Ok, correct me if I still don't understand you:
The gist of your argument, from my understanding and interpretation, is classical/standard definitions must be adhered to in philosophy and therefore positions should be adopted based on these classical/standard definitions. Even IF the things that are defined classically do not exist as defined classically. So it may well be the case that there are no absolute frames of reference (with regards to time), and therefore no universal present and no universal duration of past and of future, but the question of the existence of such present or past or future is irrelevant. You are a presentist not because a universal present necessarily exists but because, by [classical] definition, the present is the only moment of time that can exist whereas the future and the past cannot.
What am I still misunderstanding?
As for analogies: frankly, I'm not fond of analogies when used in arguments to support one's views, simply because analogies are often written in a way that is favorable to the author of the analogy. We can go on slightly adjusting the analogy, turn by turn, so that it always ends up supporting the author of the adjustment, but that's just an exercise in futility and really not worth it. I like them much more when they are used, instead, to illustrate a concept that's difficult to visualize in an abstract manner. They should only sparingly be used for argumentation purposes.
Regarding noumena vs. phenomena: If you define noumena as that which is independent of even the logical derivations based on observations, then I'm not sure noumena of anything can ever be known, so how would that be of any practical use? If there is an ultimate noumenal world out there (in the way you define it), and I'm sure there is, I don't really care about that world anyway as it doesn't seem to apply much to how we view and should view the world.
This philosopher, by the way, sees noumena the same way I view it:
https://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/20...d-noumena/
The gist of your argument, from my understanding and interpretation, is classical/standard definitions must be adhered to in philosophy and therefore positions should be adopted based on these classical/standard definitions. Even IF the things that are defined classically do not exist as defined classically. So it may well be the case that there are no absolute frames of reference (with regards to time), and therefore no universal present and no universal duration of past and of future, but the question of the existence of such present or past or future is irrelevant. You are a presentist not because a universal present necessarily exists but because, by [classical] definition, the present is the only moment of time that can exist whereas the future and the past cannot.
What am I still misunderstanding?
As for analogies: frankly, I'm not fond of analogies when used in arguments to support one's views, simply because analogies are often written in a way that is favorable to the author of the analogy. We can go on slightly adjusting the analogy, turn by turn, so that it always ends up supporting the author of the adjustment, but that's just an exercise in futility and really not worth it. I like them much more when they are used, instead, to illustrate a concept that's difficult to visualize in an abstract manner. They should only sparingly be used for argumentation purposes.
Regarding noumena vs. phenomena: If you define noumena as that which is independent of even the logical derivations based on observations, then I'm not sure noumena of anything can ever be known, so how would that be of any practical use? If there is an ultimate noumenal world out there (in the way you define it), and I'm sure there is, I don't really care about that world anyway as it doesn't seem to apply much to how we view and should view the world.
This philosopher, by the way, sees noumena the same way I view it:
https://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/20...d-noumena/
