Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal realms are just Plato Redux

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
4 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal realms are really just a bad plagiarism of Plato's Theory of Forms. All the elaboration and obfuscation by Kant and his supporters cannot refute the fact that his metaphysics and epistemology is just a plagiarism of Plato. See Plato's allegory of the cave


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ewv 3 years, 10 months ago
    This was explained in Leonard Peikoff's history of philosophy course. Both Kant and Plato were cited as major examples of the Primacy of Consciousness.

    It is also true of today's "model" mentality claimed to represent scientific and every other kind of knowledge. It replaces knowledge as a conceptual grasp of reality based on our means of perception with mental manipulations of floating abstraction "models" in parallel with reality (like Kant's phenomenal world). It comes from Pragmatism, Positivism, and ultimately Kant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
      I think that too many people (philosophers) try to tell you all the nuances of various philosophers' ideas, when what most people need is to understand the broad category that philosopher falls into.

      I have been pointing out the above statement in a couple of longer tracts, but I thought pulling out on its own might be helpful to people. Especially because Kant and Kantians whole goal is to obscure their BS.

      I have thought about creating a high level taxeonomy of philosophy and placing the biggest philosophers into it. I think this might demystify philosophy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 10 months ago
    Hello dbhalling,
    Kant was an idealist. He and Hegel were cut from the same cloth. Their idealism led them to believe the world did not exist independently of the human mind. Believing the world was only a matter of perceptions and non-material. Pure hogwash.

    Kant's categorical imperative was pure wishful thinking too. He believed we should, out of duty, "act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time WILL that it should be a universal law." One should "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." This, he felt, was the means to establishing a universal ethic. The contradictions between what he felt were the proper actions and the contrary choices of others was not adequately dealt with. Why would others comply and make his vision of morality in every nuance manifest? Secondly, while practicing idealism, what good are his ethics and morality if everyone and everything around him were just perceptions without substance?

    Kant's most influential work was his Critique of Pure Reason, Published in 1781, it tries to create a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. Trying to combine the contradictory notions that metaphysical judgments are the product of pure intellect (rationalism) and the opposing view that the mind is tabula rasa and that knowledge can only be acquired through sensory experience (empiricism) was heralded by many as a monumental breakthrough in the field.

    His philosophy is anti-reason. I believe it was just another case of being unwilling, or unable to accept the world as it is (A is A) and desperately trying to create a satisfying view to other navel-gazers.

    We are still a world largely influenced and directed by this type of philosophy. If we could go back in time and remove most of the ongoing philosophic influences of Plato, Kant, etc. and the economic influences of Keynes we would live in a very different, very preferable society.

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo