What is your answer?
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 7.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
No, when Kant speaks of God as noumenon and thing in itself he is not using his ordinary sense of thing which appears considered as not appearing. For the concept of God is the concept of a being that does not appear.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
That is Copleston's defense, but it is questionable because necessity, like causality, is a category of the understanding that may not be applied to things-in-themselves.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
No, it is the doctrine of the noumenon in the negative sense. See p. 269.
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
No, remember that "existence" is a category of the understanding and can only legitimately be applied to sense experience.
<= back | menu | forward =>
6 is correct!
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
7 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant's theory of noumena
{ 1 } - is consistently applied by Kant to God.
{ 2 } - is not defended by Copleston's interpretation that Kant does not argue from phenomenon to thing-in-itself as from effect to cause, but as necessary correlate.
{ 3 } - holds that we can know noumena in the sense of knowing their characteristics.
{ 4 } - holds that the doctrine of sensibility is the doctrine of the noumenon in the positive sense.
{ 5 } - holds that we can know that noumena exist.
{ 6 } - holds that there can be no thing which appears without a thing-in-itself which does not appear.
{ 7 } - is not open to the objection that he cannot even claim a noumenon in the negative sense of a thing in itself that causes an appearance.
Yes, it is open to the objection because "cause" is a category of the understanding that cannot be legitimately applied to something that we do not sense.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end