Changes

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]][[Image:Driftnoumena_2.jpg|right|frame]]

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]][[Image:Seanoumena.jpg|right|frame]]

The '''noumenon''' (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of [[human]] [[inquiry]], understanding or [[cognition]]. It is a posited object or event as it is in itself independent of the senses.[http://www.answers.com/topic/noumenon]

The '''noumenon''' (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of [[human]] [[inquiry]], understanding or [[cognition]]. It is a posited object or event as it is in itself independent of the senses.[https://www.answers.com/topic/noumenon]

The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "[[phenomenon]]" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. A ''phenomenon'' can be an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal thing or event -- but it must be perceptible through the senses; A ''noumenon'' cannot be the actual object that emits the phenomenon in question. Noumena are objects or events known only to the imagination - independent of the senses.

The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "[[phenomenon]]" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. A ''phenomenon'' can be an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal thing or event -- but it must be perceptible through the senses; A ''noumenon'' cannot be the actual object that emits the phenomenon in question. Noumena are objects or events known only to the imagination - independent of the senses.

===Noumenon and the thing-in-itself===

===Noumenon and the thing-in-itself===

Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous. However,"noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" are only ''loosely'' synonymous inasmuch as they represent the same thing but viewed from two different perspectives [http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html] Thing in itself: an object considered transcendentally apart from all the conditions under which a subject can gain knowledge of it. Hence the thing in itself is, by definition, unknowable. Sometimes used loosely as a synonym of noumenon. (Cf. appearance.)" -  

Many accounts of Kant's philosophy treat "noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" as synonymous. However,"noumenon" and "thing-in-itself" are only ''loosely'' synonymous inasmuch as they represent the same thing but viewed from two different perspectives [https://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html] Thing in itself: an object considered transcendentally apart from all the conditions under which a subject can gain knowledge of it. Hence the thing in itself is, by definition, unknowable. Sometimes used loosely as a synonym of noumenon. (Cf. appearance.)" -  

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

===Positive and negative noumena===

===Positive and negative noumena===

Kant also makes a distinction between ''positive'' and ''negative'' noumena<ref>[http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi175/phenomlec.html Mattey, G.J]</ref>

Kant also makes a distinction between ''positive'' and ''negative'' noumena [https://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi175/phenomlec.html]

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

"If by 'noumenon' we mean a thing so far as it is not an

"If by 'noumenon' we mean a thing so far as it is not an

  object of our sensible intuition, and so abstract from our mode

  object of our sensible intuition, and so abstract from our mode

of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the ''negative'' sense of the term".<ref>''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'' A250/B307,P267(NKS)</ref>

of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the ''negative'' sense of the term".

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>  

namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess,

namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess,

and of which we cannot comprehend even the possibility.

and of which we cannot comprehend even the possibility.

This would be 'noumenon' in the ''positive'' sense of the term."<ref>''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'' A250/B30,P2677(NKS)</ref>

This would be 'noumenon' in the ''positive'' sense of the term."

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>  

The positive noumena, if they existed, would roughly correspond with [[Plato]]'s Forms or Idea &mdash; immaterial entities which can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory, faculty: "intellectual intuition".<ref>"The noumena are ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’, which exist in a realm beyond space and time." [http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/modules/ihmp0304/units/unit05/dcreason.html University of Leeds course notes]</ref>

The positive noumena, if they existed, would roughly correspond with [[Plato]]'s Forms or Idea &mdash; immaterial entities which can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory, faculty: "intellectual intuition".

Kant doubts that we have such a faculty, because for him intellectual intuition would mean that thinking of an entity, and its being represented, would be the same. He argues that humans have no way to apprehend the meaning of positive noumena:

Kant doubts that we have such a faculty, because for him intellectual intuition would mean that thinking of an entity, and its being represented, would be the same. He argues that humans have no way to apprehend the meaning of positive noumena:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Since, however, such a type of intuition, intellectual intuition, forms no part whatsoever of our faculty of knowledge, it follows that the employment of the categories can never extend further than to the objects of experience. Doubtless, indeed, there are intelligible entities corresponding to the sensible entities; there may also be  intelligible entities to which our sensible faculty of intuition has no relation whatsoever; but our concepts of understanding, being mere forms of thought for our sensible intuition, could not in the least apply to them. That, therefore, which we entitle 'noumenon' must be understood as being such only in a negative sense.<ref>''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'' B309,P270(NKS)</ref>

Since, however, such a type of intuition, intellectual intuition, forms no part whatsoever of our faculty of knowledge, it follows that the employment of the categories can never extend further than to the objects of experience. Doubtless, indeed, there are intelligible entities corresponding to the sensible entities; there may also be  intelligible entities to which our sensible faculty of intuition has no relation whatsoever; but our concepts of understanding, being mere forms of thought for our sensible intuition, could not in the least apply to them. That, therefore, which we entitle 'noumenon' must be understood as being such only in a negative sense.

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>

===The noumenon as a limiting concept===

===The noumenon as a limiting concept===

Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a ''limiting concept'' <ref>[http://staffweb.ncnu.edu.tw/wenzel/Tr%20Realism,%20Emprical%20Realism,%20and%20Tr%20Idealism.DOC Allison, H. - ''Transcendental Realism, Empirical Realism, and Transcendental Idealism'' - MS Word]</ref>, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words:

Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a ''limiting concept'' [https://staffweb.ncnu.edu.tw/wenzel/Tr%20Realism,%20Emprical%20Realism,%20and%20Tr%20Idealism.DOC], Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Nietzsche provided increasingly sophisticated accounts of the noumenon throughout the body of his work by explaining its numerous influences and connections with other ideas. An example of such comment can be found in his criticisms of materialistic atomism and what he called "soul-atomism", which follows Nietzsche's belief that synthetic judgments ''a priori'' are impossible in the first chapter of ''Beyond Good and Evil'':

Nietzsche provided increasingly sophisticated accounts of the noumenon throughout the body of his work by explaining its numerous influences and connections with other ideas. An example of such comment can be found in his criticisms of materialistic atomism and what he called "soul-atomism", which follows Nietzsche's belief that synthetic judgments ''a priori'' are impossible in the first chapter of ''Beyond Good and Evil'':

<blockquote>"[I]t is high time to replace the Kantian question, 'How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible?' by another question, 'Why is belief in such judgments necessary?'--in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, [...] synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all [...]"[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt] </blockquote>

<blockquote>"[I]t is high time to replace the Kantian question, 'How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible?' by another question, 'Why is belief in such judgments necessary?'--in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, [...] synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all [...]"[https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt] </blockquote>

Nietzsche then asserts that "the atomism of the soul" is connected with a belief in the existence of the thing in itself. He then attempts precisely to define that particular type of atomism:

Nietzsche then asserts that "the atomism of the soul" is connected with a belief in the existence of the thing in itself. He then attempts precisely to define that particular type of atomism:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

"Let it be permitted to designate by [the atomism of the soul] the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from science!".[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt]</blockquote>

"Let it be permitted to designate by [the atomism of the soul] the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from science!".[https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt]</blockquote>

In arguing that the concept of the noumenon negatively influenced other ideas in specific ways, Nietzsche specifically characterized it in those ways.

In arguing that the concept of the noumenon negatively influenced other ideas in specific ways, Nietzsche specifically characterized it in those ways.

Though Nietzsche was critical of theories concerning what could not be observed, he believed that theories ought to be capable of being falsified: while arguing against what he held to be the negative influence of the Kantian noumenon in the philosophy and science of his day, Nietzsche roughly approximated the scientific philosopher Karl Popper's assertion that falsifiability was the basis of scientific knowledge:

Though Nietzsche was critical of theories concerning what could not be observed, he believed that theories ought to be capable of being falsified: while arguing against what he held to be the negative influence of the Kantian noumenon in the philosophy and science of his day, Nietzsche roughly approximated the scientific philosopher Karl Popper's assertion that falsifiability was the basis of scientific knowledge:

<blockquote>"One can sum up all this by saying that the ''criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability''."[http://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html]</blockquote>

<blockquote>"One can sum up all this by saying that the ''criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability''."[https://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html]</blockquote>

Nietzsche wrote in the eighteenth section of the first chapter of ''Beyond Good and Evil'' that

Nietzsche wrote in the eighteenth section of the first chapter of ''Beyond Good and Evil'' that

<blockquote>"It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds."[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt]</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds."[https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt]</blockquote>

 

==See also==

==Notes==

*'''''[[Phenomena]]'''''

# "Other interpreters have introduced an almost unending stream of varying suggestions as to how these terms ought to be used. A handful of examples will be sufficient to make this point clear, without any claim to represent an exhaustive overview. Perhaps the most commonly accepted view is expressed by Paulsen, who equates 'thing in itself' and 'noumenon', equates 'appear­ance' and 'phenomenon', distinguishes 'positive noumenon' and 'negative noumenon', and treats 'negative noumenon' as equivalent to 'transcendental object' [P4:148-50,154-5,192]. Al-Azm and Wolff also seem satisfied to equat­e 'phe­no­menon' and 'appearance', though they both carefully distinguish 'thing in itself' from 'negative noumenon' and 'positive noumenon' [A4:520; W21:165, 313-5; s.a. W9:162]. Gotterbarn similarly equates the former pair, as well as 'thing in itself' and 'positive noumenon', but distinguishes be­tween 'transcen­dental object', 'negative noumenon' and 'thing in itself' [G11: 201]. By contrast, Bird and George both dis­tinguish between 'appearance' and 'phenomenon', but not between 'thing in it­self' and 'noumenon' [B20:18,19, 53-7; G7:513-4n]; and Bird sometimes blurs the dis­tinction between 'thing in itself' and 'transcendental object' as well.[2] Gram equates 'thing in itself' not with 'noumenon', but with 'phenome­non' [G13:1,5-6]! Allison cites different official meanings for each term, yet he tends to equate 'thing in itself' at times with 'negative noumenon' and at times with 'transcendental object', usu­ally ignoring the role of the 'posi­tive noumenon' [A7:94; A10:58,69]. And Buchdahl responds to the fact that the thing in itself seems to be connect­ed in some way with each of the other ob­ject-terms by re­garding it as 'Kant's umbrella term'.[3]" Stephen Palmquist on Kan't object terms

# "The Radical Unknowability of Kant's 'Thing in Itself'", Cogito 3:2 (March 1985), pp.101-115; revised and reprinted as Appendix V in Stephen Palmquist, Kant's System of Perspectives (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993).

==External links==

==External links==

*[http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/kant-metaphysics/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Kant's metaphysics].

*[https://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/kant-metaphysics/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Kant's metaphysics].

* [http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html Glossary of Kant's technical terms] by [[Stephen Palmquist]]

* [https://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html Glossary of Kant's technical terms] by [[Stephen Palmquist]]

* [http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/litrev/Kant-appearances.html Overview of various scholar's interpretations of Kant]

* [https://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/litrev/Kant-appearances.html Overview of various scholar's interpretations of Kant]

* [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/pcu/noesis/issue_v/noesis_v_2.html Article from undergraduate journal ''Noesis'']

* [https://www.chass.utoronto.ca/pcu/noesis/issue_v/noesis_v_2.html Article from undergraduate journal ''Noesis'']

* [http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/location/mattey/phi175/phenomlechead.html Lecture notes by G.J Mattey]

* [https://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/location/mattey/phi175/phenomlechead.html Lecture notes by G.J Mattey]

* [http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1 Kant's System of Perspectives] (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993) by [[Stephen Palmquist]]

* [https://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1 Kant's System of Perspectives] (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993) by [[Stephen Palmquist]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]