Do atheists reject Kantian phenomenology explicitly, or have most of them simply never heard of it?

Question

To the user known as Common Sense: Not long at all. Just because you are uneducated, you shouldn't assume everyone is.

Answer 1

I think it's completely incompatible with scientific method and so unlikely to produce anything objective, testable, repeatable, useful.

Answer 2

Phenomenon has a specialized meaning in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who contrasted the term Phenomenon with noumenon in the Critique of Pure Reason. Phenomena constitute the world as we experience it, as opposed to the world as it exists independently of our experiences (thing-in-themselves, 'das Ding an sich'). Humans cannot, according to Kant, know things-in-themselves, only things as we experience them. Thus philosophy — the term "philosophy" in Kant's day serving as the approximate equivalent of what is today called "science" — should concern itself with understanding phenomena.

Now, atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, excluding non-believing agnostics and other non-theists.

Although some atheists tend toward skepticism, and toward secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, there is no single system of philosophy which all atheists share, nor does atheism have institutionalized rituals or behaviors.

Answer 3

It doesn't have to be "rejected explicitly" by atheists. The approach as to what can be known or not has traveled some distance since Kant. Even if it's hard to swallow Hegel's overwrought critiques of it, any atheist can feel comfortable with the students in Gottingen who have inherited Husserl's legacy.

Answer 4

I'm neither theist nor atheist, but I reject Kant's phenomenology only on certain points; one because of logical inconsistency, the other because of empirical data. The logical inconsistnecy was pointed out by Schopenhauer. Kants' "things in themselves" was a category mistake within his system. If it is our mind which imposes space and time onto noumena, then there cannot be "things" (plural, suggesting division in space) but only "thing".

The other place he seems to have been wrong was in his insistence that the transcendental unity of apperception, what he described as necessarily a "pure consciousness" was not open to experience. He insisted that our "barest consciousness" must be devoid of qualities. Otherwise it could conflict with some quality in the things it experiences. Because since it has no qualities, he said, it cannot be experienced. Modern research on meditation (and personal experience) say that we can have an experience devoid of all phenomenal qualities. Indeed, it is devoid of even a space time manifold within which phenomenal qualities might be found. But it is precisely this unique character of the experience that makes it memorable and ontologically distibguishable (there cannot be two such experiences, for they would by definition have no qualities to distinguish them.) So at least one of his noumena seems to be empirically availible. To be fair, he did leave that possibility (logically) open, only he insisted that no human faculty could do it.

Interestingly, this experience gives empirical content to his (ethical) categorization of persons as "ends in themselves". Since I can remember the experience of pure consdiousness, I must have been there. Since there was no quality to call me, I must be that emptiness. I therefore have a clear empirical example of a core element of a human self that is not dependent on anything external for its character.

This also undermines Humes "bundle" theory of self, modern psychology's intentional model of consciousness, and gives some empirical content to Descartes idea of God as a perfect, boundless eternity. Descarte came to this "idea" through "cutting of all senses and sensible thoughts" as he describes in his "Meditations". Coincidence? Of course, there is nothing in the pure consciousness expereince to suggest it has anything to do with anything outside of the nervous system of the one having the experience, so he would have had to make a logical leap (much like many Eastern texts do on the same point).

Answer 5

The following is the entry in Wikipedia about Kantian phenomenology and I am puzzled as to what this has to do with atheism...can you explain, please?

Phenomenon has a specialized meaning in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who contrasted the term Phenomenon with noumenon in the Critique of Pure Reason. Phenomena constitute the world as we experience it, as opposed to the world as it exists independently of our experiences (thing-in-themselves, 'das Ding an sich'). Humans cannot, according to Kant, know things-in-themselves, only things as we experience them. Thus philosophy — the term "philosophy" in Kant's day serving as the approximate equivalent of what is today called "science" — should concern itself with understanding phenomena.[citation needed]

The concept of 'phenomena' led to a tradition of philosophy called phenomenology. Leading figures in phenomenology include Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Derrida.

Kant's account of phenomena has also been understood as influential in the development of psychodynamic models of psychology, and of theories concerning the ways in which the brain, mind and external world interact

Answer 6

I don't know if I reject it, but I had never heard of it before and am now reading about it. Thanks.

Here's a link for the curious:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

Answer 7

I have heard of philosopher Immanuel Kant but I am not familiar with the what you are asking. I'd have to do more research before adequately answering the question.

Answer 8

I know of few people nowadays who have actually read Kant, be they atheists or theists, even among college grads.

Answer 9

I reject it on the basis that it is axiomatic - i.e. since it is inherently unprovable, I choose not to accept it and don't have to justify that choice.

Answer 10

Atheists reject the unprovable, known to them or not...