't familiar with his podcast, but I like the podcaster as an interviewer. I know Dan, we live in the same town, and although I do...

So to move this discussion into a slightly different direction: is anyone very familiar with Heidegger's take on the subject/object distinction? I mys...

Exactly correct. So you're right, why bicker about whether noumenon means the same thing or something else -- it doesn't negate the above, which is al...

Thank you, I'll check it out.

Thank you!

And also a lot of nonsense.

Can someone explain to me what "OP" stands for? Thanks.

"limit of appearance" is meaningless at this point. It can be repeated again and again, sure, but until it's explained it's just nonsense. I'm tired o...

Very clear. Almost my thoughts exactly.

These semantic games are tiresome. The thing in itself is beyond our knowledge, as I said before. The rest is irrelevant to me. I’m unconvinced by you...

Sure. This doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. The thing-in-itself is exactly what Kant, repeatedly, says is what cannot be known. Why? Because we're b...

The quote does not demonstrate this at all. In fact it does not MENTION noumena, it mentions things in themselves as apart from our (limited) understa...

Clear enough. I just cannot for the life of me understand the justification for this. They can be understood as things in themselves, but they're NOT ...

And as I said before, they're both related to the subject. If you argue the thing in itself somehow sticks around with no subject, yet the noumenon di...

And both are phenomena.

OK, but that's all phenomena as well, in my view. It's all experience -- the experience of imagination, of creative use of words, metaphor, etc. Again...

Ok, I follow you here a little more. If noumenon is a word for (or idea of) the limit of our understanding, fine. That's, I believe, what Streetlight ...

What is the thing in itself "independent of"? The subject. You said so yourself. Yet it's not defined in relation to the subject? True, but if both no...

Yes, a limiting concept. Just as the thing in itself is a limiting concept. He's not saying noumena ARE the limit, as you stated, he's saying it's a l...

So noumena are subject-dependent, unlike things in themselves -- and they mark the limit of sensibility. So the limit of sensibility is what exactly? ...

So they're both "ideas"? This seems so riddled with confusion I really don't know how to respond. But if it makes sense to you, you're a smarter guy t...

Please explain why he gets it right, by all means. "The concept of a noumenon, i.e., of a thing that is not to be thought of as an object of the sense...

This is baffling to me, but OK... The incoming stimuli, our sensations, are data, yes. The second they hit the sense organs, they become representatio...

I don't think this characterization of me is altogether just, but I guess that's neither here nor there. (My italics) Exactly right.

You quoted me in this post, but don't address noumena at all -- which is what I was questioning. I appreciate the attempt, and don't want to be accuse...

(1) Ok, sure. (2) Of course. Here's where you make the jump I just am not seeing: Outward objects in themselves are things-in-themselves. What we perc...

Just saw this: Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous, and there is textual evidence for this relatio...

What's another word for thinking about an object not as one of the senses but of a thing-in-itself? Answer: noumenon. "The concept of a noumenon, i.e....

Sure. What I'm failing to see is where noumena play a role if they're not representations and not the thing-in-itself. If noumenon is used as word for...

Then in this sense both thing-in-itself and noumenon exists, otherwise we wouldn't say anything about either. Although to use "perception" is misleadi...

OK. Examples of such intelligible objects would be what exactly? And whatever is given as an example, is this not therefore phenomenal (as objects)? I...

So does the thing-in-itself. Anything beyond space and time, the forms of sensibility, is unknown. As is the thing-in-itself. So the noumenon doesn't ...

"Real" in what sense exactly? That aliens could see it differently from our perceptions? That's such a misreading of Kant. But have it your way.

I see from this discussion that apparently this point is more controversial than I realized. Nevertheless, if we all agree that both the noumenon and ...

To summarize: The noumenon (the unknown) is "internal" because it's "cognitated" by the pure understanding. The thing in itself (the unknown) is "exte...

No, he doesn't talk about that -- because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Which isn't a surprise. And if what he talks about "later" is ...

I congratulate you on one true statement. This is indeed what Kant is driving at in the passage. It's also simply repeating, almost verbatim, what he ...

Also: (My italics) He's literally saying what I've been asserting twice in a passage you have chosen. And yet you still maintain that somehow he's say...

Yes, you said you gave no quotes AFTER saying you cite Kant while I cite wikipedia regarding noumenon and the thing in itself, which you initially cla...

OK. I already referenced that sentence myself in the former post. That doesn't make it Lockean. But regardless, I'll rephrase: subjects have represent...

Yes, and say nothing about the phenomenon being different from representation. But in any case, that's not what I was referring to. I asked for citati...

When do I say "representation of" or "representation and"? I'd like to see the context that was "suggestive" of this.