NationStates Jolt Archive

Regressionism? I just took a online quiz called "what is your philosophy?" and was suprised to find the result is a) (pretty much) accurate, and b) something i've never heard of as being a mainstream philisophical ideal. is this a real philosophy or has the author of the test made it up :confused:



Regressionist
-5 optimism, -6 faith, and 2 logic!
Regressionists believe that every question must have an answer, and anything that cannot be answered must not be true. Thus, their search for truth is based around asking the question "Why?" rather than "How?". They're also the most annoying type to have a conversation with.

"It's hot today."
"Why?"
"Because there's no clouds blocking the sun, and no wind to create a breeze."
"Why?"
"Because the vapors in the air haven't condensed enough to form clouds, and the wind patterns haven't shifted to our region."
"Why?"

And so on.

Famous regressionists include: Paul Feyerabend.

The opposite of Regressionism is Spiritualism.


http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=7951811862379420906


cheers :)

Are all 5 year olds Regressionists?

does anybody from the UK remember a cartoon years ago about a family of cavemen...and the wee girl would ask "why?" to everything somebody said, then say "ok, bye bye, i love you" (or similar) and run off?

Foundationalist
0 optimism, 1 faith, and 2 logic!
Foundationalists believe in logical, ordered opinions, built on other opinions. Building ideas is like building a house - you have to start at the most basic truths, and work your way up from there, otherwise it simply doesn't work. Thus, a foundationalist's entire goal is to find a single universal truth, that cannot be refuted by any argument. Once that truth has been found, everything else can fall into place. "I think, therefore I am" is often argued to be one of these basic truths.

Famous foundationalists include: Rene Descartes.

The opposite of Foundationalism is Realism.

It has been a while since I saw the Matrix, what do the red and blue pills do again?

The Red Pill shows you what the world is really like. The Blue Pill allows you to believe whatever you want to believe.

The Red Pill shows you what the world is really like. The Blue Pill allows you to believe whatever you want to believe.
Ahh thanks.

does anybody from the UK remember a cartoon years ago about a family of cavemen...and the wee girl would ask "why?" to everything somebody said, then say "ok, bye bye, i love you" (or similar) and run off?

No, I cannot saw I have.

Are all 5 year olds Regressionists?
great... i think like a 5 year old :rolleyes: :headbang:

Rationalist
3 optimism, 0 faith, and 5 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

But I already knew that, Go Leibniz!!!

great... i think like a 5 year old :rolleyes: :headbang:

Sorry, just the constant 'whys' reminded me of my sister when she was that age. I didn't mean anything by it.

Edit: Though thinking about it, it should hardly be a surprise for that conclusion to be drawn. Regresstionalism, that is 'regress' means to go back. Though it tends to have negative inferments (ie to go back to a less developed state) I don't see this as a hard or fast rule.

Rationalist
1 optimism, -3 faith, and 2 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.
Haha! Take that parents who said my career was an irrational choice!!! Eh? No? dammit...

Regression-"ism" is most likely a philosphy or religion consisting of the belief in reincarnation.

LOL Pure Metal - rock on with regressionism ;)

Spiritualist
3 optimism, 5 faith, and 0 logic!
Spiritualists rely on faith more than anything else. They will always believe in a supernatural power over scientific reasoning. Although they may worship different deities (God, Allah, Buddah, Zeus, and so on), the underlying philosophy is the same. Most spiritualists will seek higher answers in religious works, rather than philosophical reflection, and they tend to be fiercely devoted to their beliefs, even when all evidence points against it.

Famous spiritualists include: Blaise Pascal.

The opposite of Spiritualism is Regressionism.

Oh yes, to post my results:

Skeptic
-1 optimism, -2 faith, and 0 logic!
The skeptic constantly lives in a state of denial - everything is false until proven otherwise. Skeptics refuse to follow religion, since it relies on theories that cannot be proven true or false. Likewise, they refuse to believe in most scientific research, since logic is viewed as an inadequate measure of truth (Just because A = B, and B = C, there's no proof that A = C). Although they can sometimes be depressing to talk to, skeptics are vital to scientific advancements, since they constantly look for problems with new theories.

Famous skeptics include: David Hume, Rene Descartes.

The opposite of Skepticism is Optimism.

I'm looking in my Cambridge philosophy dictonary and not finding it "Regressionist". It might have another name though.

David Hume... Most depressing philosopher ever.

David Hume... Most depressing philosopher ever.
lol I can live with being compared to Pascal :D

lol I can live with being compared to Pascal :D

who! what! where! why! how! what going on :( who's Pascal?

who! what! where! why! how! what going on :( who's Pascal?
Blaise Pascal, french philosopher and mathmatician, Invented Pascals triangle. Also Invented a primitive version of the calculator

An... optimist?!!! LOL

OK one more question :p how was i comparing him to you?
The questionaire said he was a famous spiritualist, along with me. I was just saying how i don't mind being in the same group :D

Optimist
5 optimism, 3 faith, and 2 logic!
Optimists are a dying breed in this day and age. To the optimists, the world is a positive place. Everything is inherently good, and all things will work out in the end. They believe violence will one day be replaced with logic and reason, and that all religions can coexisist peacefully. These are the people who always see the glass half full, and believe that we live in the best possible world.

Famous optimists include: Gottfried Leibniz, William Godwin.

The opposite of Optimism is Skepticism

Well, and to think I thought I was a pessimist :eek: ;)

does anybody from the UK remember a cartoon years ago about a family of cavemen...and the wee girl would ask "why?" to everything somebody said, then say "ok, bye bye, i love you" (or similar) and run off?
They weren't usually cavemen. There was one episode where that was the case.

It was a little segment in the cartoon animaniacs. Mindy and Buttons. The dog was always appointed baby sitter and the kid would always get out of the harness and run around and the dog would save her from all these dangers and in the end, the dog would get yelled at for getting all dirty or covered in tar or something.

Rationalist
4 optimism, -3 faith, and 6 logic!

You scored higher than 75% on optimism

You scored higher than 1% on faith

You scored higher than 99% on logic.

But I detest Kant! :eek:

David Hume... Most depressing philosopher ever.

What on earth makes you say that. Hobbes is far more negative. Hume believes in humanity.

Oh PM. Regressionist is just a way of saying describing the analytical side of a dialectic philosophy. It really does not exist as a philosophy on its own. It is identified with the asking of why, of what caused this to be, to happen. This is usually only half of a philosophical position which would normally rebuild from the basic answers until you get to some unifying principle. (Synthesis)

I got a regressionist, but the test is a load of crap. There were about 5 or 6 questions I couldn't really answer because they didn't offer the proper rationale.

I scored as a Regressionist as well... And it definitely fits me...

In fact, it is one of my deeply held beliefs that "why?" is more important than "how?"... That exact thought has been running through my mind since long before I took this test today, so I know it isn't something planted there by the power of suggestion...

Optimism: 0, Faith: -1, Logic: 3

Although, I dispute these scores just a bit... I'm far more optimistic than that, I have even less faith, and I'd like to think I'm more logical...

However, the results are still very fitting...

I scored as a Regressionist as well... And it definitely fits me...

In fact, it is one of my deeply held beliefs that "why?" is more important than "how?"... That exact thought has been running through my mind since long before I took this test today, so I know it isn't something planted there by the power of suggestion...

thats precisely how i feel (and think)... which is why i want to find out about this supposed branch of philosophy

What on earth makes you say that. Hobbes is far more negative. Hume believes in humanity.

Oh PM. Regressionist is just a way of saying describing the analytical side of a dialectic philosophy. It really does not exist as a philosophy on its own. It is identified with the asking of why, of what caused this to be, to happen. This is usually only half of a philosophical position which would normally rebuild from the basic answers until you get to some unifying principle. (Synthesis)

As a philosopher Hume is depressing, I could care less for his politics or his view on human nature. He attacks, (doing a good job of it) the most fundamental way in which all humans think, not only that but his conception lables all sciences as irrational and baseless. That is why he is depressing, I need to read more Kant. :(

Rationalist
5 optimism, 0 faith, and 2 logic!

You scored higher than 99% on optimism

You scored higher than 99% on faith

You scored higher than 1% on logic

I'm with Spinoza. Cool! :)

As a philosopher Hume is depressing, I could care less for his politics or his view on human nature. He attacks, (doing a good job of it) the most fundamental way in which all humans think, not only that but his conception lables all sciences as irrational and baseless. That is why he is depressing, I need to read more Kant. :(

A huge misunderstanding of Hume.

What is the full title of the Treatise of Human Nature?
A treatise of Human Nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into Moral Subjects.

He does not attack the way in which humans think at all. He simply makes it clear that rationality is only one of the mental faculties, and one that is powerless by itself. It would appear that you, like many others, have obtained your opinion of Hume from a cursory reading of Book I of the Treatise without considering that this is just the first stage of a three stage process. His conclusions are that we have no scientific evidence for science, but this does not mean that science is baseless. It simply means that it is not based on itself, it is based on our nature and the way we think. In this sense there is no real difference in the way Hume views our notions of causality to the position taken by Kant. Both show the concept of causality to be a necessary ordering of our perceptions. Hume claims that this is a natural effect and Kant claims it is a logical one. (Kant's claim is actually much more dubious.)

You can only take Hume as being depressing if you take him to be a full blown ontological sceptic. If that is the case his own insistence on empirical evidence becomes very strange indeed, does it not. He denies the possibility of innate knowledge, he denies the possibility of a general abstract concept that is not a specific concept standing for all other specific examples. He does not, however, deny the possibility of knowledge as Kant does, he simply denies logical certainty about causality.

This is me:

Optimist
3 optimism, 2 faith, and 3 logic!
Optimists are a dying breed in this day and age. To the optimists, the world is a positive place. Everything is inherently good, and all things will work out in the end. They believe violence will one day be replaced with logic and reason, and that all religions can coexisist peacefully. These are the people who always see the glass half full, and believe that we live in the best possible world.

Famous optimists include: Gottfried Leibniz, William Godwin.

The opposite of Optimism is Skepticism.

You scored higher than 69% on optimism

You scored higher than 73% on faith

You scored higher than 58% on logic

Rationalist
3 optimism, 0 faith, and 5 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:


You scored higher than 70% on optimism

You scored higher than 50% on faith

You scored higher than 85% on logic

Interesting test!


Rationalist
1 optimism, 0 faith, and 2 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on optimism

You scored higher than 99% on faith

You scored higher than 99% on logic

Interesting test!


Rationalist
1 optimism, 0 faith, and 2 logic!
*snip*

You scored higher than 99% on optimism

You scored higher than 99% on faith

You scored higher than 99% on logic

I think that you are the only person in your age and gender group to have taken the test.

Rationalist
3 optimism, -2 faith, and 3 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.



My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:


You scored higher than 77% on optimism

You scored higher than 19% on faith

You scored higher than 61% on logic

Rationalist
2 optimism, -2 faith, and 7 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.

yay. thought my faith score would be considerably lower though. probably all that crazy "believing things exist" i do.

for everyone wanting to know what level of hell your going to:
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
im off to the 6th level of hell, the city of dis, where the rest of my heretical friends will be. it amused me quite a bit to find my christian friend was going to be sent to the deepest level of hell by his own god, whereas im going to merely going to level six despite my utter contempt for religion and active attempts to stop people believing in it.

Spiritualist
4 optimism, 7 faith, and -2 logic!

Spiritualists rely on faith more than anything else. They will always believe in a supernatural power over scientific reasoning. Although they may worship different deities (God, Allah, Buddah, Zeus, and so on), the underlying philosophy is the same. Most spiritualists will seek higher answers in religious works, rather than philosophical reflection, and they tend to be fiercely devoted to their beliefs, even when all evidence points against it.

Famous spiritualists include: Blaise Pascal.

The opposite of Spiritualism is Regressionism.

You scored higher than 79% on optimism

You scored higher than 98% on faith

You scored higher than 3% on logic

Hmm. Well I'm not surprised that I rank highly with faith, but the low logic score doesn't sound right. But aside from that, It was decently accurate... And optimism looks high, but I guess that goes with the whole faith thing.

Regressionist
0 optimism, -5 faith, and 5 logic!

Here's the wikipedia's explanation:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Regressionism is the tendency to invalidate the progressive approach towards arts and sciences or to undermine its being the only option for the development of western culture. It indeed puts in crisis the same concepts of linear time and development.

Regressionism evidently stems form a strong criticism of the very scientific system of knowledge and its methodologies, in this regard it can be solidly connected with a broad and hermeneutic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic) embracing of historicism which is a fundamental characteristic of a large portion of what’s being recognized as the post-modern culture. The regressionist man is opposed to the one idealised by futurism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28art%29). The latter, living at the fast pace of his industrialized world and obsessed with the idea of progress, has his climax when thoroughly integrated and identified with his machines: when at war. Often, reacting to this model, the regressionist man is a peaceful creature, in touch with his humanity and the environment, immersed in a cyclic time.

While in the visual arts regressionism has been a recurrent modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/modernism) and postmodernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism) theme on both a theoretical side and a practical one, in epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/epistemology) a strategy of knowledge that was freer and less rigorous then the modern scientific one and which accepted the influence and the contribution of supposedly surpassed or altenative systems of knowledge was first proposed by Paul K. Feyerabend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feyerabend) in his book “Against Method” (1975) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975).

Usually a reaction to globalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/globalisation) or a more subtle form of luddism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddism), regressionism is growing more popular and diffused in contemporary society and is manifesting itself in many forms of social production. Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism), steampunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk) and stuckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stuckism) are just a few nuances of a very complex, interdisciplinary and often discordant phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressionism

And some more:
http://www.answers.com/topic/paul-feyerabend
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/

does anybody from the UK remember a cartoon years ago about a family of cavemen...and the wee girl would ask "why?" to everything somebody said, then say "ok, bye bye, i love you" (or similar) and run off?
It was animaniacs I think. that little blonde girl with the dog who kept getting shouted at. I think it was buttons and cindy (sindy? sindi? cindi?) or something along those lines

Rationalist
2 optimism, -4 faith, and 5 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.


yea, i kinda knew that already ;)

So many rationalists... I knew this was a bad forum to start posting in :p

What am I? I didn't have to take it to know, I just needed to read the opening post :) By taking the test I only learned that my numbers are -2, -2, 1 :cool:

A huge misunderstanding of Hume.

What is the full title of the Treatise of Human Nature?


He does not attack the way in which humans think at all. He simply makes it clear that rationality is only one of the mental faculties, and one that is powerless by itself. It would appear that you, like many others, have obtained your opinion of Hume from a cursory reading of Book I of the Treatise without considering that this is just the first stage of a three stage process. His conclusions are that we have no scientific evidence for science, but this does not mean that science is baseless. It simply means that it is not based on itself, it is based on our nature and the way we think. In this sense there is no real difference in the way Hume views our notions of causality to the position taken by Kant. Both show the concept of causality to be a necessary ordering of our perceptions. Hume claims that this is a natural effect and Kant claims it is a logical one. (Kant's claim is actually much more dubious.)

You can only take Hume as being depressing if you take him to be a full blown ontological sceptic. If that is the case his own insistence on empirical evidence becomes very strange indeed, does it not. He denies the possibility of innate knowledge, he denies the possibility of a general abstract concept that is not a specific concept standing for all other specific examples. He does not, however, deny the possibility of knowledge as Kant does, he simply denies logical certainty about causality.

My choice of words was poor, the reason (see there it is again :( ) why I find him depressing is because, after completing several readings on Leibniz, I was feeling pretty good about rationalism. As you probably know Hume' observations are bad for poor Leibniz. Its a pain in the ass when you have to re-think resemblance, continuity and cause and effect, the most fundamental ways in which we think.

Still does not that lack of certainty, in regards to matters of fact, bother you?

My choice of words was poor, the reason (see there it is again :( ) why I find him depressing is because, after completing several readings on Leibniz, I was feeling pretty good about rationalism. As you probably know Hume' observations are bad for poor Leibniz. Its a pain in the ass when you have to re-think resemblance, continuity and cause and effect, the most fundamental ways in which we think.

If you find rethinking your position on central concepts a pain, why are you studying philosophy?

Hume did pretty much crucify Leibniz, but I don't think it was that deliberate, he was more attacking Shaftesbury et al.

Try to keep the two meanings of reason seperate in your mind when reading Hume. Reason as in motive is not the same as reason as in rationality for him. He almost never uses reason in the meaning of motive. He will say cause, or purpose, or intnet, but not reason.

If you want a depressing philosopher, or at least someone to describe as such, my opinion is that Kant fits this role very well. There is no passion, love, life or lust in his world. Just rationality and duty.

Still does not that lack of certainty, in regards to matters of fact, bother you?

I think I will let Hume answer that for himself.

But most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hour's amusement, I wou'd return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strain'd and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further.
(Treatise Book 1. Part IV, Section VII P. 269 in Nidditch)


The lack of certainty is only there when you try to prove it is there. In life it matters not.

It seems I'm a regressionist too. I wonder why that is?

I didnt' agree with most of the options on that test so I answered "I don't know" for most of them and I got rationalist. ?

I think I will let Hume answer that for himself.



The lack of certainty is only there when you try to prove it is there. In life it matters not.

Yes, lets just go fishing with Hume :) You would need to be a philosopher 24/7 in order for these ideas to really effect you.

Well, I not sure, his ideas upon early consideration are very persuasive, but I really need to explore this furthermore. I personally think that it would be most comforting if we could provide a principle of the uniformity of nature, without the use of induction :p or assumption.

Yes, lets just go fishing with Hume :) You would need to be a philosopher 24/7 in order for these ideas to really effect you.

Well, I not sure, his ideas upon early consideration are very persuasive, but I really need to explore this furthermore. I personally think that it would be most comforting if we could provide a principle of the uniformity of nature, without the use of induction :p or assumption.

We can find a principle of uniformity of human nature. We think causaly, we locate experiences in space and time. Whether or not these are features of some "reality" that we can not knowe about is completely irrelevant.

I prefer the Back-gammon to fishing. But otherwise :p

I think that you are the only person in your age and gender group to have taken the test.
LOL! I rather suspected it was something along those lines. Sad, being one of the only ancient dudes online, yes? :)

If you find rethinking your position on central concepts a pain, why are you studying philosophy?

Hume did pretty much crucify Leibniz, but I don't think it was that deliberate, he was more attacking Shaftesbury et al.

Try to keep the two meanings of reason seperate in your mind when reading Hume. Reason as in motive is not the same as reason as in rationality for him. He almost never uses reason in the meaning of motive. He will say cause, or purpose, or intnet, but not reason.

If you want a depressing philosopher, or at least someone to describe as such, my opinion is that Kant fits this role very well. There is no passion, love, life or lust in his world. Just rationality and duty.

I'm not unwilling to re-think or address the true nature of though, I want to give it consideration, it just sucks when what you once thought get burnt :p . This observation is important to philosophy.

lol, I know, I just got out of a lecture about Kant.

We can find a principle of uniformity of human nature. We think causaly, we locate experiences in space and time. Whether or not these are features of some "reality" that we can not knowe about is completely irrelevant.

I prefer the Back-gammon to fishing. But otherwise :p

So you aggree with Kants conclusion about "Phenomena" and "Noumana"

Regressionist
0 optimism, -5 faith, and 5 logic!

Here's the wikipedia's explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressionism

And some more:
http://www.answers.com/topic/paul-feyerabend
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/
w00t thank you :fluffle:

dunno why i couldn't find that on wikipedia last night... its always my first port of call for anything :D




The regressionist man is opposed to the one idealised by futurism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28art%29). The latter, living at the fast pace of his industrialized world and obsessed with the idea of progress, has his climax when thoroughly integrated and identified with his machines: when at war. Often, reacting to this model, the regressionist man is a peaceful creature, in touch with his humanity and the environment, immersed in a cyclic time

...is me to a T, and the whole belief about "why" being the most important question i also wholeheartedly subscribe to

Well, for what it's worth, here's mine:
Rationalist
1 optimism, -2 faith, and 4 logic!
Rationalism is the most scientific of the philosophies. No matter how bizarre something may seem, rationalists will always discount the supernatural. To them, there is no such thing as a mystical, otherworldly explanation for anything, no exceptions. Everything, no matter how strange, can be proven through science sooner or later. If something is genuine, there is an explanation for it.

Famous rationalists include: Baruch Spinoza.

The opposite of Rationalism is Existentialism.

w00t thank you :fluffle:

dunno why i couldn't find that on wikipedia last night... its always my first port of call for anything :D






...is me to a T, and the whole belief about "why" being the most important question i also wholeheartedly subscribe to

Yeah, I know. I had a hard time with google, my first resource of recourse. I found it in the about.com article on Feyerabend.

I'm still comsidering it. Parts of that description I agree with perfectly and parts I disagree with almost violently.

So you aggree with Kants conclusion about "Phenomena" and "Noumana"

Phenomena yes. The noumena part is just completely irrelevent and as such mental masturbation. But Kant wants God involved, so he has to have noumena.

Oversimplification I know, but I really do not like Kant very much. (The guy could have learnt to write clearly at least.)