No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.clemonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 amkinda insubstantial... self promotion / etc. i mean, desert island disks and who are your heroes?
cool that he's getting some, tho!
interesting... does kant's philosophy admit of that possibility then?in Kantian terms to bring about a synthesis of the things in themselves with perception
I'm not aware of using the term "bad", if so I was wrong to do so. Also i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'. I did reply to your Britannia quote that it was wrong, I quoted from Kant.
Sure - as i said many philosophers post Kant sort to show how access to the noumenon was possible, or where he was wrong. One of the reasons he is so highly thought and influential even today.clemonz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 ami'll just google it
too funnySchopenhauer claimed that Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly. He explained in his "Critique of the Kantian philosophy", which first appeared as an appendix to The World as Will and Representation:
But it was just this distinction between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena. (See Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I, Chapter 13, ' What is thought (noumena) is opposed to what appears or is perceived (phenomena).' ) This contrast and utter disproportion greatly occupied these philosophers in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of the Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later the scholastics in the dispute between nominalism and realism, whose seed, so late in developing, was already contained in the opposite mental tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant who, in an unwarrantable manner, entirely neglected the thing for the expression of which those words phenomena and noumena had already been taken, now takes possession of the words, as if they were still unclaimed, in order to denote by them his things-in-themselves and his phenomena.
"Meillassoux pulls the rug from beneath the feet of the prevaling correlationists (Kant to Heidegger)"
BTW - I don't agree with Meillassoux, the book attacks Strawmen most of the time. His critique of Kant is a mistake - deliberate or not, he conflates 'being' with 'intention' to do so. No rug is pulled.