|
|
#1
01-26-2007, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Das Ting in Itself
There's no way to resolve this but it'd be interesting what SMP thinks about it.
Science is very impressive in the phenomenal department, the high success it has in prediction suggests our models are a pretty decent mapping of how things interact or, perhaps more accurately, how we interact with things. But are we anywhere yet along the road to "the thing in itself"? I rather doubt it, or at least I see no reason to think we have any solid reason to think we have any way of knowing the way things 'really' are. Anyone know any good modern takes on the topic? or have one themselves? luckyme .... HORSE convert 
|
|
#2
01-26-2007, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
we're definitely "on our way" to finding das ding an sich. I don't know how far along we are though. The fact that we're able to make predictions about the way things behave suggests that we understand how they work. This is turn implies that we understand their nature. How FAR we understand their nature isn't for me to say. I'm too much of a novice.
|
|
#4
01-26-2007, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
Knowing the way things "really" are is an impossibility. All we will ever have the ability to do is model reality. [/ QUOTE ] You know how 'impossible' just waves a red flag for some people :-) Likely it is in a specific sense, but is it possible to get to a spot where we're confident in some general way. Or to believe we are just one curtain away. luckyme
|
|
#5
01-26-2007, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
we're definitely "on our way" to finding das ding an sich. I don't know how far along we are though. The fact that we're able to make predictions about the way things behave suggests that we understand how they work. This is turn implies that we understand their nature. How FAR we understand their nature isn't for me to say. I'm too much of a novice. [/ QUOTE ] The fact that we can make predictive assumptions about behavior does not give us direct awareness of the noumenal realm. A thing in itself lacks definite properties and thus lies outside of any causal chain (since its interaction with other things would make some of its properties known).
|
|
#6
01-26-2007, 04:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we can make predictive assumptions about behavior does not give us direct awareness of the noumenal realm. A thing in itself lacks definite properties and thus lies outside of any causal chain (since its interaction with other things would make some of its properties known). [/ QUOTE ] How would we know that .. "..lacks definite properties"? Also, if it's outside the causal chain, what's the difference between that and not existing at all? You seem to be referring to something beyond 'das ding an sich' but I'm here asking. luckyme
|
|
#7
01-26-2007, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason to think we have any solid reason to think we have any way of knowing the way things 'really' are. [/ QUOTE ] If we have on reason to think we know a thing in itself, how can we make statements about definite properties? I'm not sure if this means that it doesn't exist, but surely its of a completely indeterminate nature.
|
|
#8
01-26-2007, 05:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
Likely it is in a specific sense, but is it possible to get to a spot where we're confident in some general way. Or to believe we are just one curtain away. [/ QUOTE ] All our descriptions of what reality is like are either mathematical or invoke analogies. However, with modern theories analogies tend to break down. Look at quantum physics - particles don't behave like particles or like waves, they behave as <insert mathematical description here>. We have no analogy for how they behave and don't really understand it in any way except the mathematical. I tend to think that a complete model of reality, should one be found, will only be able to be understood mathematically.
|
|
#9
01-26-2007, 05:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that a complete model of reality, should one be found, will only be able to be understood mathematically. [/ QUOTE ] That's about where I am, but I can't be sure it's a solid claim. As an aside, "understood mathematically" has a oxymoronic ring to it ... or is it just me. "Described mathematically" may convey it better but it suffers from the same two-step. luckyme
|
|
#10
01-26-2007, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Das Ting in Itself
[ QUOTE ]
But are we anywhere yet along the road to "the thing in itself"? I rather doubt it, or at least I see no reason to think we have any solid reason to think we have any way of knowing the way things 'really' are. Anyone know any good modern takes on the topic? or have one themselves? [/ QUOTE ] I suppose it can be looked upon as a self-referential dilemma. Perhaps a probable solution involves the ability to define something while still within it and a more sophisticated method of logical analysis that accounts for the effect of such an analysis from within. I suppose a simplistic example would be to count yourself while in a roomful of people, but have the ability to not count yourself first and have that pause when you are unsure if you counted yourself. It's not an easy thing to define, is it. And I wonder how useful such an logical achievement would be other than to be able to do it. Mathematics is the descriptive language of logic, but it may only be a language in which to express things in quantitative terms. Color can be described within mathematics. That does not necessarily render it as just a mathematical emergence. So there may be a basic framework that can be described. As for the necessity of such an description... If existence and reality are illusions, you have to at least allow for the fact that they are illusory artifacts of something "real". Does mind matter? It seems to.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
