noumenon and phenomena

[Whereisup]

There is a paradox here that I still don't understand.

Kant's theory holds that noumenon is a transcendence of phenomena, and phenomena emerge from noumenon. Kant especially likes to work with shapes.

He notes that a shape can't be made accurately from another shape. For example, one can't accurately make a circle from a lot of squares. Therefore, shapes don't emerge from other shapes. Shapes must emerge from something a level up which transcends shape. This thing that transcends shape can make any shape.

OK, one might say the noumenon which transcends phenomena must be a homogeneity.

But stop and think about that. A homogeneity couldn't make a shape either.

Shape could not emerge from homogeneity.

So shape cannot emerge from other shapes, but it can't emerge from homogeneity either. But what could something that is neither differentiated nor not-differentiated possibly be?

What could possibly transcend both shape and homogeneity?

What is this noumenon anyway?

Jim

 

[HenryBHough]

The key to understanding in this case is to shampoo with mildly warm citrate of magnesia. Then the thoughts will freely flow.

 

[Unkotare]

He was explaining the knowledge we, as conscious beings, possess apriori from which we are able to interpret empirical input and form rational thought. Think of it as the most basic parameters into which our experience of the physical world is channeled and then shaped into ideas and understanding. Or, think of it as our most fundamental connection to the source from whence we came that allows us to be thinking creatures; our umbilical cord to God if you will.