The Instigator
Megalopsychia
Pro (for)
The Contender
NerdiestNerder
Con (against)

The Phenomenon/Noumenon distinction is a false dichotomy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Megalopsychia has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 194 times Debate No: 113091
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Megalopsychia

Pro

Hey, looking to debate another armchair philosopher on a classic problem in philosophy.

First round is just to accept/confirm the debate. Thanks!
NerdiestNerder

Con

Well, I'm a rookie armchair philosopher, and personally, this is a question I ask myself often, so let's have it!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 months ago
tanner_1230
I'm posting here some I can read this debate afterwards! Excited!
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
The point I'm making, is not whether or not Kant invented a false dichotomy, but to first explain what it is, so that anyone challenging you will have some sort of idea of what the argument's about. Yes, I try to be a pragmatist, but it will never happen because I love metaphysics.

William James would say however that it doesn't matter if Universals or Secondary Qualities exist or not, if they have no ethical standpoint in our lives, abandon them.

Perhaps someday we can debate on philosophy, though the problem is, I'm torn on all issues. Like Nietzsche and the Sophists, I can take any position. You can use your Socratic "dialectic method" on me to fish out the truth of what I believe. I'd be happy to play along.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
In response to Kant's opinion of G-d, let's take a quick look at William James (1804-1910). Without going into much depth, he would later go on to theorize his premise of the Will to Believe, meaning, if we feel it is rational enough to believe something, even without empirical evidence, we may do so as long as our beliefs are a "live" option, are "forced," and lastly, are "monuments" to our lives. G-d encopasses all of that. Hence, it is a "genuine option" to believe that He exists.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
Here's my two sense.

The World of Phenomena and Noumena. . .

How did Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) explain the world of phenomena and noumena?

To him, knowledge is "limited" in twofold, experience, and by the way "our falculaties [sic]" distribute "raw data" of information into "perception" and "organized" thinking patterns to be stored away. Kant knew that our world was much different than it appeared to us. Again, to him, there was a distinguishing line between two realities; the world of phenomena (or the world as we experience it, real, but unreal), and the world of noumena (or, the world of "intelligible, nonsensual" reality). To him, when I touch an object, I"m sensing it through the "lense" of the priori category. But when I"m not around, what is the object in itself (Ding an sich)? Similar to past philosophers, Kant"s German Idealism taught that we do not possess the "ideas" of objects in ourselves, but are given them through the nonsensual world. Like Plato"s Forms, we can know of true reality by our innate perception of it, and by doing such, we"re ultimately reminded of how limited our knowledge of the world really is.

Again, Kant systematically combined the approaches of rationalism (innate ideas) with British empiricism (raw experience alone, as taught by John Locke and others). He then suggested that we have "forms of intuition" which organizes what we experience as "categories of thought," which "unify" these experience we have with objects. Through the unified self, we can further deduct three transcendental ideas which help to evaluate our experience. These three ideas are self, the cosmos, and G-d. Because one cannot use metaphysics to justify G-d, we are left with unanswered contradictions. Kant claims ancient man invented G-d to suit his need to keep the peace and offer us a moral code.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
I relish this stuff, but sadly cannot accept your debate due to time constraints on my end. Hopefully, you find someone.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.