|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2020 23:00:57 GMT
The distinction of a "thing in itself" reflects that the phenomenon is a point of change to another phenomenon due to its contrasting nature. Given an appearance only exists through contrast, the nature of the "thing in itself" is one of fundamental emptiness given no one phenomena exists on its own. To point out a distinction is to point out the change of one phenomena to another much in the same manner where a man of distinction is one who changes from what is considered normal thus offering a different paradigm of behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2020 16:48:15 GMT
Seems like you have reread Critique of The Pure Reason yet :)
Who is that "a man of distinction"?..
As I understood, a phenomenon aka what we used to call sometimes as "the thing in itself"* (TTII) is a permanent set of changes, not a pure stable form or any other stuff.
So, instead of attempting this TTII we have to look at its distinctioness. We cannot to look at TTII exactly, and we have to change our views to its changeness.
*- Perhaps, I'd better call it "A thing..."? We presume it to be unknown, while we determine it somehow; and it's not good for such a thing.
|
|
