In a message dated 9/13/2014 6:23:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in "Re: not even wrong...": "[The] passage repeatedly confuses noumena like "self", (external) "world" and "God" with our "ideas" or "products of intellect" pertaining to these noumena: Kant does not suggest "God" as noumena is the same as our idea of God, and indeed for Kant it is a fundamental confusion to suggest this. Noumena are the "objects" or 'things in themselves' that lie beyond the world of our phenomenal experience - they are not merely (or at all) to be confused with any ideas or "intellectual constructions" or "products of intellect" we might devise that pertain to these noumena. Among the fundamental questions Kant wants to address is what we might legitmately claim as knowledge of these noumena given the limitations of our phenomenal experience - he does not want to collapse these noumena (e.g. the existence of "God") into a set of mere "intellectual constructions" or "ideas" or "products of intellect" derived from phenomenal experience." Perhaps we may go further, and with PDF]Chapter II philosophy.uchicago.edu/.../Gustafsson-Entangled... Traduci questa pagina 'thing-in-itself' as a “perverse” and “nonsensical” idea claim that the 'thing-in-itself' is NONSENSICAL. I believe that was Ayer's claim in his Gollancz book, and it may have been the motivation behind Strawson's seminars at Oxford (later turned into a book), "The bounds of sense", an essay on Kant's philosophy. Some philosophers, such as H. Paul G., informally, speak of 'material object', but I would think we should distinguish between 'object' (which belongs to epistemology) and 'thing' which belongs to ontology. And of course, there may be more to 'self', 'God', and 'world' than _matter_ "anyways", to use the vernacular. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html