Kant

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
Are these two concepts basically the same as accident and substance?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon
Click to expand...
No and no.
Also, what is the basic argument that there has to be something about material things other than that which we or science can sense?
Click to expand...
Science deals with the observable or detectable aspects of real things.

However material things are composed of matter and form which have actual existence or an act of existence. This composit is called an essence or a substance. From this flows the nature of the thing which exists, generally called a species. This answerw the question of " what it is that exists. " From this nature flow all the things science deals with. The nature as such cannot be seen, measured, or detected. You cannot detect human nature, for example. Nor can science detect the basic matter and form or act of existence of a thing.

Linus2nd
 
When someone sees a tree, he sees that treeness. Is arguing for form any different than arguing for God? Is all there is is matter, than matter forms a certain way to form organisms; those we see as very similar have the same “nature”. I had this trouble with Kant too. I couldn’t find his argument that what we see is not what is really there. Aquinas says that we see things in a simplier way than they really are. I am really wondering how he came up with that. Science nowadays says that they can show that there is more empty space on a road than solid matter: atoms unitied by an energy field (I call that the quantum world). I would like to know their reasoning also. I am sceptical of science. If the scientific quantum world the same as Kants Noumenon, or is the Noumenon and farther “out there”. Could it be still called physical? And why not also substance?
 
thinkandmull said:
When someone sees a tree, he sees that treeness. Is arguing for form any different than arguing for God? Is all there is is matter, than matter forms a certain way to form organisms; those we see as very similar have the same “nature”. I had this trouble with Kant too. I couldn’t find his argument that what we see is not what is really there. Aquinas says that we see things in a simplier way than they really are. I am really wondering how he came up with that. Science nowadays says that they can show that there is more empty space on a road than solid matter: atoms unitied by an energy field (I call that the quantum world). I would like to know their reasoning also. I am sceptical of science. If the scientific quantum world the same as Kants Noumenon, or is the Noumenon and farther “out there”. Could it be still called physical? And why not also substance?
Click to expand...
Science is fine, it is some of the conclusions some scientists and cosmologists make about the discoveries of science that are wrong. I am not the one to explain quantum mechanics. Some of the best have said that no one understands it. I think you know my position about so called " empty space. " I have no idea of what " noumena " are except to say that the whole concept seems to have fallen into disrepute. Things either exist or not. Aristotle, in his explanation of Substance and Accidents in his Predicamenta, has pretty well explained the whole range of being, things which exist or can exist. The trouble is that most people have not read him. Which is why we have oddities like " noumena " and " phenomena, " which is why form the 16th century on we have so many odd ball philosophers like Descartes and Kant. Personally, I never paid them any attention. Life is too short to explore the thinking of every madman on the planet. Stick to the truth and that will set you free and leave you with an uncluttered mind.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
thinkandmull said:
Are these two concepts basically the same as accident and substance?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

Also, what is the basic argument that there has to be something about material things other than that which we or science can sense?
Click to expand...
There is a very similar question in"Philosophy Stack Exchange": philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17571/is-noumenon-to-phenomenon-for-kant-what-substance-is-to-accident-for-aristotle.

I guess the short (and simplified) answer would be this: noumenon and phenomenon are similar to substance and accidents in the sense that we can directly know phenomenon and accidents, but cannot directly know noumenon and substance. The main difference is that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would say that substance is knowable, although indirectly, while Kant would say that noumenon is completely unknowable. Then there are other differences: for example, it makes sense to discuss how a substance differs from aggregate of substances, but it makes less sense to discuss “aggregates of noumenon”.
 
thinkandmull said:
Science nowadays says that they can show that there is more empty space on a road than solid matter: atoms unitied by an energy field (I call that the quantum world). I would like to know their reasoning also.
Click to expand...
I guess that much of that reasoning could be supported by this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment
thinkandmull said:
I am sceptical of science. If the scientific quantum world the same as Kants Noumenon, or is the Noumenon and farther “out there”. Could it be still called physical? And why not also substance?
Click to expand...
Noumenon is supposed to be unknowable. Therefore, if we know something about electrons and protons, then they are not “Noumenon”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top