Thanks for the response Neo. My ideas are still in the rough, a working project that still needs to be worked to consistency. Maybe one day they will find their way into a dissertation ;).
Let's discuss another problem, appearance and reality. Kant argued that the object (noumena) provided the data, but the mind provided the structure in the form of a priori ideas in forming the phenomena, the appearance. Quote here the "coat closet" analogy. The problem here for me, is that it seems that even mere appearance must provide us some knowledge of the noumenal world. Kant postulated (as I understand him) that our mind provides the structure, and orders the data according to a priori rules, and hence the subjectivity of perception.
Problem though, if the ordering of the phenomena is subjective, and arbitrary, why is it that there is consistency in the ordering? Why do eyes consistently appear above the nose, rather than below it? Why, if the object exists outside time and space, does the perception of thunder occur after the perception of lightning? Can we not take the stand of scientific realism and argue that our percepts *do* correspond with the object itself? Or do we want to do as Fichte, and do away with the-thing-in-itself altogether, and hence descend into subjective madness?
Derek |
