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?
The key concept of Kant's theory of knowledge actually sounds somewhat different. “Thing-in – itself” is an inaccurate translation that is well established in Russian philosophy. However, in Kant-ding an sich – “a thing in itself”. That is, in general, the idea is somewhat simpler: the thing as it is, and not as it is perceived.
In general, the essence of the idea is as follows (I strongly exaggerate so that the general scheme is clear). Kant suggests that the things we perceive are only one side of the thing, a kind of tip of the iceberg. The real things of the world have two sides: the phenomenal (we perceive it) and the noumenal (we do not perceive it, and we can only speculate about it). The noumenal part of a thing is the ” thing in itself.”
And then Kant makes a beautiful turn, explaining that the phenomenal part of a thing is created by the knowing subject, who is forced to limit experience to two a priori forms of sensuality (space and time). And it is this area of knowledge that needs to be developed, leaving the “thing-in-itself”alone.
A thing in itself – a philosophical term coined by Kant, may be interesting for philosophical reasoning, but, in my opinion, it does not make sense for knowledge. The picture of reality formed in a living organism (and not only in humans) by processing information is objective. It is specific and generally real and is the same for the same type of organisms to the extent that their systems and methods of obtaining and processing information are similar. Question: “What does the real world (things themselves) look like? – in my opinion, it is incorrect. The question arises: “The real world for whom?”. And” looks ” only what the observer sees (manifests). For a person, the virtual image of the surrounding world formed by the mind is that real world with its things and ideas, accessible to the mind and providing existence and the very possibility of asking such questions
The object as it really is, as opposed to our perception of the object. The logical calculation proceeds from the assumption that the world is fundamentally unknowable to the end.
The concept of “thing-in-itself”means the existence of a material world independent of our consciousness.Kantian dualism recognizes the possibility of knowing the “thing-in-itself” with some reservations,meaning that this knowledge is possible only in the interval from the form of relative truth to the form of absolute truth,where the latter is elusive for the human intellect,since we never know the essence of the substance of the material world,which has the form of an indefinite infinity in time, space and motion.We can know the “thing-in-itself” only within the limits of the existing order of things,i.e., within the limits of the existing order of things. given the technological and social order in which we live.
Immanuel Kant, under the concept of “thing in itself” or “thing in itself”, outlined and tried to show the boundaries of “accurate” knowledge. And what goes beyond them is nothing more than a mental construction of the supposed existing. That is why Fichte (a German philosopher) writes: “The thing in itself becomes a pure chimera”, and another German philosopher, Hegel, notes that “the thing in itself is only a product of thinking and moreover only of abstracting thinking”.
To understand this better, we will try to consider it in the “construction” of the theory of knowledge that Kant offers. The subject of knowledge is human thinking, the human soul, or perhaps even the spirit. And the knowable, for example a natural thing, is outside the soul (thinking, spirit). Therefore, cognition would require (according to the principles of the theory of knowledge and, let us say, ideally) to transfer this subject to the soul, so that it can directly investigate (study) this subject. But if it is clear, then it is impossible (in principle). For this reason, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle's clarification is true, ” after all, in the soul there is not a stone, but its form.”
So, starting to know the indicated thing-what happens: and the fact that the thing in its natural way affects a person – on the senses, on the soul, and in the soul its image appears. Kant would say that it arises in us by means of an external sense (caused by “objects of the [external] senses”). Of course, the cognitive in us does not go out of itself (does not go out of itself), but (only) creates an image of the known based on itself – from its (non-corporeal) material, by its own similar means. And, thus, the phenomenon of the object of consideration (study) arises in ourselves (in the soul). And in this form (the phenomenon) represents (in us) the subject under study, and nothing more. That is why Kant writes: “Indeed, we know nature only as a set of phenomena, i.e., representations in us”, or so, “the thing in itself” is “only as the appearance of such a thing” (Schelling, the German philosopher). Therefore, one should not “take the objects of the [external] senses for things in themselves” (Kant).
Based on all this, Kant comes to the conclusion: our knowledge does not extend beyond ourselves, and no matter how much we try to get out of these limits of knowledge, no matter how sophisticated we are and imagine that “we know things by themselves, although in the sensually perceived world we are everywhere, even in the deepest study of its objects, dealing only with phenomena.”
In short, the realm of imaginary reality that is “the thing in itself” remains unattainable for us in the sense that it is completely unknowable. Since, again, in the cognition of such things, in reality there is an external relation of one (the subject of cognition) to another, i.e., to that which is the object of cognition.
It is not entirely clear – for what purpose the philosopher introduced this concept (“things in themselves”) into philosophy and thereby presented the way (and even in some ways the essence) of this knowledge? Apparently, I wanted to show (his) hopelessness. It was not for nothing that philosophers began to point out the peculiar existence of this “thing-in – itself”, for they began to call it a “pure chimera”, a product of “abstracting thinking”.
Well, you shouldn't have touched the topic))) On this account, the candidates are still scratching their heads))) Kant was forced to write prolegomena to his treatises during his lifetime))) The Germans generally like to wrap the term in a “waffle iron” between the critical and practical mind))) Heidegger's “zein-daz-da “”Being-as-is” actually continues the tradition of the classics. Also muddy still the one))) BUT, BUT! As a professional, I will say one thing – German philosophy is the closest to all European ones to understanding phenomenology, as in the East . Therefore, the categorical apparatus does not fit into the brain.
As a young man, Kant's arguments about the “thing-in-itself” seemed to me a meaningless game of reason. It seemed that Kant was engaged in incomprehensible speculation over far-fetched problems. However, the agony of quantum physics in trying to understand how an electron can be both a particle and a wave at the same time shows how far and powerful the philosophical mind can be. 2025 marks the 120th anniversary of Einstein's fantastic hypothesis that light is both a particle (photon) and a wave. Already in his declining years, he admitted that he never understood what a photon is.
And no one still understands this. Modern physicists are forced to describe elementary particles exactly in accordance with Kant's ideas about the clear distinction between WHAT instruments record (how particles appear to us in experience) and WHAT they really are. Physicists have essentially recognized that elementary particles are a “thing-in-itself” beyond the reach of reason. They realized – through the so-called “quantum entanglement” – that the parameters of particles recorded in the experiment (for example, spin ) arise ONLY AT THE MOMENT OF MEASUREMENT. Outside of contact with the observer, the recorded parameter of the particle is ABSENT. By the way, Einstein strongly opposed this understanding of the properties of particles. He believed that these parameters are present in particles even in the absence of observation (the so-called hidden parameter theory). He said: “If we turn away from the moon, will it disappear?”
However, the experimental facts show that Einstein's opponents are right. And many scientists are therefore beginning to develop the belief that the inner nature of elementary particles will never be accessible to understanding. Kant proclaimed this concept long before Einstein.
E. Kant only confirmed what the ancient sages of the East knew thousands of years ago. The “thing-in-itself”is nothing but the knowledge of the thing, or rather of matter as energy. “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form”, “samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara”, “Phenomena and noumena are one”, etc. If something is not clear, you can explain it in more detail. with respect
But, despite all the hardships of his philosophy, Kant was the first to approach the convergence of the material and idealistic currents of science. He almost grasped the future of quantum understanding of the world
I. Kant has a dynamic proof : “a thing in itself”, which is an a priori concept, since it does not belong to space-time, and we always want to consider this phenomenon in the conditions of our existence (as the existence and phenomena of the material world). The same judgment exists with the concept of “freedom”. Similarly, within the framework of judgment, there are also various philological categories: (the concept of freedom-as a “thing in itself”), but freedom is realized by the individual as a phenomenon that gives a variety of judgments.
“Thing – in-itself” is an a priori concept and is the opposite of the concept of “phenomenon”(a posteriori concept). Therefore, cosmology and psychology cannot be attributed to rational cosmology and rational psychology. The soul cannot be an object of knowledge.
“Since the moral law is rooted in reason itself, and is not understood by the senses, the Critique of Practical Reason lacks a 'Transcendental Aesthetic'. All the legislation of practical reason proceeds from reason itself. Kant distinguishes between two types of ethics: autonomous ethics and heteronomous ethics. Ethics proper is an autonomous, independent ethics-an ethics in which reason dictates its own laws. Heteronomous ethics is an ethics that depends on something else, in this case on some external circumstances. It is clear that external circumstances can affect us, we can perform actions under the influence of these circumstances, but it is easy to understand that this act will be evaluated as moral or immoral from the point of view of autonomous reason, autonomous ethics. The moral law does not depend on the world of phenomena. In the world of phenomena, complete determinism reigns. Therefore, the moral law refers to the world of things-in-themselves. Thus, Kant crosses the line that he outlined in the Critique of Pure Reason, and points out that the world of things in itself can be known through the awareness of man as a free being. That is, the world of phenomena is characterized by necessity, and the world of things-in-themselves is characterized by freedom (a conclusion made in the third antinomy of pure reason). Man is a being belonging to both the external, material, and moral world. Here, too, arises the basic contradiction of him as a being belonging to both worlds. On the one hand, man as a physical being obeys all the laws of the material world, and on the other hand, man as a moral being is absolutely free, and his freedom is guaranteed by moral duty. Moral law, duty, is autonomous, independent of the external world. Therefore, man is both a phenomenon (a phenomenon of the physical and material world) and a thing-in-itself (as a free being with an autonomous will). A categorical imperative (i.e. the imperative that makes a person act not just in the intelligible, spiritual world, but in the world of sense, material) is also a synthetic judgment a priori, because to the will, that is, to the form of feeling, impressions coming from the external world are added (quoted from: V. P. Lega “Critique of practical Reason”).
Sorry, but I didn't understand a damn thing – if the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable, then it simply doesn't exist, this is some unnecessary speculation! That is, we divide the process of learning into what we already know and what we may learn. Can't it be done in a simpler way, without inventing abstruse terms?
Immediately recollections, seminars, how the early Kant differs from the late one. Nice article. Nostalgic.Perhaps Castaneda has identified the closest thing (thing in itself) like the nagual. And the tone is our “appearance”, speculation, and not the real world, as we think. Our whole world is a world of illusions. And then they wake us up and we realize that we were a butterfly. And did you know that at the bottom of the ocean sleeps the Great Cthulhu-the lord of Chaos. Our lives are his dreams, and when He wakes up, we will be gone.
My (DM) interpretation of ” things in themselves “(abr. AIR FORCE):
VVS is an objective reality of no matter what nature, i.e. both a material object and created by someone's will, but acting as an object of knowledge by other subjects. In this interpretation, the nature of the air force is not important-whether it is material (exists independently of any consciousness) or ideal (created by someone's will, for example: God), it is only important that it does not depend on the consciousness of the knower. The Air Force is associated with the maximum possible set of its properties.
In the process of cognizing a single air force, each subject who cognizes it creates in itself (without quotation marks) its image, which is more or less close to the source in properties, which is a model of the Air Force (“the thing in us”), as a rule, not complete and error-prone, and if the Air Force is unchanged, then the “thing in us” changes in the process of cognition.
I understand it this way: each object consists of atoms, which are formed from smaller particles. Which ones, it doesn't matter. It is important that we do not see these particles, do not hear them, can not observe their interaction and their interaction with the outside world. But it's in every thing. We see, hear, and feel only what our organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch allow us, to the extent that nature has given us. “A thing in itself” or “a thing in itself” is what we see and feel, and what we do not see and cannot observe, but know and imagine what we do not see and do not feel, plus what we do not yet know about this very thing and cannot yet know because of the lack of general knowledge. All this taken together is the “thing in itself”or” thing in itself”. This is my subjective opinion, which may be wrong…
The essence of something is the thing in itself. It is not knowable. We know about it indirectly. Just like about elementary particles. Just as the observer influences the manifestation of the electron, so the mind manifests aposeorly the essence of the object.