Zarathushtra

Originally posted by stocken
It's still a bit out of place in a discussion on Zarathushtra, perhaps.

No shit! 😠

So what? If the discussion is interesting don't cut it. Who cares where it is? I don't.

Originally posted by Palynka
So what? If the discussion is interesting don't cut it. Who cares where it is? I don't.

I'm not trying to cut it. I'm trying to move it where it belongs. That way, if it's really interesting (and I think it's getting there) it should be easy to find later, should I want to.

However, after this little faux pas, I'm sure I won't forget where it is.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The noumenon here is not a philosophical idea - but the human being himself/herself.

Kant's view (including the Categories) is an explanation of how a human being really functions. Therefore, Kant's view is a description of (one aspect of) the noumenon of the human being - something his view claims he cannot know.

I thought you were referring to the "idea" that one cannot know the noumenon (hence your one cannot know that one cannot know).

If you meant the being himself I don't think Kant ever contradicted himself there. His "categories of the understanding" are exactly the ones that he claims we base our knowledge on, they are not a summary of what Man is or how he functions, and they don't pretend to be.

For Kant there is more to the noumenon that can be explained by phenomena, hence there are things in Man that we will never be able to perceive or explain.

It's been a long time since I read Kant and I may be mixing what I took from him with something of mine, but that's how I remember it...

Originally posted by Palynka
I thought you were referring to the "idea" that one cannot know the noumenon (hence your one cannot know that one cannot know).

If you meant the being himself I don't think Kant ever contradicted himself there. His "categories of the understanding" are exactly the ones that he claims we base our knowledge on, they are not a summary of what Man is or how h ...[text shortened]... y be mixing what I took from him with something of mine, but that's how I remember it...

My reading of Kant is that he claimed we could not know anything about the noumenon (except, perhaps, that it exists) - all we can know is the phenomena. So, if I see a tree, I know nothing of the tree in itself, I only know the phenomenon of the tree as my senses perceive it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My reading of Kant is that he claimed we could not know anything about the noumenon (except, perhaps, that it exists) - all we can know is the phenomena. So, if I see a tree, I know nothing of the tree in itself, I only know the phenomenon of the tree as my senses perceive it.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Noumenon \Nou"me*non\, n. [NL. fr. Gr. ? the thing perceived, p.
pr. pass. of ? to perceive, ? the mind.] (Metaph.)
The of itself unknown and unknowable rational object, or
thing in itself, which is distinguished from the phenomenon
through which it is apprehended by the senses, and by which
it is interpreted and understood; -- so used in the
philosophy of Kant and his followers.