Oct 10, 2012

Elegi Menggapai "Kant's Phenomena and Noumena"

By Marsigit

According to Kant , transcendental illusion is the result of applying the understanding and sensibility beyond their limits.

Although the objective rules may be the same in each case, the subjective idea of causal connection can lead to different deductions.

Kant indicates that reason which connects us directly to things in themselves is a question that he cannot answer.

Transcendental Deduction aimed at showing that particular concepts, like causality or substance, are necessary conditions for the possibility of experience.

Since objects can only be experienced spatio-temporally, the only application of concepts that yields knowledge is to the empirical spatiotemporal world.

Beyond that realm, there can be no sensations of objects for the understanding to judge rightly or wrongly.

Kant states that thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.

To have meaningful awareness some datum is required.

Accordingly, we possess two sources of input that can serve as such a datum physical sensation and the sense of moral duty.

Kant admits that transcendental synthesis of imagination is an action of the understanding on sensibility, first application, and the ground of all other applications of the understanding.

Kant finds that there was a paradox of how inner sense can represent to consciousness ourselves as we appear to ourselves.

This paradox is coming from the fact that the understanding is able to determine sensibility inwardly.

The understanding performs this act upon the passive subject whose faculty it is. While the understanding does not find in inner sense a combination of the manifold, we intuit inner sense of ourselves only as we are inwardly affected by ourselves.

Kant claims that in the synthetic original unity of apperception, we are conscious only that we are. This is a thought, not an intuition.

The consciousness of self is very far from being a knowledge of self; it also needs an intuition of the manifold in the self.

According to Kant , the transcendental deduction of the universally possible employment in experience of the pure concepts of the understanding needs to be clarified that the possibility of knowing a priori, by means of the categories of whatever objects, present themselves to our senses in respect of the laws of their combination.

On the other hand, Kant points out that the relations in which a priori is recognizable in space and time are valid to all the possible objects of experience.

However, they are valid only to the phenomena and not to the things in themselves. Therefore, space and time have the empirical reality and the transcendental ideality at the same time.

Kant insists that any thing as long as it is an external phenomenon necessarily appears in spatial relationship; while any phenomenon is necessarily appears in temporal relationship.

It calls that space and time are objective to everything given in experience; therefore, space and time are empirically real.

They do not have absolute reality because they do not apply to things in themselves, whether as substances or as attributes.

Due to space and time have no reality, but they are ideal, this, then, is called the Transcendental Ideality of Space and Time.

Kant contends that we are never able to recognize things in themselves. Any quality which belongs to the thing- in- itself can never be known to us through senses.

At the same time, anything which given in time is not the thing- in- itself.

What we intuitively recognize ourselves by reflection, is how we appear as a phenomenon, and not how we really are.

Kant claims that synthesis of apprehension is the combination of the manifold in an empirical intuition. Synthesis of apprehension of the manifold of appearance must conform to time and space.

Time and space are themselves intuitions which contain a manifold of their own. They are not presented in a priori and they are not just the forms of sensible intuitions.

Unity of synthesis of the manifold i.e. a combination to which everything conformly represented in space and time, is given a priori as the condition of the synthesis of all apprehension, without or within us, not in, but with these intuitions.

Kant then concludes that all synthesis was in subject to the categories in which it prescribes laws of a priori to appearances.

They do not exist in the appearances but only relative to the subject.

Kant claims that pure understanding is not in a position to prescribe through categories any a priori laws other than those which are involved in a nature in general that is in conformity to space and time.

Empirical laws cannot be derived from categories but are subject to them.

In term of the outcome of this deduction of the concepts of understanding, according to Kant, we cannot think of an object safe through the categories and cannot know an object so thought safe through intuitions corresponding to these concepts.

For all our intuitions are empirical, there can be no a priori knowledge except of objects of possible experience.

Objects of themselves have no existence, and space and time exist only as part of the mind; where intuitions by which perceptions are measured and judged.

Kant then states that a number of a priori concepts, which he called categories, exist.

This category falls into four groups: those concerning quantity are unity, plurality, and totality; those concerning quality are reality, negation, and limitation; those concerning relation are substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, and reciprocity; and those concerning modality are possibility, existence, and necessity.

Kant's transcendental method has permitted him to reveal the a priori components of sensations and the a priori concepts.

There are a priori judgments that must necessarily govern all appearances of objects; these judgments are a function of the table of categories' role in determining all possible judgments.

Judgment is the fundamental action of thinking.

It is the process of conceptual unification of representations.

Determining thought must be judgmental in form.

Concepts are the result of judgments unifying further concepts; but this cannot be an infinitely regressing process.

Certain concepts are basic to judgment and not themselves the product of prior judgments; these are the categories of the pure concepts.

Therefore, the categories are necessary conditions of judging i.e. necessary conditions of thought. We can determine which concepts are the pure ones by considering the nature of judgment.

Judgments can be viewed as unity functions for representations.

Different forms of judgment will unify representations in different ways.

Understanding is the faculty of knowledge and the first pure knowledge of understanding is the principle of original synthetic unity of apperception; it is an objective condition of knowledge.

Kant further claims that transcendental unity of apperception is how all the manifold given in an intuition is united in a concept of an object.

It is objective and subjective unity of consciousness which is a determination of inner sense through which manifold is empirically given.

Kant insists that judgment is the manner in which given modes of knowledge are brought to the objective unity of apperception.

It indicates the objective unity of a given representation's relation to original apperception, and its necessary unity.

Kant claims that the representations belong to one another in virtue of the necessary unity of apperception in the synthesis of intuition that accords to principles of the objective determination of all representations and only in this way does there arise from this relation a judgment which is objectively valid.

Kant adds that all the manifold is determined in respect of one to the logical functions of judgment and is thereby brought into one consciousness; the categories are these functions of judgment.

The faculty of understanding is a faculty for synthesis the unification of representations; the functioning of this faculty can be analyzed at two different levels.

Corresponding to two different levels at which we may understand representations: a general logical level and a transcendental level.

In terms of the former, synthesis results analytic unity; in terms of the latter, synthesis results synthetic unity; and the latter takes into account the difference between pure and empirical concepts.

According to Kant, analytic unity is an analysis of a judgment at the level of general logic which indicates the formal relationship of concepts independently of their content; while synthetic unity refers to objectivity.

At the transcendental level, judgments have transcendental content; that is, they are related to some objects; they are given to the understanding as being about something.

This is more than a matter of having a certain logical form.

In which the Categories takes play in a judgment, that judgment is a representation of an object.

Kant says:
If understanding as such is explicated as our power of rules, then the power of judgment is the ability to subsume under rules, i.e., to distinguish whether something does or does not fall under a given rule.

The following stage in Kant's project will be used to analyze the formal or transcendental features of experience that enable judgment.

If there are any such features besides what the previous stages have identified, the cognitive power of judgment does have a transcendental structure.

Kant argues that there are a number of principles that must necessarily be true of experience in order for judgment to be possible.

Kant's analysis of judgment and the arguments for these principles are contained in his Analytic of Principles.

According to Kant , the sorts of judgments consists of each of the following: some quantity, some quality, some relation, and some modality.

Kant states that any intelligible thought can be expressed in judgments of the above sorts; but, then it follows that any thinkable experience must be understood in these ways, and we are justified in projecting this entire way of thinking outside ourselves, as the inevitable.

Meibos, A., 1998,” Intro to Philosophy: Kant and a priori Synthetic Judgments,” Prof. Arts Notes for PHIL 251 Retrieved 2004
2Evan, J.D.G., 1999, “Kant's Analysis of the Paralogism of Rational Psychology in Critiqueof Pure Reason Edition B, Kantian Review vol. 3 (1999), 99-105. Retrieved 2004 < http://www.qub.ac.uk /phil/courses/Kant>
3 Wallis, S.F, 2004, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), New York: Media & Communication, The European Graduate School. Retreived 2004
4 Ibid.
5 Kant, I., 1787, “The Critique of Pure Reason: Preface To The Second Edition”, Translated By J. M. D.Meiklejohn, Retrieved 2003
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10……“Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) “Kant's Criticism against the Continental Rationalism and the British Empiricism” Retrieved 2004
11 Ibid.
13Kant, I., 1787, “The Critique of Pure Reason: Preface To The Second Edition”, Translated By J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Retrieved 2003
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
17….., “Kant” Retrieved 2004
19Wallis, S.F, 2004, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), New York: Media & Communication, The European Graduate School. Retreived 2004
20Kant in Wallis, S.F, 2004, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), New York: Media & Communication, The European Graduate School. Retreived 2004
21Kant, I., 1787, “The Critique of Pure Reason: Preface To The Second Edition”, Translated By J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Retrieved 2003
25Wallis, S.F, 2004, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), New York: Media & Communication, The European Graduate School. Retreived 2004
28Kemerling, G., 2001, “Kant: Synthetic A Priori Judgement.”. Retieved 2003


  1. Widuri Asmaranti
    S2 Pend Matematika B 2017

    Assalammualaikum Prof,
    Biasanya Immanuel Kant cenderung mendapatkan "ilham" atau terinspirasi dari Plato, tapi tidak semuanya, Immanuel Kant "menyempurnakannya" dengan menggabungkan Pengalaman Empirisme ajaran Aristoteles. Menurut Immanuel Kant bahwa fenomena adalah sesuatu yang nyata, yang ada pada dunia. Sesuatu yang tampak yang hanya menunjukkan fisiknya saja. Sedangkan Noumena adalah sebuah ide yang abstrak. Jadi fenomena akan dibentuk oleh naumena. Karena ide membentuk sebuah yang nyata. Sehingga dalam kehidupan fenomena dan noumena akan saling berhubungan.

  2. Arung Mega Ratna
    PPs PMC 2017

    Fenomena merupakan penentuan rasional ilmiah sedangkan noumena meupakan tidak rasional ilmiah. Sejak abad ke-20, hal ini ditentang oleh Post-modernisme yang mengaburkan konsep “rasionalitas.” Konsep Kant bahwa yang bisa diketahui hanya fenomena yang mana dia mengklaim bahwa alasan spekulatif manusia hanya dapat mengetahui fenomena dan tidak dapat menembus ke noumena, pada akhirnya nanti menjadi lebih radikal dalam post-modernisme nihilistik.

  3. Tri Wulaningrum
    PEP S2 B

    Menurut apa yang saya pahami dalam bacaan di atas, fenomena merupakan segala sesuatu yang kita ketahui secara intuitif oleh refleksi diri kita. Jadi fenomena adalah segala sesuatu yang bisa kita persepsi dengan panca indera. Sedangkan noumena adalah makna keberadaan dari suatu benda yang tidak dapat kita jelaskan dengan persepsi panca indera. Maka dalam nomena, benda itu sendiri berdiri sebagai diri pribadi, yang sifatnya satu, tetap, tidak berubah. Maka, terkait dengan nomena, Kant berpendapat bahwa kita tidak pernah bisa mengenali sesuatu dalam diri mereka. Setiap kualitas yang dimiliki benda itu sendiri tidak akan pernah bisa kita ketahui melalui indra.

  4. Muh Wildanul Firdaus
    Pendidikan matematika S2 kls C

    Menurut Kant, ilusi transendental adalah hasil penerapan pemahaman dan kepekaan di luar batas kemampuan mereka.
    Meskipun peraturan obyektif mungkin sama dalam setiap kasus, namun gagasan subjektif hubungan kausal dapat menyebabkan deduksi yang berbeda.
    Kant menunjukkan bahwa alasan yang menghubungkan kita langsung dengan hal-hal dalam dirinya sendiri adalah pertanyaan yang tidak dapat dia jawab.

  5. Yusrina Wardani
    PPs PMAT C 2017
    Penentuan rasional ilmiah (fenomena) dan tidak rasional ilmiah (noumena). Sejak abad ke-20, hal ini ditentang oleh Post-modernisme yang mengaburkan konsep rasionalitas. Konsep Kant bahwa yang bisa diketahui hanya fenomena, pada akhirnya nanti menjadi lebih radikal dalam post-modernisme nihilistik.

  6. Nama: Dian Andarwati
    NIM: 17709251063
    Kelas: Pendidikan Matematika (S2) Kelas C

    Assalamu’alaikum. Kant membedakan antara fenomena dan noumena. Fenomena adalah menunjukkan kepada suatu dalam kesadaran dan noumena adalah realitas yang berbeda dari apa yang ditangkap oleh pengamat. Kant menyatakan bahwa sebenarnya yang ditangkap oleh manusia terhadap suatu objek hanyalah suatu fenomena - yang bukan sebenarnya - dari realitas objek tersebut yang disebut Kant sebagai noumena. Fenomena ini merupakan penampakan dari noumena. Penampakan ini menurut Kant sudah dipengaruhi ruang dan waktu serta kualitas dan kuantitasnya. Hal ini menurut Kant sangat bergantung dari persepsi yang terdapat dalam pikiran manusia tersebut dan manusia tersebut dalam membuat persepsinya sangat dipengaruhi oleh kategori-kategori dalam menilai suatu objek yang dipersepsikan itu.

  7. Firman Indra Pamungkas
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika 2017 Kelas C

    Assalamualaikum Warohmatullah Wabarokatuh
    Immanuel Kant membagi realitas ke dalam dua bagian, yaitu fenomena dan noumena. Fenomena merupakan realitas yang bisa dijangkau oleh manusia, baik itu menggunakan panca indra maupun rasio manusia. Sedangkan noumena adalah realitas yang tidak dapat dijangkau oleh rasio manusia terlebih panca indra manusia. Menurut Kant, setiap peristiwa dibaliknya selalu ada noumena. Fenomena dengan demikian bisa pula dikatakan sebagai yang nampak, dan noumena sebagai yang tidak nampak. Sulit pula disebutkan bahwa hubungan keduanya adalah sebab akibat. Mengapa? Karena jika demikian, noumena itu akan bisa terjawab karena ia merupakan sebab dari fenomena.Kant menyimpulkan bahwa noumena tidak akan pernah bisa dijamah manusia akan tetapi bisa diyakini keberadaanya. Manusia akan selalu asing dengan yang namanya noumena.

  8. Ulivia Isnawati Kusuma
    PPs Pend Mat A 2017

    Fenomena adalah segala sesuatu yang dapat bisa ditangkap oleh panca indera, sedangkan noumena adalah lawan dari fenomena, yaitu segala sesuatu yang tidak bisa ditangkap oleh indera. Maka jika dikaitkan dengan proses pembentukan pengetahuan, fenomena adalah pengetahuan yang benar dan tepat, dan memang sudah dibuktikan kebenarannya. Sedangkan noumena adalah yang berada di luar realita yang dapat diindera. Karena tidak bisa ditangkap oleh panca indera tersebut maka tidak dapat dibuktikan tetapi itu merupaakan keyakinan.

  9. Isoka Amanah Kurnia
    PPs Pendidikan Matematika 2017 Kelas C

    The phenomenon itself is something that appears that only shows the physical course. like Things on him, not his contents or his ideas. as there is the expression of the think in it self as well as human beings can only see other humans in appearance or physical only, but can not see the human idea. The senses can only see the phenomenon but can not see Nomena. Immanuel Kant did tend to get "inspired" or inspired by Plato, but not all of them, he "perfected it" by combining with Aristotle's philosophy of Empiricism.

  10. Irham Baskoro
    S2|Pendidikan Matematika A 2017|UNY

    Fenomena adalah segala hal yang dapat diindera, sedangkan noumena adalah sebaliknya yaitu segala hal yang tidak dapat ditangkap dengan indera. Hal ini pernah dijelaskan oleh Prof saat perkuliahan filsafat. Noumena tidak bisa dilihat, disentuh, atau didengar, namun dapat dipikirkan. Contoh dari noumena adalah ruh, hantu, atau makhluk-makhluk gaib. Sebagai manusia yang beriman, kita harus meyakini adanya makhluk-makhluk gaib ini di dunia ini.