Phenomena vs Neumena, Truth vs False, Light vs Dark?

Question

Okay,

So Phenomena is physical, and opinable. Neumena is Universal, Mathematical, and holds true for all worlds.

I say that "there is never a false or a wrong or dark... there are only varying degrees of truth, right, and light."

My professor says that idea is Phenomena and not Numena, and it can not be proven through logic without it being opinable (able to form an opinion upon/phenomenal, and not a universal truth). Because in Logic, we are trying to "proove" an arguement, and the only way to do this is through the Numena. I thought that right, truth, and at the very least "light" would hold true for all worlds, and be universal.

Does anyone understand this, and can you explain it to me?

Answer 1

Ask Plato.

If you read the Republic again you can examine the Cave analogy once more and discover that light is truth, but only the truth between the observer and the form being looked upon. The form creates the shadow that many confuse for the truth, but; the shadow is only a phenomenon that resembles the form itself, and; depending on where you are standing in relationship to the source of knowledge and the form your perspective of the truth will vary. That is one of the reasons that they use the phrase "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." They are not the same thing as President Clinton pointed out when he made the retort "That depends on what "is" is." But, numenally you can understand the form, or the essence of the form as opposed to the perception of the form. For example, the number seven is exact in a numenal sense, but; if I were to ask you to prove it in a phenomenal sense you would be unable to exist as the number seven has no true physical representation, and; while you may be able to prove to me certain truths related to the number seven, you will not be able to prove to me the number seven in and of itself. That particular fact becomes an assumption that seven exists devoid of physical representation. In the numenal plane, the assumption is that in their simplest forms all forms become exact and quantifiable, without doubt. Kant would see them as categoricals, things that are in and of themselves themselves. The problem is that you can not argue truth in a numenal plane. All you can argue is existence and that is futile. Logic, which is derived in large part from the works of Socrates through Plato to Aristole, who founded much of the basic of reason which do in fact resemble mathematical properties being as Aristotle was of the firm belief that true logic must be geometrical in form, is non the less phenomenal in execution as terms assumed true are assumed true because they have not been recognized as false on the phenomenal plane. In other words, people only start arguing at the points and using the terms that they can in fact recognize. Universally, speaking they may be wrong. Your contention that there are varying degrees of truth or certainty or right or wrong is correct. You can lean a little more on the subject by reading the works of Oliver Wendell Holmes, in particular his writings on the concepts of bad laws and prenumbral issues, grey areas so to speak. Your professor, assuming he/she read these works or took a course in Philosophy of Law should agree that there is an argument out there that states that the efficacy of an argument depends solely on its assumptions. Law is the best example that there are no save assumptions, and no axioms that cannot be found to be false. However, do not discard words like false or dark from your vocabulary. They are but groupings and those groupings are in reality another form or idea that you can recognize like the concepts of zero and negative numbers. The absence of light or knowledge can exist in a vacuum if a vacuum can be created. A black hole is a clue to that possibility. You should probably also give Berkeley, Hume, Spinoza and Kant a little look see as they touched upon these subjects in some detain. I can only begin to cut through all the conjecture to that truth is not universal unless you are all knowing and if you are all knowing then it becomes fact and not truth. As for right and wrong that is a matter of power and perspective, if you have the power every body will accept your perspective and that will become the truth whether it is right or wrong. We live in an empiracle world with existential beliefs, and that is biggest truth of all, we really don't know if we are wrong or right. This is where I recommend you listen to Sgt. Pepper and the song "Fixin a Hole" to get another contemporay view on this subject. The song dances around this thought. Enjoy.

PS. I believe it is Nomina and not Numena.

Answer 2

Rahul Dravid is a cricketer with a wealth of experience, he's asserted to be a magnificent individual who receives alongside with everybody and is respected by employing everybody who has something to do with cricket, be it the followers, modern gamers from international huge and officials in any respect stages of the cricketing international. He were given this understand from his contributions not in basic terms to the Indian cricket crew yet to the game as an entire international huge. you would possibly want to stroll the streets the following contained in the Caribbean Islands and everyone knows who he's 'The Wall', Rahul Dravid. Now having those features or features and a love for the game of cricket and an frame of mind that made him one of those fulfillment is the reason to me why Rahul Dravid made a weaker searching outfit in evaluation to different communities in Rajasthan Royals (no doubt the likes of Brad Hodge and Shane Watson helped) the fulfillment they develop into in this version of the IPL. in basic terms he's a really sturdy captain. Rohit Sharma, commentators save praising his skills, to be truthful when I see a number of the images he have performed he's amazingly gifted. he's likewise a really sturdy fielder and how he includes himself he truthfully has a sturdy head on his shoulder about the game of cricket. Rohit's crew is full of stars who've experience that no different crew (perhaps in basic terms Chennai) can tournament. So in evaluation to Dravid his artwork might want to nicely be extra accessible because the chief, yet you nonetheless ought to execute. the difficulty is with Rohit regardless of the reality that you spot he takes extra duty to get runs how he's the captain, it really is a sturdy difficulty. they are both gifted, Dravid made his call already regardless of the reality that.

Answer 3

Phenomena constitutes the world as we experience it, as opposed to the world as it exists independently of our experiences ('das Ding an sich'). The pragmatist does not understand "experience" that events occur without any experience of them, while the materialist makes praxis include events of nature even beyond one's "experience."

Does space exist? The materialist says: "If you doubt it, step off a cliff and be convinced for yourself." The pragmatist declares that there can be no laws of space unless we experience them. It is our experience, our sensations, that are real, and not merely space itself. Hence, Neumena, loosely empiricism, the necessity to observe the concrete data of the present without prejudice or bias, hence opinionated. Unless “light” your refer to is opinion.

Answer 4

The answer is 42.