Q&A: Phenomena
Phenomena
Question
In the book Two Wagons and a Hot-Air Balloon, the Rabbi argues that Kant’s phenomenon is not a human limitation—namely, that we encounter only the appearances revealed to our eyes—but rather that appearances do not exist except within human perception. For example, there is no vision, only an electromagnetic wave, which is translated in our consciousness into sight; but there is no “sight” in reality.
The question is whether this is actually connected to Kant. The concepts the Rabbi is talking about are human concepts, which indeed appear only when there is a consciousness observing; but when a tree falls, there is no sound (there is only a wave), and only in the observer’s consciousness is it translated into sounds.
Did Kant say this about causality as well? Is that a statement about reality—meaning, is there a sense in which causality does not appear when there is no human consciousness observing?
Answer
Definitely not. Causality is a concept that belongs to the world itself (unless we are mistaken in assuming causality). It is a different category from color, appearance, sound, form, and the like. Causality is not a sensory phenomenon but a concept or relation.
Discussion on Answer
Yes, he did. He argued that causality is a transcendental concept (one that precedes experience). I don’t agree with him about that. In my view, we derive causality from observing the world through the intellect.
So if that’s the case, then Kant’s phenomenon really is connected to the limitations of human consciousness, and he wasn’t trying to say that the phenomenon is the real thing.
He argues that phenomenon is based on the forms of our perception, and that this is the real thing. I don’t agree with him about that (regarding causality. As for colors and sensory perceptions, certainly yes. But that really isn’t the main point of his innovation, if it is one at all).
Didn’t Kant connect causality to phenomenon?