Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Reasoner

Kant believed that causality is a feature of the world "as it is in itself"?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am neck-deep in ARI's 50 hour course on "The History of Western Philosophy" taught by Leonard Peikoff.

I am perplexed by an answer to one of the quizzes - perhaps someone can help me.

I understood Peikoff to be quite explicit when explaining that Kant taught that true reality (what I take to mean the neumenal world as-it-is-in-itself) is outside the realm of direct consideration.

Does he reach the conclusion that causality (via the categories) exists specifically because he has deduced it, and thus we can say (from a Kantian perspective) that causality exists in the world as-it-is-in-itself?

I'm wondering if the use of the term "World as-it-is-in-itself" is confusing me here, as I don't know whether this is referring to the Neumenal or Phenomenal.

I got this question wrong, even when consulting my notes closely!  Argh...any thoughts on this?

blob.png.8b837d08ec19cada599960812d7e5185.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the difference between "not denying something" and actually "asserting something" and also the implicit distinction between proof and faith... not sure if that is helpful.  

How possible is it to make sense of something which is simply not objective nor in accord with reality?  Existence is identity and consciousness is identification... the only thing missing when you cannot grasp Kant or Hume is the sufficiently overactive imagination that would be necessary.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, "thing in itself" = noumenal, "thing as it appears to us" = phenomenal.

Hume is basically saying look I believe in causality in a common sense way, but all the arguments hitherto offered to defend it by the philosophers are inadequate. He doesn't say it can't be grounded, just that current theories of induction are problematic.

Hume was incredibly influential on Kant, who is basically trying to offer a solution to Hume here. He is saying causality is not derived from experience, but is a part of the logical structure of the mind that we innately have. There is something that exists out there in reality that is responsible for it, but we just don't know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Note the difference between "not denying something" and actually "asserting something" and also the implicit distinction between proof and faith... not sure if that is helpful.  

How possible is it to make sense of something which is simply not objective nor in accord with reality?  Existence is identity and consciousness is identification... the only thing missing when you cannot grasp Kant or Hume is the sufficiently overactive imagination that would be necessary.

I'm looking at the question with a fresh mind, and I think you nailed it...thank you.

Essentially, when it comes to the noumenal world one can neither confirm nor deny something, even cause and effect, or purple monsters with their eyes on their toes.

To say causation doesn't exist in the noumenal world would be as impossible as saying it does.

Tricky tricky.

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2046 said:

Yes, "thing in itself" = noumenal, "thing as it appears to us" = phenomenal.

Hume is basically saying look I believe in causality in a common sense way, but all the arguments hitherto offered to defend it by the philosophers are inadequate. He doesn't say it can't be grounded, just that current theories of induction are problematic.

Hume was incredibly influential on Kant, who is basically trying to offer a solution to Hume here. He is saying causality is not derived from experience, but is a part of the logical structure of the mind that we innately have. There is something that exists out there in reality that is responsible for it, but we just don't know what it is.

Perfect, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 9:00 PM, 2046 said:

Hume is basically saying look I believe in causality in a common sense way, but all the arguments hitherto offered to defend it by the philosophers are inadequate. He doesn't say it can't be grounded, just that current theories of induction are problematic.

This is either inaccurate or at least poorly phrased. Hume's view is that our belief in causality has no foundation in reason, not that the current accounts of causality are "problematic." He thinks we have a non-rational faculty distinct from reason, which he variously calls habit, custom, or instinct. At bottom, he would say that all of our beliefs are based on this non-rational faculty rather than on reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 7:04 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Note the difference between "not denying something" and actually "asserting something" and also the implicit distinction between proof and faith... not sure if that is helpful. 

I think this is probably the right solution.

Quote

How possible is it to make sense of something which is simply not objective nor in accord with reality?  Existence is identity and consciousness is identification... the only thing missing when you cannot grasp Kant or Hume is the sufficiently overactive imagination that would be necessary.

Perhaps this is not the right attitude to use when studying the history of philosophy. Evaluation of a philosopher's work should come after understanding it, not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×