Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No matter how funny the answer may sound, but a thing in itself is closed in itself, and a thing for us is how it is given to us.�
Here the names follow the logic of natural language: Kant's things – in-themselves are things as they exist by themselves, outside of our perception. That is, this is what they are, regardless of our perception, so to speak, the objective side of things.
Things for us, in turn, are how things exist in our perception. Well, that is, in the apple itself, for example, there is no “color”, it is only in our perception of the apple. This is not a property of the apple, but a subjective characteristic of our perception of the apple (and it may be different for different people, for example, people with color blindness will not perceive colors in the same way as people with normal vision).
An apple with all these characteristics, according to Kant, is a “thing for us” or a “phenomenon”. An apple stripped of these perceptual characteristics is a ” thing-in-itself.”
Since, according to Kant, all our knowledge of reality comes from the combination of experience with the a priori contents of our consciousness, things in themselves are incomprehensible to us (we cannot imagine a thing outside of space and time, outside of color and sound, etc.).