“What’s important is knowing what we percieve and how we percieve…”
Is Kant dening the whole subject of Metaphysics here? Or is he saying that studing what we percieve is actually Metaphysics? Or what?
he seems to be switching emphasis to phenomenon. Phenomenology has its father in Kant. Then he will try to link the phenomenon to aspects of our mind’s a priori understanding, if I am correct?
Howdel would I know? I didn’t even understand a word you’ve said…
I’m currently reading about this now in the work of the “Transcendental Thomist”, Marechal. He says that Aristotle’s epistemology, the “metaphysical critique”, starts with the thing known; and Kant’s, the “transcendantal critique”, starts with the thing percieved. Transcendental Thomists then try to use Kant’s observations without negating that metaphysics can be done. I recommend Marechal or his post-Heideggerian follower Rahner as a comment on such things – as I have been trying to read myself.
But yes, Kant says we cannot know everything metaphysical, and Wittgenstein denies the possibility overall. Rahner, in turn, has an interesting argument that Kant’s position leads to Wittgenstein’s and since that’s in error (I forget the argument), we do know metaphysical things (in “Hearers of the Word”, i think.)
At stake in this may be whether man is a spirit.
Warning: Marechal and Rahner are both Jesuits – yes, you will have to read (for heaven’s sakes) Catholics!
Si vale, valeo,
my real name
We can only think about what we sensed, as the brain is simply a proccessing organ. Like a proccessor, without the input devices, it can’t do anything. A blind person can’t think of anything about colour, just like a deaf person can’t think of anything about sound. So kant is right, talking about “the truth beyond our knowledge” is useless.
Does “the truth” exist? For me, yes. Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter, not untill we’ve evolved out the six sense.
Well, Scholastics would agree that “there is nothing in the mind that was not previously in the senses”, but how did “table” get into the mind when senses only pick up color and shape (and smell)?
(And you can’t assume the mind is just a machine, when you might be proving it isn’t – arguing from experience; and I don’t think we need a sixth sense…only common sense.)
What do you mean “table”? Somehow I think in comparision to colour, shape and smell, it is irrelevant. Hence, I can’t further my arguement.
You don’t know what a table is? Merriam-Webster’'s says: “a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs”; it’s an artifact designed to put things on. Surely you’ve heard of one before – you may have even encountered one in your many years.
Is there a problem with your recognizing that "table"s exist?
How did table get into mind? When you sensed its existance!
I only asked about “table”, because I tought it was a trick question of some kind.
The brain has functions, like any other organs. So what are you on about now yank?
But i never sensed “table”. I sensed color and shape and (mmm) smell. Those are all in the senses, but how do i know “table”? Say i sense two tables with different qualities, how can i call them both “table”? Is the definition in the senses, or in the mind?
Maybe a better question should be: what’s the origin of language?
If you still happen to stick to your original question, just get some lectures from a biologist man…
What kind of biologist? Anthropologist? Ears, nose and throat specialist?
You musn’t assume (even on modern science) that the mind is a mere machine, when it may be possible to prove the opposite.
Language is signs which refer to thoughts. It refers to material things at first (Plato’s Cratylus), but can be used to express other things knowable by the mind with added complexity of signs.
What’s next?
Easy now yank…
Why? Do you think i’m yanking your chain?..or just yanking?
Well basiclly, DUDE, your previous saying about “table”, somehow gave me the impression that you are somewhat in line with Pinacle Of Reasons… Peace…