Do you believe there is a distinction between appearances and things-in-themselves, i.e.. objects as they appear to us and objects as they are in and of themselves?
>>1304189
things in themselves are shapeless and infinite, they are pure information or in another word energy, so they're obviously not as we perceive them, for that matter we experience things differently to varying degrees just by having individual subjectivity for example two people can experience the same song very differently.
>>1304189
Nah, that's a metaphysical idea, which Kant says is impossible to have
"Things in themselves" are things as they are in the mind of God. The answer is yes and no.
>>1304189
Yessir.
Observing an object, you can easily discern its shape, and maybe its function.
But there are a zillion things going on in and around that object that can't be discerned by mere appearance.
From simple weight and chemical structure, and more modernly, anatomical structure, heat transfer, gravitational waves, origins, potential energy...
This one seems pretty easy and I'm rather dumb.
>>1305380
It doesn't mean the appearance is not true.
>>1305467
Does too. The human eye is a very limited organ. It tells us shape and little else -- but there's infinitely more to know about a real-world object "as they are..." and we're learning more and more every day about objects and things that we can not perceive with our primitive senses.
UV., infrared... Electromagnetic spectrum outside ROYGBIV...
Even on a basic level, modern warfare would not exist without instruments that are able to discern what our senses cannot.
So yeah, the appearance is not true. It provides a vantage that is inherently nonrepresentational of that thang.
>>1305508
You're supposing the eye and other human senses were made to see those things, as if this was your right to see reality but you can't. This is an illusion. You see what you should see, and that is truthful in itself.
Cant belive some people used make a living of writting about bs like this.
Thank god for utilitarism.
>>1305579
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
>>1305380
I think you're not apprehending the distinction adequately. It's a very dramatic distinction, even the things you refer as not having a impact on the human senses (gravitational waves, potential energy...) are all appearances. Everything you conceive is in the realm of appearances, you literally cannot talk about things in themselves.
>>1305579
The basis for utilitarianism is more loaded with metaphysical bullshit than the whole body of Kant's work.
>>1305380
physical characteristics are all within the realm of appearance. you're still using an empirical metaphysics / axiomatic set.
>>1305619
So why are you talking about them?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
>>1305911
Is this garbage supposed to pass as a refutation of his work?
>>1305893
/thread
there is no such thing as nomena
