EDIT: after - a little reflection on the critiques I've retracted my claim.

The principla confusion, for me, was confusing existence as a form of the intuition & transcendentally.

Kant marks a distinction in the world between noumena & phenomena. What is called the material world is simply phenomena. I'm calling the world both aspects of reality - noumena & phenomena (as shorthand - I'm not sure of the correct terminology). It certainly seems as though phenomena supervenes on noumena. But noumena doesn't on phenonema.

  1. Now, noumena must exist for otherwise where do our phenomena come from? They also cannot exist as existence is a pure intuition of the mind. That is the statement noumena must exist and not exist must be true.

Formally, we can assert: p and (not p) is true.

It does, however appear that there is an equivocation in exist. One is transcendental & the other is a form of our intuition.

So, perhaps not.

  1. Now since existence are pure intuitions of the mind we cannot say that noumena exist nor not exist. However, existence as a pure form of the intuition doesn't apply to noumena. So the predicate 'exist' doesn't apply to noumena. We can say that the noumena trancendentally exists.
  • 2
    But noumena DO exist, and have to be existent! Where would our perceptions come from, otherwise?
    – iphigenie
    Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 16:13
  • Also, did I get you right? You're saying that you think of noumena and phenomena being two aspects of "the world"?
    – iphigenie
    Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 16:19
  • Yes, I know! And thats given me an idea - see the edit above. Only as a kind of short-hand, is there something very wrong in saying that? Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 16:30
  • Are you quite sure that you're not equivocating with respect to the word "exist"? Commented Jun 5, 2013 at 22:55
  • 1
    I feel I should point out that the negation of a contradiction is not a contradiction, and in fact, negations of contradictions are evaluated as true in many logics. Moreover, matters of what one can or cannot say do not necessarily lead to actual assertions. Even if we cannot say that noumena exist or not exist, it doesn't mean that we can infer "It is not the case that, noumena exist or not exist."
    – Addem
    Commented Jun 6, 2013 at 22:05

1 Answer 1


The example I read about went something like: "I'm afraid that the communists are taking over the power and I'm not afraid that the communists are taking over the power." It was Baudrilliard who wrote it in Simulacra & Simulation is some exmple of postmodernism and you can research it more if you find it interesting.

In classical logic, arriving at a contradiction proves that the assumption is false.

In intuitionistic logic you can't remove a double negation so if everything is expressed in negations it might be undefined what is meant be negating a negation if not the negation of the negation.

You could also investigate statements such as "Heterological statements are heterological statements." which possibly is true by defintion and false by meaning.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .