Challenging the Concept of Noumena in Kant:

Ai gen. By author reproduction of Naum Gabo, Head No. 2

The Knowable Nature of Character through Aristotle’s Virtues

1725063300 Sat, 31 Aug 2024 19:57:18 GMT

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy introduces the concept of the [noumenon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon) — the “thing-in-itself” **that is fundamentally unknowable to human beings.

Head No. 2, 1916, Naum Gabo

Naum Gabo, as a leading figure in Constructivism, sought to express the dynamic and spiritual essence of modern life through abstract, geometric sculptures. His art materializes the noumenal world — abstract thought and pure form — into physical, sensory experiences, revealing the inner conceptual frameworks of the artist to the viewer.

According to Kant, we can never truly know the essence of things, including other people, as we are limited to perceiving phenomena, the objects as they appear to us through the filters of our senses and cognition.

This notion presents a significant challenge to understanding and knowing the character of a person, suggesting that no matter how well we observe someone, the true essence of their being remains beyond our grasp.

However, this view can be contested, particularly when considering the Aristotelian perspective on character and virtue. Aristotle’s ethical theories, as discussed in works like the Nicomachean Ethics and Poetics, suggest that a person’s character is not only knowable but also definable through their actions, habits, and the moral virtues they exhibit.

In this article, we will explore how Aristotle’s understanding of character provides a more accessible and pragmatic approach to knowing a person, challenging Kant’s notion of the unknowable noumenon.

Aristotle asserts that virtue is a matter of habit — ethos — and that a person’s character is the sum of their habitual actions.

In Nicomachean Ethics, he writes, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit” (Aristotle, 1999, p. 1103b). This statement encapsulates the idea that a person’s character is expressed through their consistent behavior, which is observable and understandable by others.

For Aristotle, virtues such as courage, temperance, and justice are qualities that manifest in action. These virtues are not abstract qualities but are demonstrated through specific deeds and decisions, which can be witnessed and evaluated by others.

For example, a courageous person is someone who consistently acts with bravery in the face of danger, not because of an isolated act of courage, but through an interfererence pattern of behavior that defines their character.

This understanding of virtue challenges Kant’s notion of the noumenon. If a person’s character is defined by their habitual actions, then their essence — what Kant would consider their noumenal self — is not only knowable but also evident in the way they live their lives.

This Aristotelian view suggests that the moral virtues shared among individuals who consistently act nobly form a space of character that is both knowable and essential for understanding who they are.

Homology and the Knowable Space of Character

Using the language of mathematics, specifically the concept of homology, we can further argue that the space in which moral virtues exist is the most important and knowable aspect of a person’s character. In topology, homology is concerned with identifying structures within different spaces that are, in a fundamental sense, the same. Applying this idea to the concept of character, we can argue that the virtues a person embodies create a “homologous space” of nobility, one that can be recognized and known by others.

This “homologous space” is what Aristotle refers to when discussing the nobility of a person’s actions. In Poetics, Aristotle emphasizes that a noble character is one whose actions align with moral virtues, and these actions are what make their character knowable to others. He writes, “The greatest virtues are those which are most useful to others; hence the just, the brave, and the wise” (Aristotle, 1996, p. 145). These virtues, which manifest in observable actions, form a coherent and knowable space of character, defying the Kantian idea that a person’s true nature is unknowable.

The Limits of Kantian Noumena and the Pragmatic Reality of Character

Kant’s assertion that the noumenon — the true essence of a person — cannot be known, relies heavily on the distinction between the phenomenon (the appearance) and the noumenon (the reality). In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states, “Things as they are in themselves are not and cannot be known by us; what we know are merely their appearances” (Kant, 1998, p. 250). However, this rigid separation between appearance and reality can be seen as overly restrictive, especially when applied to human character.

Aristotle’s approach, grounded in the observable reality of actions and virtues, suggests a more pragmatic understanding of character. The idea that a person is known through their deeds and the virtues they consistently practice aligns more closely with how we experience and understand others in everyday life. We judge a person’s character based on their actions, their reliability, and their moral choices — all of which are visible and knowable.

This perspective also resonates with the idea that moral values and virtues are not just abstract ideals but are actualized through lived experiences and social interactions. Friends, colleagues, and communities recognize and know individuals by their actions and dispositions, which provides a rich and reliable source of knowledge about a person’s character. In this sense, the pragmatic approach to understanding character not only challenges Kant’s concept of the noumenon but also affirms the importance of moral virtues in defining and knowing who a person truly is.

The concept of noumena in Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, which posits that the true essence of a person is unknowable, is challenged by the Aristotelian view that character is both knowable and definable through actions and moral virtues. Aristotle’s emphasis on habitual action and virtue offers a more accessible and realistic framework for understanding human character. By employing the idea of homology, we can argue that the space of moral virtues is the most important and knowable aspect of a person, directly opposing Kant’s assertion that the person’s true nature is beyond our grasp.

In the end, while Kant’s philosophical exploration of the limits of human knowledge raises important questions about the nature of reality, Aristotle’s pragmatic approach provides a more grounded and actionable way of understanding character. It affirms that people are indeed knowable through their actions, their virtues, and their relationships with others, offering a richer and more meaningful account of what it means to know a person.

Coda

νοούμενoν

In philosophy, a noumenon, νοούμενoν is an idea, form, thought, or meaning that exists independently of human perception.

The term noumenon(a) is used in contrast to observed events or phenomena, which refers to objects as they appear to our senses.

Immanuel Kant introduced the concept of noumenon within his transcendental idealism, proposing that while the noumenal world exists, it is beyond the reach of our senses and therefore unknowable.

The term stems from νοεῖν (noeîn), meaning “to think” or “to mean,” which originates from νοῦς (noûs), meaning “mind” or “understanding.” This etymology highlights the noumenon’s connection to the mind and abstract thought, emphasizing its existence beyond the sensory world.

The noumenon is often associated with the “thing-in-itself” (Ding an sich), a concept that Kant suggests exists beyond our sensory experience, though he does not explicitly define the relationship between noumenon and phenomenon, leaving room for interpretation and debate among scholars.

In contrast, Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist philosophy introduces a different perspective on this idea, particularly in his discussion of essence.

For Sartre, essence is tied not to an unknowable noumenon but to existence itself. Sartre famously declared that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that individuals first exist without predetermined essence and only later define themselves through their actions and choices. (An idea satirized byvKubric n Dr. Strangelove)

In this view, essence is not a fixed, inaccessible truth lying beyond our experience, but rather something we continuously create through our engagement with the world.

Sartre’s approach contrasts sharply with Kant’s. While Kant views the noumenon as something fundamentally beyond human comprehension, Sartre’s existentialism implies that what we are (our essence) is something we shape and define, not something hidden or beyond reach. Sartre’s emphasis on human freedom and responsibility suggests that the essence of a person is not a mysterious, inaccessible noumenon, but the sum of their actions, choices, and experiences in the world.

1. In Dr. Strangelove, 1964, Colonel Ripper obsessively refers to “essence” in the context of his delusional paranoia about “precious bodily fluids” being contaminated by a Communist plot. This obsession reflects his irrational fear of hidden contamination, satirizing Cold War anxieties. While his delusion differs from Sartre’s existentialist idea that “existence precedes essence,” it can be seen as an exaggerated take on Kant’s notion that we can never fully know the “thing-in-itself.” Taken to an extreme, Kant’s idea that true intentions or reality are beyond our grasp could lead to a similar paranoia about never fully understanding others, as Kubrick humorously depicts through Ripper’s character.
2. Essence, Substance, and Understanding Human Character in Aristotle’s Philosophy Aristotle’s philosophy offers a profound way to understand human character and meaning, grounded in his concepts of substance, essence, and causality. Unlike binary assumptions that seek clear-cut, absolute answers, Aristotle’s approach is nuanced, acknowledging the complexity of human nature and the probabilistic understanding of character.

• In Aristotle’s view, essence is identified with primary substance, especially in the case of living beings where the soul is considered the primary substance and is identical with its essence. This means that the essence or form of a living being is not something separate from its substance; rather, it is the substance itself, as explained in David Charles’ work on Aristotle’s approach to definition and explanation in the Metaphysics (Charles, 2002).
• Aristotle’s method involves understanding composite substances (such as living beings) through teleological causation, which addresses both “What is F?” and “Why is F as it is?” These questions are deeply interdependent and cannot be fully answered in isolation. The form or essence provides the basis for answering these questions, revealing the nature and purpose (final cause) of a substance.
• In terms of human character, Aristotle’s framework is superior in explaining it through probability rather than binary logic. Character, as a material cause, can be understood by analyzing the outcomes of actions, which reflect the underlying essence or thought behind them. This probabilistic approach considers the influence of various causes — material, formal, efficient, and final — allowing us to infer the nature of a person’s character by observing how these causes interact.
• The concept of superposition and supersymmetry from modern physics can be metaphorically applied to this Aristotelian understanding. Superposition suggests that different material causes, like environment, personal experiences, and language, can overlap and interfere with each other, creating a complex pattern that reveals probable knowledge about a person’s thoughts or intentions. Supersymmetry, in this context, refers to the alignment or symmetry between material causes and final causes, providing insight into the consistency and coherence of a person’s actions with their character.
• By examining the cosine distance — the metaphorical distance between the symbolic (language), imagination, and the Real (Lacan: actions, environment) — we can assess how closely a person’s actions align with their true intentions or thoughts. This alignment, or lack thereof, gives us a probabilistic understanding of what someone is thinking or meaning when they speak or act…their essence or noumenal self.
• Aristotle’s philosophy allows us to comprehend human character as a complex interplay of causes and effects, where essence and substance are intertwined. This approach is not about making absolute judgments but about understanding the probabilities that govern human nature, thereby offering a richer and more accurate depiction of what it means to know someone’s character.

Naum Gabo’s work bridges the noumenal and phenomenal worlds by transforming abstract thought into tangible, sensory experiences through his geometric sculptures. As a Constructivist, Gabo expressed the dynamic and spiritual essence of modern life, using materials like Perspex to create forms that convey concepts such as space, time, and movement. His art reveals the noumenal aspects of his thought, aligning with Aristotle’s view that essence is inseparable from substance. Gabo’s work invites viewers to engage with the underlying ideas, offering a medium through which the artist’s inner world — his thoughts and philosophical inquiries — becomes accessible. Through this, his sculptures provide a tangible exploration of abstract concepts, enhancing our understanding of the relationship between essence, substance, and creativity.

References

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (1996). Poetics (M. Heath, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Charles, D. (2002). Substance, Definition, and Essence. In Aristotle on Meaning and Essence (pp. 274 — 309). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019925673X.003.0012

[embed]Essence, Substance, and Form (Blog) An Overview on Aristotle’s Termso-g-rose-writing.medium.com