| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the language we use to describe the things-in-themselves isn't universally true...
yet the things-in-themselves are universally true?
but you cannot know the things-in-themselves...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Almost what I was thinking -- but not quite. Language (or knowledge of) things is incapable of perfectly knowing them. Therefore, we cannot know if we know 'things in themselves' or not. Whether or not things-in-themselves are univerally true or not is unknowable (we don't/can't know if physics is a good description of the essential nature of the universe or not).
What I object to in Section 8's idea is that our imperfect knowledge of things-in-themselves means that the things-in-themselves are imperfect (or, in his words, untrue). Our knowledge is imperfect -- we can't say any more than that. |