Struan,
I hadn't read your reply to Cory's post when I wrote mine. But it's clear
we'll never agree because you don't even think the SOM exists. Surely I
will never make you see how Phen/Noum is an incarnation of something that
you feel isn't even real in the first place.
However...
STRUAN:
> As I have already made clear, Rick. The chapter in Kant's 'Critique,' is
subtitled, "The Ground of
> the Distinction of all Objects in General into Phenomena and Noumena."
>
> You say;
>
> RICK:
> " Kant's definitions of Phen./Noum. do NOT both refer to "objects", as you
say."
STRUAN:>
> Once again, when Kant subtitles his chapter about phenomena and noumena in
the way he does and then
> proceedes to write over twenty pages dedicated almost entirely to the
placing our understanding of
> objects into the categories, phenomena and noumena, I find it very
difficult to take you seriously
> when you flatly contradict his intention and the arguments he presents.
RICK:
I'm not contradicting anything Kant is saying---- I'm simply saying he's
using the term "object" in a different sense than Pirsig did---
Pirsig's use (I believe) refers to the myterious "thing" that leads off
these defintions....
KANT:
> Phenomena (for Kant) means, 'a thing in so far as it is an object of our
sensible intuition,'
> (Kant - Critique of Pure Reason - London - MacMillan - 1963 - pg268-269)
Noumena means, 'a thing in
> so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition,' (Ibid).
Thanks for your indulgence,
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:43 BST