Answering Kantianism (and meaninglessness/nihilism/existentialism)

[Claudiu]

How would you answer a nihilist/existentialist? More specifically, following the Kantian dichotomy of the phenomenal and noumenal world, many today say that we don't have knowledge of the objective world, or noumenal world. The only "true knowledge" we can possess is that of the subjective, phenomenal world. Ultimately, this leads to some form of existentialist/nihilist view of the meaning of existence.

I find that responses to this kind of thinking usually result in the other person saying that any claim I have on the "objective"/noumenal world is not a knowledge claim of the "actual" world, but only my understanding of the world, or my perception of it.

How does a Christian respond to this?

In another thread, Phillip, you mentioned that

The mistake of Kant is in positing a noumenal realm at all. Wittgenstein ended up in a very similar place to Kant, but rejected the noumenal as a confused concept. As it is, Kant doesn't think you can understand the noumenal because to know anything, you have to interpret it. What Van Til does at this point is to suggest that to know anything, you have to (even unconsciously) assume that God exists and has revealed Himself.

Personally, I tend to deny the distinction altogether (taking the approach of Reid and Old Princeton).

This is an interesting point! Could you please say a little more?

 

[Afterthought]

I find that responses to this kind of thinking usually result in the other person saying that any claim I have on the "objective"/noumenal world is not a knowledge claim of the "actual" world, but only my understanding of the world, or my perception of it.

I've never had the opportunity to attempt the following response, but I have wondered how it would turn out: "Is that claim that I have no knowledge claim of the 'actual' world a knowledge claim or merely your understanding of the world? If the former, then it is possible to have knowledge claims of the 'actual' world, so a claim otherwise must be false. If the latter, then by what authority should I accept your understanding of the world? And is your knowledge of your understanding of the world a knowledge claim of the 'actual' world?" And then go from there, I guess.

 

[Peairtach]

Well if Kant or his followers are saying that their Kantian opinions are purely subjective, that is an argument against them, and for at least silence on their part.

Meanwhile, we say on the basis of God's Word, e.g. Romans 1 and 2, that ee know God, and unbelievers know God. Van Til demonstrated this by pointing out unbelieving commiment to the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and moral principles could only be accounted for by the unbeliever's somewhat and sometimes "unconscious" knowledge of the God of the Bible.

For an introduction to Van Til, see e.g. John Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God", and " Cornelius Van Til : An Analysis of His Thought". Also listen to Greg Bahnsen's debate with atheist, Gordon Stein, which may be online at Youtube and other places. Other PB members may be able to suggest other (better?) introductory material.

The notion that nothing is "given" and all must be interpreted by the mind of man cannot be followed without ending up fast adrift sea in a sea of subjectivity and dark ignorance.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Claudiu]

Well if Kant or his followers are saying that their Kantian opinions are purely subjective, that is an argument against them, and for at least silence on their part.

Meanwhile, we say on the basis of God's Word, e.g. Romans 1 and 2, that ee know God, and unbelievers know God. Van Til demonstrated this by pointing out unbelieving commiment to the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and moral principles could only be accounted for by the unbeliever's somewhat and sometimes "unconscious" knowledge of the God of the Bible.

For an introduction to Van Til, see e.g. John Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God", and " Cornelius Van Til : An Analysis of His Thought". Also listen to Greg Bahnsen's debate with atheist, Gordon Stein, which may be online at Youtube and other places. Other PB members may be able to suggest other (better?) introductory material.

The notion that nothing is "given" and all must be interpreted by the mind of man cannot be followed without ending up fast adrift sea in a sea of subjectivity and dark ignorance.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

The atheist would object and say "why do we have to assume "God" here." Why can't it just be a brute fact that we are committed to the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral principles, etc. without invoking "God." And the fact that we have these ideas (logic, of nature, ethics, etc.) is just a something we (subjects) possess, but that doesn't automatically lead to us making claims about objective reality now.

 

[Claudiu]

And re: Romans 1 and 2, in the Kantian spirit, one could say that Paul is stepping out of bounds here. He is claiming knowledge of the noumenal world, when in reality he can only be claiming it of the phenomenal.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

My two thoughts would be

1. to point out that he is making an absolute truth claim when saying "You can't know the noumenal world directly" and to ask him "how do you know that" a bunch of times basically. To show that he will end up either in absurdity not really knowing anything or in an infinite regress and

2. then as Van Til would I would show that you must either know everything (be omniscient) or know Someone that knows everything to be able to ground your absolute truth claim (as well as the reliability of your senses and reasoning, the laws of logic, morality, preconditions of intelligibility, etc) and justify them.

Perhaps asking them how much knowledge they think there is in the universe and how much of that knowledge they think they possess, and if they are honest it will be less than 1% and then asking them if they think it is possible that " and hope they answer honestly that there could be. And if they try to tu quoque it back on you just say you know Someone who knows it all and He has revealed it to you so that you know it for certain.

You could also ask him if he thinks it is possible that an all knowing God could communicate the noumenal (or spiritual) realm (truth) to you such that you can know it for certain.

 

[Claudiu]

My two thoughts would be

1. to point out that he is making an absolute truth claim when saying "You can't know the noumenal world directly" and to ask him "how do you know that" a bunch of times basically. To show that he will end up either in absurdity not really knowing anything or in an infinite regress and

I found that most respond by saying that they know this, "objectively" even, perhaps, by realizing that the project to truth in somewhat of a Platonic sense is impossible. We can have rational knowledge of our phenomena. So reason still plays a role, but the noumenal is inaccessible. It's similar to "the only rule is that there is no rule" game.

2. then as Van Til would I would show that you must either know everything (be omniscient) or know Someone that knows everything to be able to ground your absolute truth claim (as well as the reliability of your senses and reasoning, the laws of logic, morality, preconditions of intelligibility, etc) and justify them.

Very good!

Perhaps asking them how much knowledge they think there is in the universe and how much of that knowledge they think they possess, and if they are honest it will be less than 1% and then asking them if they think it is possible that " and hope they answer honestly that there could be. And if they try to tu quoque it back on you just say you know Someone who knows it all and He has revealed it to you so that you know it for certain.

You could also ask him if he thinks it is possible that an all knowing God could communicate the noumenal (or spiritual) realm (truth) to you such that you can know it for certain.