Actually a "Nominalist" posits just the opposite... the "phenomenon is Objective,,,, but the "Mind's" Idea or Concept is a Subjective Noumenon....that has to be brought into a complete concordance of understanding with the "Phenomenon"... through constant empirical examination and, frankly, capacity to conceive it properly...
(continued) Actually, that's a little trite and simplistic......the point being that all outside "objects" are in and of themselves Noumenon, things in themselves, with their own "Objective" and immutable ways and rules of being.... what Kant and the Phenomenologists call.... Phenomenon.... is their own Subjective and therefore not entirely understood notion of what that Outside Objective thing is and how the hell it works..... Sometimes, I think the early beginnings of Conscious Primitive thought must have been.... "Can I Eat it?.... and Can I Shit it out?" On Jun 29, 12:08 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Chazwin..... > > In another post here I brought up the old "scholastic" argument > regarding "fallibilism" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism > > when it comes to the strictly "Real World of Matter and Physical > "Objects"....Of course, I concede that any man or woman's "senses can > be mistaken or deceived.... or that the Man or Woman in his or her own > right may be incapacited in the mind to the make proper conclusions of > sensory perceptions.... > > But these Human and sensory failings can be corrected or accounted > for.... get better sensory aids or tools to help... telescopes, > microscopes hearing aids, radio etc..... all sorts of scientific > tools...... > > Get more people to observe the same object of investigation, with > their tools and their "brains", and arrive at a most reasonable > conclusion..... > > I mean, there's always more to learn about most or all objects of > investigation.... but most "known" knowklwdge remains intact... just > added to in some way or another... > > The caveat is when one is dealing in "human" considerations or social > interactions, psychiatry... culture, politics, history.... etc...... > There the result is not always, the same... people have a way of > choosing between "doable" or sometimes even "undoable" options.... so > there you can't predict a certain result..... > > Basically.... I think Kant was ontologically misguided..... He thought > that there were "Objective" Noumenon... but only "Subjective" > Phenomenon........ > > Actually a "Nominalist" posits just the opposite... the "phenomenon > is Objective,,,, but the "Mind's" Idea or Concept is a Subjective > Noumenon....that has to be brought into a complete concordance of > understanding with the "Phenomenon"... through constant empirical > examination and, frankly, capacity to conceive it properly... > > On Jun 27, 9:00 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Sounds like you are a hopeless realist that thinks your senses give > > you a hot-line to reality central. > > They don't! > > > On Jun 26, 7:51 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Chaz.... > > > Frankly, I consider Kant to have been the first of the > > > Phenomenologists.... before Husserl, et al.... > > > As a Nominalist-leaning person, myself.... Phenomenologists are the > > > bane of my existence, I find that I have nothing that I agree with in > > > common with them, epistemologically... our "views" are diametrically > > > opposed.... > > > I think we've had this discussion.... or parts of it.....before.... > > > > Maybe you've seen that, when it comes to Kant's > > > terminology....phenomenon and noumenon, especially....and the > > > resulting Kant notions of the "essences" of knowledge..... > > > > Well... that's just "spaced-out" Mumbo-Jumbo.... like being on a > > > constant "drug-high".... when it comes to experiencing "things"..... > > > > That's my own opinion , of course... and I've put it in a very > > > "aggressively" critical, "common-language" form.... just to get you to > > > think about it > > > > On Jun 25, 3:41 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In what way is Kant justifiably called a Subjectivist or Idealist? > > > > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within > > > > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my > > > > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the > > > > existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately > > > > and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the > > > > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus > > > > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, > > > > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer > > > > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the > > > > perception as an effect of something external that must be the > > > > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an > > > > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of > > > > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate > > > > and direct perception … . > > > > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > > > Given this statement, how is any position which asserts a Realist > > > > position ever justifiable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
