/lit/ - Literature

>>11018068
why would you even ask a question like that?

>>11018084
I don't know, are you essentially a faggot or accidentally one?

No. We can "know" substance (in a weaker sense), but noumena is like a logical placeholder (analogous to the negation symbol in propositional logical) demarcating shit our brokeass human minds cant even begin to deal with. Also, substances are ontological classifications whereas noumena sort of is (again, only in this demarcating sense) but long story short we dont actually know what it is. Noumena isnt instantiated, at least not in any meaningful way.

>>11018103
Interesting. How do we know substance? Is it just the subject of a proposition?

>>11018130
Don't fall for the it is only words meme.

>>11018130
I have no idea what your point of reference is here ir where you're pulling these terms from but go check out De Anima and Metaphysics. I'm rusty af on this stuff, and I'm sure either Stanford Encyclopedia, Wiki, or the Very Short intro series could do better. But knowing Aristotle, it's gonna be by *get this* thinking.

>>11018103
>a negation symbol is incomprehensible
>substances are real
who invited these brainlets onto the board

>>11018192
You understand nothing about noumena and wherever did I say that negation symbols were incomprehensible. And who tf said substances were real. OP is asking about two concepts your raging faggot.

>>11018068
Some (people who don't get Kant, i.e. Thomists) would have you believe this. But Kant takes great care (as much as his awfully opaque style will allow him) to distinguish substance from noumena. We know that substance exists through direct inference from the law of causality. We know no such thing about noumena, we can only posit that they may exist. This is treating "noumena" as "purely intelligible objects," if you mean by noumena "things-in-themselves" the matter is slightly different.

>>11018219
What's your take on the double use of noumena?

>>11018219
Can you elaborate on inferring from the law of causality? And if we do consider the noumenon to be the thing-in-itself, is it then pretty analogous to substance?

>>11018130
This is the Noumena Kant was speaking of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>11018068
I would say that it is the same as first matter.

>>11018231
The "noumena" in the sense which Schopenhauer correctly gives it means (loosely translating) "what is thought." This is an object comprehended by pure thought without reference to intuition. The "thing-in-itself" is the object without reference to any human faculty, not even thought. It's a subtle distinction that not even Kant himself rigorously observes, as Schopenhauer points out.

>>11018234
The law of causality has only to do with changes; a rock is broken in a gravel yard. The object being changed can't pass completely out of existence since there would be no effect from which to infer a cause, neither can the object come into existence ex nihilo (e.g. as a lightning bolt striking apparently does) since there would be no cause to infer from the effect. There must be something permanent in perception which changes according to the various physical and intellectual laws of the perceived universe, and this is "substance," or more aptly called "matter."

>>11018130
I believe the argument is that we know substance transcendentally due to the space it inhabits being indivisible, but I am only half way through COPR so please correct me if I am wrong.

>>11018207
the guy you're responding too can't read gud. that much is obvious.