Monday, May 7, 2012
Thing-in-itself
Some questions and points for thinking and discussing:
Thing-in-itself is the thing unconscious of itself! But this is a false idea. Thing-in-itself and thing-for-itself are meaningless without man's mind. It does not stand outside of mind.
Thing-in-itself does not actually exist because any level of knowledge, even vague and superficial, is a knowledge. Even naming a thing brings it to our mind and makes it thing-for-us.
Concerning social and intellectual objects, where the object and subject are the same or interrelated, the thing-in-itself does exist. How do you think about this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I suspect that most of your readers will find the phrase "Thing-in-itself is the thing unconscious of itself" incomprehensible. But this idea arises in the context of understanding things are being forms of activity of human beings, that is, practice, mindful praxis. If you start with this, then it makes more sense to say that when a form of human activity is "in itself" it is not conscious of itself.
ReplyDelete