What did Kan't mean by "the thing in itself"?

[Anonymous No.10589416]

Do you think reality can be known beyond the material?

[Anonymous No.10589422]

>>10589416
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10589424]

he meant the thing insists upon itself

[Anonymous No.10589425]

>>10589416
is hallucination a reality?

[Anonymous No.10589436]

>>10589416
The thing in itself is what exists apart from our conception of it in terms of consciousness and space and time. If you beleive that other people are conscious, then you necearilly grant that in some way, objects exist independtly of our minds

[Anonymous No.10589444]

English doesn't translate its original dual entendre unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.10589488]

>>10589422
Not really, except you've got no clue about Kant. Kant is even further removed from the paranormal than most philosophers after him.

>>10589416
I try to make an example:
For if one takes away from our sensations the duration and from bodies (objects) the extension, there is absolutely nothing left of them. They are only phenomena which act as our representations in our organism, in the organs of time and space, as Kant describes it. Therefore, if one takes away the recognizing being (the "I") that perceived them, nothing remains of them but the unknown cause which they caused in our cognitive organism by influencing it. Only this unknown cause is a thing existing in itself, i.e. independently of the "I", it is the extrasensory, extra-time and extra-spatial "thing in itself".

From this follows: The whole body world, the matter, exists as part of interaction between us and the outer world. The world we 'perceive' though, is the product of our own, but not the causes that affects our senses to perceive something in particular in the first place. An example: An extraterrestrial being could perceive a glass differently than a human being, thus the perception is the subjective part, the mind part. BUT, there is no denial that both beings are perceiving 'something', respectively that there is a cause that even necessitates your senses to perceive something. Just the way, what you perceive in the end (the glass you actually see before your eyes) is not objective.

Therefore, it is also very possible that a person perceives the color "red" as green. But because he learned from birth to call this perceived color as "red", there are no contradictions with all other people, since the objective counterpart is still the same and objective (electromagnetic spectrum). The prerequisite for this is that this particular perceived colour is always to be found everywhere in the subject's perceptual image. Otherwise it would immediately contradict itself.

[Anonymous No.10590350]

>>10589424
Hm yes, shallow and pedantic

[Anonymous No.10590460]

>>10589416
Reality is the material. What were you actually trying to say?