The Siege of the Thing-in-itself: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The Siege of the Thing-in-itself » The Siege of the Thing-in-itself

The Siege of the Thing-in-itself

Page: 1 2

The Siege of the Thing-in-itself

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 10/30/08 - 07:00 PM: Subject: The Siege of the Thing-in-itself	#1
Kant's conclusion that the thing-in-itself is unknowable is, for all the brilliance of the man, an exaggeration. Had he said that it was mostly unknowable, he might've been bang on. As it is, I can clearly demonstrate some of its basic properties with no more discomfort than is required to living my life. When I walk through what appears to be empty space to my senses, I do not encounter what appears to be a physical obstacle to my senses. Thus, I conclude that the property of the thing-in-itself that is a physical obstacle, whatever that property may be in-itself, is not present when I perceive the property of empty space. Whether this tells me much or little about the thing-in-itself can be debated. It does, however, tell me something. Perhaps the Fox of Metaphysics failed to consider that the thing-in-itself has left us clues about itself. Nevertheless, Kant is not far of the draw either. The true nature our perceptions seems unknowable. The thing-in-itself first comes to us through our senses. This is raw data. To make it useful, the mind structures this data using a special sect of concepts called a priori. The significance of these concepts is that they exist before and independent from experience. A priori concepts contain among them such heavy weights as time, space, and causality. All that we experience is in the context of these a priori concepts. Without them, sensual data would be unintelligible, meaningless. A hundred years after Kant, Albert Einstein brought theories of Special and General Relativity into the world. The principle characters of these theories are time and space, Kant's a priori. Relativity asserts (strongly, as these are two of the best proven theories in modern science) that time and space are not constructs of the mind. Rather, they are the external ground components on top of which everything else is built. I am, of course, simplifying in abundance. Among the statements made by Relativity Theory is that both time and space are relative to the observer. An observer moving at 80% of the speed of light will experience time and space differently than one at rest relative to the former. For something like 12 years of the observer at rest, the moving observer will have experienced only 8. Whereas the observer at rest will have observed him move 10 light years through space, the moving observer will have traveled only 6 by his own measure. At first, this seems to support Kant. Both observers experience time and space perfectly normally; however, mathematic analysis concludes a definite anomaly between their two perspectives. Clearly, something imperceptible is happening behind the scenes of the universe-in-itself. But this is only a surface conclusion, covering up a big problem. While the modality of our perception of time and space is still given to us a priori, time and space themselves feature as sense data in the post Relativity world. Nor is the theory dependent on the modality of perception; thus, giving the Kantian an opportunity to object that it is dependent on a priori concepts too heavily to shed any real light on the thing-in-itself. While Relatively was certainly formed through a haze of a priori concept, it is created out of evident in-itself slips up as I demonstrated in paragraph 1. Relatively gives us tools through which to predict how time and space behave in the thing-in-itself. By contrasting this with the modality of our perception, we are able to determine their influence on the data. We are, in fact, in a position to assert at least the beginnings of a language which makes sense of the meaningless, unprocessed raw data of the thing-in-itself. Relatively predicts a four dimensional model of space time. Our filtered senses give us only a three dimensional one. So far, the model proposed by Relatively has borne out as the better way to predict the behavior of the universe. It seems possible in the aftermaths of Relatively to travel the paths of metaphysics hitherto guarded by the merciless jaws of the thing-in-itself. Has physics undermined Kant?
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/30/08 - 11:18 PM:	#2
jaoman wrote: Kant's conclusion that the thing-in-itself is unknowable is, for all the brilliance of the man, an exaggeration. Had he said that it was mostly unknowable, he might've been bang on. As it is, I can clearly demonstrate some of its basic properties with no more discomfort than is required to living my life. When I walk through what appears to be empty space to my senses, I do not encounter what appears to be a physical obstacle to my senses. Thus, I conclude that the property of the thing-in-itself that is a physical obstacle, whatever that property may be in-itself, is not present when I perceive the property of empty space. Whether this tells me much or little about the thing-in-itself can be debated. It does, however, tell me something. What is this "thing-in-itself" that you are claiming you have some knowledge of? jaoman wrote: Nevertheless, Kant is not far of the draw either. The true nature our perceptions seems unknowable. The thing-in-itself first comes to us through our senses. What comes to you through your senses is your sense-impressions. You seem to be assuming there is some "thing-in-itself" which is somehow responsible for the chain of cause and effect which ends in those sense impressions, but you don't necessarily know anything about this "thing-in-itself". jaoman wrote: Relativity asserts (strongly, as these are two of the best proven theories in modern science) that time and space are not constructs of the mind. Rather, they are the external ground components on top of which everything else is built. I am, of course, simplifying in abundance. Relativity asserts that there is no meaning to the concept of any kind of absolute "time and space" fabric or "ground components" in absence of mass/energy - thus it is not the case that everything else is "built on top of" time and space, rather it is the case that time and space emerge simply as relational properties of mass/energy.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 10/31/08 - 04:35 AM:	#3
Kant's concept of a 'thing in itself' only makes sense within the framework of his philosophy; and since that philosophy is obviously at odds with much of science I would say the question is moot. And if you were talking about external objects in general there is really no need to appeal to relativity; science had always found the notion indispensable reincarnated wrote: What comes to you through your senses is your sense-impressions. You seem to be assuming there is some "thing-in-itself" which is somehow responsible for the chain of cause and effect which ends in those sense impressions, but you don't necessarily know anything about this "thing-in-itself". Etiam tu. Not only is the assumption necessary for making any sense of our experience, your 'sense-impressions' are also assumed. And while it is true that doesn't necessarily know anything about external objects, I would say the process of learning abut them begins somewhere in the early childhood so it would be fair to assume all adults know something about them.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/31/08 - 10:37 AM:	#4
Theo wrote: Not only is the assumption necessary for making any sense of our experience, your 'sense-impressions' are also assumed. And while it is true that doesn't necessarily know anything about external objects, I would say the process of learning abut them begins somewhere in the early childhood so it would be fair to assume all adults know something about them. What do you mean by "them" in the above? Is "them" = "external objects"? We don't necessarily know anything about the external world - all we have is a belief that we know, but what we believe we know may be false. That's the whole point of Kant's reasoning.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 10/31/08 - 10:53 AM:	#5
reincarnated wrote: What do you mean by "them" in the above? Is "them" = "external objects"? We don't necessarily know anything about the external world - all we have is a belief that we know, but what we believe we know may be false. That's the whole point of Kant's reasoning. Our notion of external objects explains the world with more success and simplicity than any competing model. For me this is enough to qualify our belief that there are external objects as knowledge; Kant had other criteria but these were ridiculously stringent and obviously didnâ€™t correspond to the usual use of the word (for example the physicist's claim that he knows what the electric potential in some problem is).

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/31/08 - 11:30 AM:	#6
Theo wrote: Our notion of external objects explains the world with more success and simplicity than any competing model. For me this is enough to qualify our belief that there are external objects as knowledge I agree completely - except for the last two words above. "Belief" is not synonymous with "knowledge". Not even a "justified belief" qualifies as knowledge. Knowledge entails truth. We may believe there are external objects, but if our belief is incorrect then by definition we do not know there are external objects. Theo wrote: for example the physicist's claim that he knows what the electric potential in some problem is Once again you use the correct words - now analyse them. You say the physicist "claims" that he knows - and the physicist's claim is presumably based on the belief that he knows. But that is as far as we can go. We can never be sure that he knows, in other words infallible knowledge is unavailable. The most we can ever do is to believe that we know, but we must accept there is a possibility (however small) that our claim to knowledge is incorrect.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 10/31/08 - 12:32 PM:	#7
reincarnated wrote: I agree completely - except for the last two words above. "Belief" is not synonymous with "knowledge". Not even a "justified belief" qualifies as knowledge. Knowledge entails truth. We may believe there are external objects, but if our belief is incorrect then by definition we do not know there are external objects. Well, then this is simply a matter of semantics - what I call 'knowledge' you call 'justified belief'. I would say that my use of the word is closer to what is commonly meant by it, though, and since we poor humans can't venture outside our skulls to directly see whether something is true, we can't be sure we 'know' anyting, in your sense of the word. reincarnated wrote: Once again you use the correct words - now analyse them. You say the physicist "claims" that he knows - and the physicist's claim is presumably based on the belief that he knows. But that is as far as we can go. We can never be sure that he knows, in other words infallible knowledge is unavailable. The most we can ever do is to believe that we know, but we must accept there is a possibility (however small) that our claim to knowledge is incorrect. The problem is that I've never claimed our knowledge is infalible; this is something that might have been claimed by Kant or the rationalists, but it's such a silly idea it has almost completely disappeared today.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/31/08 - 02:06 PM:	#8
jaoman wrote: ...for all the brilliance of the man... I might have said this before. I think distinguishing the thing from the thing-in-itself led us philosophers up the garden path. Both physics and psychology have progressed markedly without mention of this ghost. forget it.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 11/01/08 - 06:50 AM:	#9
As reincarnated has already hinted at space and time don't mean the same thing for Einstein as it does for Kant. For Einstein, they are properties or empirical objects, while for Kant they are the underlying form of perception in which all empirical objects must appear in, so there is no contradiction, just confusion due to ambiguous use of terms.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/01/08 - 07:11 AM:	#10
Theo wrote: Well, then this is simply a matter of semantics - what I call 'knowledge' you call 'justified belief'. I would say that my use of the word is closer to what is commonly meant by it, though, and since we poor humans can't venture outside our skulls to directly see whether something is true, we can't be sure we 'know' anyting, in your sense of the word. Everything that is ever discussed is "a matter of semantics". This is a philosophy forum, after all, hence I think it reasonable that the philosophical definition of "knowledge " applies. Check http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ And yes, infallible knowledge is unattainable (hence solipsism still has adherents) Theo wrote: The problem is that I've never claimed our knowledge is infalible; this is something that might have been claimed by Kant or the rationalists, but it's such a silly idea it has almost completely disappeared today. Your statement was: Theo wrote: For me this is enough to qualify our belief that there are external objects as knowledge The problem is that you seem not to be acquainted with mainstream philosophy. I suggest you check out the link I gave above.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.