0

Cartesian dualism has purportedly been debunked. How does the phenomenal/ noumenal distinction avoid being characterized as the same mistake? Is it really impossible to visualize a symbiosis-in-agency between 'thought' and 'extension'?

If citing Kant please refer to and summarize exactly what these two terms represent and why they are not mere misapprehension based on the common sense experience which prima facie appears to demonstrate an apparent cleavage between a mind and a person's experiences.

P/N Doesn't seem very philosophical but rather commonsensical.

  • 2
    Does this answer your question? [How does Kant justify the introduction of the noumenon?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/26682/how-does-kant-justify-the-introduction-of-the-noumenon) – Conifold Aug 31 '20 at 22:07
  • Well no. The conditioned/unconditional distinction in that response is merely a stipulation that either/or or what in the vernacular we term black and white are necessary and sufficient proofs. Kant himself dismissed other thinkers positions by simply constructing an antimony which suited his preformed opinion of how the world operates. Like when he refuted, according to him, the ontological argument. So, I simply reject Kant's either or stipulation. Something is not a law simply on Kant's insistence that it is one. Noumenal/phenomena is a false distinction. Agency describes the actual well!. –  Sep 01 '20 at 03:28

0 Answers0