Talk:Noumenon

Old comments
I completely rewrote the article. No disrespect for anything other than your philosophical presumptions, guys--but you really shouldn't write articles about stuff that you don't know about. --Larry Sanger


 * Yeah, but do you have to gloat about it? --Ed Poor


 * I'm not gloating, I'm disgusted! I'm not trying to lord it over anybody.  I really honestly think that people should not write about stuff that they don't know about.  I don't do it (or, I'm not aware of doing it) in other fields; why do other people who don't know about philosophy think they can write about it? --Larry Sanger


 * I am no Kant scholar, but I think he would have taken issue with the description of the noumenal realm as "a basic reality underlying observable phenomena". In the Critique of Pure Reason, he states, "[t]hat ... which we entitle 'noumenon' must be understood as being such only in a negative sense" (B309)--that which is "not an object of our sensible intuition" (B307).  The definition given here is positive and uses the words "basic" and "underlying"--language used to describe phenomena, and which cannot rightly be applied to noumena.  I would like to replace this definition to make it consistent with the Kantian sense in which the term is generally used unless anyone would disagree...


 * I think I agree with the above proposition. A statement that the noumenon "underlies" anything or forms its "basis" would seem to me to establish a causal link between the noumenon and other things, which, to my knowledge, is a link Kant would not have made between it and anything else. However, I'm not entirely sure of this; I'm rereading Kant lately, and if anyone else finds a definite refutation of this then he or she should let us know. Otherwise, I vote that we use a definition more reflective of the above statements. (A final request, though-- let's not change anything because of what we think Kant would have taken issue with, especially when textual evidence of his position is readily available.)

Because everybody thinks they know about philosophy. It's only because I've actually studied it for a few years that I've learned enough to really understand the scope of my own ignorance. For everybody else, they don't know enough about to realize that they don't know anything. --LDC

Please leave the link to Fredbauder 16:07 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's Ding an Sich with the statement One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color). Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? Brianshapiro


 * I'm removing that paragraph...169.207.87.118 is writing about something he doesn't understand. Obviously, philosophers generally recognize some kind of distinction along the lines made by Kant and Locke but disagree about whether noumenon or "unobservables" are "unknowable" as Kant says they are. B 16:28, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Noumenon and Buddhism
Wondering if there is space or reason to put a subnote about the very common error of attributing this term and to a degree, Transcendental Idealism as being what the Buddhist notion of the two truths and emptiness is about. (20040302)

Trivial but necessary correction
In the article, one reads "Dinge an sich selbest betrachten." It should be "Dinge an sich selbst betrachten."

Etymology and pronunciation
I have always heard no-'u-men-on pronounced as four syllables in English, perhaps because all the people I ever heard mention it knew Greek. I think this pronunciation is correct. Seadowns (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Presumably it is also four syllables in German, since if I am right ou is not a diphthong in German. Seadowns (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of highlighting the fact that I seem to be the only fool who gives a damn, I wonder if our colleague would consider me mistaken in the following (at-least-less-annoying) construction of their talk contrib.
 * Others may do better than I have, if interested enuf to study, esp., their pertinent entries in the edit-history, toward a clearer understanding than mine, of the odd typography which I found and, with some degree of respect, leave intact elsewhere on this talk page).
 * Finally, I humbly wonder (lest I fail to transgress to the full extent permitted me, after having proofread my own contrib so many times!), whether "no-'u-men-on" is really more plausible than "no-'um-en-on".
 * --JerzyA (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The Greek syllable does not end in m. Seadowns (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to barge in here. I can't figure out the difference between the two spellings above. I keep reading it and trying to pronounce it, and they both come up exactly the same for me. I belive that to solve this problem correctly we would have to make use of the IPA help for Classic/Koine Greek, no? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 23:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The Greek syllable does not end in m. Seadowns (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to barge in here. I can't figure out the difference between the two spellings above. I keep reading it and trying to pronounce it, and they both come up exactly the same for me. I belive that to solve this problem correctly we would have to make use of the IPA help for Classic/Koine Greek, no? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 23:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Seadowns (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)