Nov 25, 2012


By Marsigit, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia


Kazlev, A.A., 2004, maintained that the German philosopher Immaneul Kant came to the conclusion that we can never really know the thing-in-itself which he called the noumenon; all we can known is our consciousness or experience of this noumenon that is the phenomenon. Prior to Kant, as it was noted by Robinson, H., 2003, Descartes' conception of a dualism of substance came under attack from the more radical empiricists, who found it difficult to attach sense to the concept of substance at all and Locke, as a moderate empiricist, accepted that there were both material and immaterial substances; while Berkeley famously rejected material substance, because he rejected all existence outside the mind. Robinson propounded that Berkeley decided that the self was essential for an adequate understanding of the human person; although the self and its acts are not presented to consciousness as objects of awareness, we are obliquely aware of them simply by dint of being active subjects.

Robinson t H., 2003, then indicated that Hume rejected such claims and proclaimed the self to be nothing more than a concatenation of its ephemeral contents. He persisted that Hume criticized the whole conception of substance for lacking in empirical content by stating that when you search for the owner of the properties that make up a substance, you find nothing but further properties. Consequently, the mind is, Hume claimed, nothing but a bundle or heap of impressions and ideas is that of particular mental states or events, without an owner. This position has been labelled  as bundle dualism in which Humean is to explain what binds the elements in the bundle together. Poortman, J.J., 2004, designated that various kinds of dualism are distinguished based on if and how mind and matter are thought to casually interact.

Bushnell, T., 2004, contended that Kant offers a sort of dualism between things as they are in themselves and things as they appear to be.  This dualism is very different from the more familiar sort of dualism from Plato or Descartes. He specified that the key to understand Kant’s dualism is his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; unlike Plato, Kant’s noumenal world is marked off as beyond the limits of human understanding and based upon agnosticism. Kant  proposed that we call whatever is underlying a thing of experience, what contains the ground of it that is we should call this the thing in itself, means that the thing as it is independent of our experience of it. Kant  does not state or imply that the thing in itself is all that we should be concerned with. For Kant  the dualism must not be ontological, because our total ignorance of the truth of the matter concerning the noumena extends to their ontological status. We know nothing of their being, except that they are whatever underlies the things we do see and experience and understand. 

Bushnell, T., 2004, set forth that Kant saw himself firmly chained in, and proposes that no philosopher can be freed and look outside; his noumena are nothing but his name for "whatever lies behind the shadows on the wall".  Kant  does not pretend to see further outside than anyone else; Kant does not label the shadows insubstantial, unimportant, or use other pejorative terms. Bushnell suggested that we must even remain in doubt about whether the noumena exist at all, because we cannot say anything about the noumena, we cannot even say that they are; Kant believes that reason resides only in the noumena, and this seems to be a contradiction with the agnostic view about noumena that Kant truly holds. Kant  claimed that reason is therefore a different way of viewing a human brain from a recounting of its physical and biological causes. We can view the thinking brain as following laws of physics, in which case we don't see any reason per se in it.

Bushnell, T., 2004, elaborated that we can conceive of the thinking brain as following laws of reason, but we are unable to prove this, or even point to particular experiences that would substantiate it.  These two standpoints are not opposed to each other, nor are they causally related.  They are two different ways of viewing the same events, one by supposing "reason" in the brain, and another by viewing the brain as a physical process. In a similar way, will, freedom, ethical merit, and other such intentional terms are all
noumenal concepts.  For the sort of reasons that Hume gives, they are not phenomena.  And so, if they are real, they must reside in a noumenal version of the world. Does this damage the agnostic stance that is the very foundation of this dualism?  It does not, because in affirming the possibility of noumena we are not arguing positively for their existence or nature, but merely saying that if certain things are there at all, they are conceivable only by supposing they lie in things in themselves, and not in appearance--for the simple reason that we do not see them. But if they do exist, they therefore play a role in grounding phenomena.  As long as we remember the hypothetical nature of the construction we can point out the way a given hypothetical noumenal characteristic might ground others and might relate to phenomena of other things. 

Further, Bushnell, T., 2004, designated that it is finally important to note carefully that noumena are not to be understood as souls or minds.  First, human beings are not unique in having noumena.  Tables and chairs also have noumena.  Everything that we perceive, has a noumena.  The noumenon of a thing is nothing more than whatever underlies what we do see. A mind, according to Kant,  is certainly not transparent the way it is for Descartes; some of our mind is accessible to my perception and that part is phenomenal, and whatever underlies it is noumenal.  Kant  said that to boot, our body can also be considered as a noumenal thing, just as our mind can; whether the noumenal component of my mind is one with the noumenal component of my body is unknown. Bushnell said that a coherent agnosticism about Kantian noumenal properties of mind in which with this over-hasty description of our understanding of the relation between Kantian noumena and phenomena, I propose now to explore how its agnostic component functions in more detail, and how this relates to Kant's ethical foundations. Bushnell, contended that Kant takes effort to link together some properties of rational beings, by identifying various things as in some way tied to or based upon reason. He said that Kant's attempts to do so are occasionally flawed in technique, but absolutely correct in result.  Truly all these properties are so linked and the capacity to make choices is directly linked to reason. To make a decision is to have, before or after the fact, some kind of rational or rationalistic basis for the action.  To choose is to follow, imperfectly or not, honestly or not, one's reason.  To explain a choice is precisely to offer reasons for it; to refuse to offer reasons casts doubt on whether one chose at all. 

Ziniewicz, G.L., 1996 indicated that Kant saves man's moral freedom and dignity at the expense of alienating personality from empirical ego and the subject from the world as it really is; the world as it really is and the self as it really is are outside of experience. Ziniewicz, stated that if one follows Kant, what happens to the possibility of knowing things, persons, even oneself as they really are? What are some of the possible consequences of this view? He then clarified that Kant overcomes this dualism with a new dualism that is  the dualism of reality and appearance. According to Kant,  there is a difference between the way things are in themselves (reality) and the way things appear to us. Accordingly, we cannot know things as they really are in themselves (noumena); and we only know them as appearances (phenomena). According to Kant,  knowledge is not the transparent viewing of "bare facts."; the mind is not a window, through which objects pass unaltered, rather, knowledge is the making of a product. Kant claimed that the mind converts the raw material of beings as they are into the finished product of objects, or beings as they are for us in perception and knowledge; to know is to reconstruct and to interpret reality; knowledge is objective interpretation of reality, but it is not reality itself. According to Kant,  human knowledge is a process that includes both sensibility (perception) and understanding (conception).


  Bushnell, T., 2004, Kant’s Moral Philosophy,
  Ziniewicz, G.L., 1996 Kant: How Do We Know That We Know What We Know:


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Anggoro Yugo Pamungkas
    S2 Pend.Matematika B 2018

    Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
    Berdasarkan artikel diatas, Epistemologi Immanuel Kant dinilai berhasil menemukan suatu sintesis atas sistem-sistem sebelumnya dalam tradisi filsafat Barat. Melalui pengujian sejumlah persoalan yang sudah dianggap taken for granted, Kant merumuskan ulang validitas kebenaran pengetahuan secara lebih radikal. Sampai saat ini, pemikiran Kant tetap menarik untuk dikaji. Melalui proyek filosofis yang digagasnya, Kant telah merintis sesuatu yang berharga bagi pengembangan dan penyelidikan selanjutnya. Dengan cukup berani, Kant mendorong suatu kemajuan besar dalam tataran teoritis yang lebih ketat, dan rasional. Kant sendiri tidak menilai bahwa dirinya adalah seorang pioneer. Kant tanpa malu-malu menyatakan bahwa pemikirannya mendapat stimulus dari para tokoh-tokoh sebelumnya. Dalam beberapa rumusan, semisal konsep kategori, pengertian substansi dan ide, Kant justru meminjamnya dari pemikir Yunani Kuno. Apa yang dilakukan Kant adalah berupaya mempertajam dan menjelaskan secara lebih proporsional masalah-masalah tersebut.

  4. Fabri Hidayatullah
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika B 2018

    Epistemologi Kant adalah filsafat yang memisahkan antara rasionalisme dan empirisme. Dalam epistemologi tersebut terdapat kritisisme dan sintesisme. Upaya-upaya Immanuel kant dikenal dengan kritisisme atau filsafat kritis yang bermaksud membedakan antara pengetahuan yang murni dan tidak murni yang tiada kepastian, filsafatnya dimaksudkan sebagai penyadaran atas kemampuan-kemampuan rasio secara objektif untuk menentukan batas-batas kemampuannya. Epistemologi yang dimunculkan Kant berdasarkan pada penelitian subjek bukan objek. Menurut Kant, subjek lah yang membuat objek itu ada dan menjadi berbeda dengan objek lain

  5. Amalia Nur Rachman
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika B UNY 2018

    Ziniewicz, G. L menjelaskan bahwa Kant mengatasi dualisme epistemolgi dengan dualisme baru yakni dualisme realitas dan dualisme penampilan. Menurut Kant, terdapat perbedaan cara antara hal-hal dalam diri mereka sendiri (realitas) dan cara hal-hal muncul untuk kita. Dengan demikian, kita tidak bisa mengetahui hal-hal sebagaimana dalam diri mereka sendiri (nomena); Namun kita hanya mengetahui mereka sebagai penampilan (fenomena).

  6. Rosi Anista
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika B

    Dualisme adalah konsep filsafat yang menyatakan ada dua substansi. Dalam pandangan tentang hubungan antara jiwa dan raga, dualisme mengklaim bahwa fenomena mental adalah entitas non-fisik. Dualisme adalah ajaran yang menyatakan realitas itu terdiri dari dua substansi yang berlainan dan bertolak belakang.

  7. Nur Afni
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika B 2018

    Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
    Menjadi sebuah catatan ketika membaca elegi ini adalah Selama kita mengingat sifat hipotetis dari konstruksi, kita dapat menunjukkan bagaimana karakteristik noumenal hipotetis yang diberikan mungkin menjadi dasar bagi orang lain dan mungkin berhubungan dengan fenomena hal-hal lain. terimakasih

  8. Janu Arlinwibowo
    PEP 2018

    Ziniewicz , GL , 1996 menunjukkan bahwa Kant menghemat kebebasan moral manusia dan martabat dengan mengorbankan mengasingkan kepribadian dari ego empiris dan subjek dari dunia seperti itu benar-benar , dunia sebagaimana adanya dan diri seperti apa adanya berada di luar pengalaman. Ziniewicz, menyatakan bahwa jika mengikuti Kant, apa yang terjadi pada kemungkinan mengetahui hal-hal, orang-orang, bahkan diri sendiri seperti apa adanya? Apa adalah beberapa kemungkinan konsekuensi pandangan ini? Dia kemudian menjelaskan bahwa Kant mengatasi dualisme ini dengan dualisme baru yang merupakan dualisme realitas dan penampilan

  9. Sintha Sih Dewanti
    PPs S3 PEP UNY

    Pemikiran Kant dalam bidang epistemologi sepenuhnya tercurah dalam karyanya yang berjudul Critique of Pure Reason yang masih menyisakan persoalan dalam ranah metafisika. Dalam bukunya, Kant memisahkan antara fenomena dan noumena. Manusia hanya mampu menangkap fenomena saja melalui intuisi inderawi dalam ruang waktu yang kemudian dikategori dalam akal. Noumena tidak akan pernah tersentuh.

  10. Sri Ningsih
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika kelas D

    Bagi Kant, dualisme tidak boleh ontologis, karena ketidaktahuan total kita tentang kebenaran tentang noumena meluas ke status ontologisnya. Kita tidak tahu apa-apa tentang keberadaan mereka, kecuali bahwa mereka adalah apa pun yang mendasari hal-hal yang kita lihat dan alami dan pahami.