Kant's Four Questions

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Viveka » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:21 am

1. But what is self evident and how does it relate to what we can know? It may be self evident that my foot hurts but how does that relate to the big picture which reveals the reality of my self in a universal context?
The Self-Evident has been stated by me before. The existence of other minds, the reality of free-will, the idea of an Intelligent Designer, first-person authority on the mind, speech, and body, Time as existing as the Three Durations of Future-Present-Past, and so on.
2. 3. How do you define the "good?" for example is Havel's observation accurate? What is best?
"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good." Vaclav Havel
The Good is the end of all pursuits and willing, but can become obscured mainly by ignorance, desire, and aversion.
4. What are the right conditions necessary to become human? Are they created through societal education or by remembering their purpose and acquiring the wisdom to live their value?

Kant's question seem simple but IMO they force us to admit what we don't know and understand and how easy it is to hide our ignorance with the condescending cloak of education.
Karma, I think. To live one's value is Karma, be it good or bad. The human rebirth is most precious and we can get a glimpse of all of the realms besides human through the human circumstance and conditions.
Last edited by Viveka on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:23 am

What can I know All that is within the realm of thought or of experience
What do I have to do Observe with the senses and analyse with the mind
What can I hope for Anything that is achievable instead of just desirable
What is the human being A conscious entity whose existence is temporary

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dapplegrim » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:03 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:04 pm
Dapplegrim wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:45 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:43 am
18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant tried to answer four questions in his philosophy:
1. What can I know? That you know nothing.
2. What do I have to do? Get a life.
3. What can I hope for? Happiness, but in your case it could be a bit of a long shot.
4. What is the human being? You, hopefully!

I agree that the most essential foundation upon which wisdom is acquired at the expense of education is the realization that we know nothing.

2. What does it mean to "get a life" that reflects the love of wisdom? One uses one's wisdome to maximise happiness

3. In your opinion Ii the goal of wisdom in contrast to education the pursuit of happiness or of meaning?

. Happiness definitely. Things only have meaning if they can be used in the pursuit of happiness.
4. I match the educated definition of a human being but am I really so in the context of wisdom?

Life is to be experienced. Writing and education is just a tool for enhancing that experience.
Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”
Are we really human if we live by education and without what is essential to acquire human wisdom or are we really just pre-human?

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:52 am

Dapplegrim wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:03 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:04 pm
Dapplegrim wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:45 pm
I agree that the most essential foundation upon which wisdom is acquired at the expense of education is the realization that we know nothing.

2. What does it mean to "get a life" that reflects the love of wisdom? One uses one's wisdome to maximise happiness

3. In your opinion Ii the goal of wisdom in contrast to education the pursuit of happiness or of meaning?

. Happiness definitely. Things only have meaning if they can be used in the pursuit of happiness.
4. I match the educated definition of a human being but am I really so in the context of wisdom?

Life is to be experienced. Writing and education is just a tool for enhancing that experience.
Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”
Are we really human if we live by education and without what is essential to acquire human wisdom or are we really just pre-human?
This isn't so easy. You suggest that human purpose and meaning is achieved through the pursuit of happiness. What of the artist who devotes their life and their societal happiness to the often ridiculed expression of their art? What of those like Bobby fisher who sacrificed worldly happiness for the game of chess.

Then there is the biblical parable of the pearl of great price in Matthew 13:

4
4 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
Are such people sacrificing the worldly experience of happiness attracted to a human calling greater than happiness?

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dapplegrim » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:02 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:52 am
Dapplegrim wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:03 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:04 pm


I agree that the most essential foundation upon which wisdom is acquired at the expense of education is the realization that we know nothing.

2. What does it mean to "get a life" that reflects the love of wisdom? One uses one's wisdome to maximise happiness

3. In your opinion Ii the goal of wisdom in contrast to education the pursuit of happiness or of meaning?

. Happiness definitely. Things only have meaning if they can be used in the pursuit of happiness.
4. I match the educated definition of a human being but am I really so in the context of wisdom?

Life is to be experienced. Writing and education is just a tool for enhancing that experience.



Are we really human if we live by education and without what is essential to acquire human wisdom or are we really just pre-human?
This isn't so easy. You suggest that human purpose and meaning is achieved through the pursuit of happiness. What of the artist who devotes their life and their societal happiness to the often ridiculed expression of their art? What of those like Bobby fisher who sacrificed worldly happiness for the game of chess.

Then there is the biblical parable of the pearl of great price in Matthew 13:

4
4 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
Are such people sacrificing the worldly experience of happiness attracted to a human calling greater than happiness?
Happiness can be an elusive goal. Also it is not what other people think will bring happiness, nor even what will actually bring them happiness; a person makes decisions on what they believe will bring them happiness. And that will depend upon their character as well as their circumstances.

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:06 am

Viveka
The Good is the end of all pursuits and willing, but can become obscured mainly by ignorance, desire, and aversion.
Can you equate what you've written with what Simone Weil wrote?
“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil
Do you agree that the horrors of war are a quality of the good that remains obscured for us?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:02 am

1. What can I know? "Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
2. What do I have to do? "Basically, to shut up."
3. What can I hope for? "Some brains."
4. What is the human being? "A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours. Or maybe it's a human being is a mammalian species that eats shoots and leaves. If you have to ask, you are in deep doo doo. I have yet to meet a human being who asked what a human being were. In fact, many asked "who am I", and that already assumes they are human beings. To be unsure and not be able to differentiate between a human being and a loaf of bread, or the Eiffel tower, or a mollusk, does not a philosopher make."

These answers are not meant to apply to Nick_A but to Kant.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:12 am

Dapplegrim wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:02 am
This isn't so easy. You suggest that human purpose and meaning is achieved through the pursuit of happiness. What of the artist who devotes their life and their societal happiness to the often ridiculed expression of their art? What of those like Bobby fisher who sacrificed worldly happiness for the game of chess.
It's actually easy. You did not deny the proposition, because in your criticism you did point out a ranking system; you did point out that "societal happiness" is secondary to "creative happiness" for an artist, and you are judging (ufairly) that societal happiness ought to top artistic happiness or creative happiness.

You also claim, also unfairly, that Bobby Fisher made the wrong choice when he prioritized "worldy happiness" less important than "chess happiness".

That's the beauty of the pursuit of happiness: it can be individualized, and made into a personal quest instead of following a cookie-cutter happiness that applies to all humans equally.

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dapplegrim » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:12 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:12 am
Dapplegrim wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:02 am
This isn't so easy. You suggest that human purpose and meaning is achieved through the pursuit of happiness. What of the artist who devotes their life and their societal happiness to the often ridiculed expression of their art? What of those like Bobby fisher who sacrificed worldly happiness for the game of chess.
It's actually easy. You did not deny the proposition, because in your criticism you did point out a ranking system; you did point out that "societal happiness" is secondary to "creative happiness" for an artist, and you are judging (ufairly) that societal happiness ought to top artistic happiness or creative happiness.

You also claim, also unfairly, that Bobby Fisher made the wrong choice when he prioritized "worldy happiness" less important than "chess happiness".

That's the beauty of the pursuit of happiness: it can be individualized, and made into a personal quest instead of following a cookie-cutter happiness that applies to all humans equally.
I didnt write any of what you have quoted me as saying.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:17 pm

Dapplegrim wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:12 am
I didnt write any of what you have quoted me as saying.
You are right, in this. I made a mistake. I apologize.

What I attributed to you I think Nick_A wrote. At least I think it was Nick-A. But I could be mistaken again.

I got completely confused by the quoting system. Quoted, blued, referenced, re-quoted -- too much for my old mind.

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:46 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:02 am
1. What can I know? "Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
2. What do I have to do? "Basically, to shut up."
3. What can I hope for? "Some brains."
4. What is the human being? "A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours. Or maybe it's a human being is a mammalian species that eats shoots and leaves. If you have to ask, you are in deep doo doo. I have yet to meet a human being who asked what a human being were. In fact, many asked "who am I", and that already assumes they are human beings. To be unsure and not be able to differentiate between a human being and a loaf of bread, or the Eiffel tower, or a mollusk, does not a philosopher make."

These answers are not meant to apply to Nick_A but to Kant.
Why are you so hard on yourself? I presume you consider yourself a human being. If so why just shut up? Is your greatest hope really for just some brains? Why do you consider yourself only ""A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours."? You must be worth something even if you don't believe it.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:10 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:46 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:02 am
1. What can I know? "Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
2. What do I have to do? "Basically, to shut up."
3. What can I hope for? "Some brains."
4. What is the human being? "A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours. Or maybe it's a human being is a mammalian species that eats shoots and leaves. If you have to ask, you are in deep doo doo. I have yet to meet a human being who asked what a human being were. In fact, many asked "who am I", and that already assumes they are human beings. To be unsure and not be able to differentiate between a human being and a loaf of bread, or the Eiffel tower, or a mollusk, does not a philosopher make."

These answers are not meant to apply to Nick_A but to Kant.
Why are you so hard on yourself? I presume you consider yourself a human being. If so why just shut up? Is your greatest hope really for just some brains? Why do you consider yourself only ""A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours."? You must be worth something even if you don't believe it.
Nick_A, you are one of the users here who read the first sentence of a write, and assume that the write does not develop into anything else. Well, surprize: oftentimes it does. I suggest you read through my posts before your make an arse of yourself by acting as a condescending boob, because the first sentence I write and you read may not be so totally indicative of my message.

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:16 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:10 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:46 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:02 am
1. What can I know? "Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
2. What do I have to do? "Basically, to shut up."
3. What can I hope for? "Some brains."
4. What is the human being? "A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours. Or maybe it's a human being is a mammalian species that eats shoots and leaves. If you have to ask, you are in deep doo doo. I have yet to meet a human being who asked what a human being were. In fact, many asked "who am I", and that already assumes they are human beings. To be unsure and not be able to differentiate between a human being and a loaf of bread, or the Eiffel tower, or a mollusk, does not a philosopher make."

These answers are not meant to apply to Nick_A but to Kant.
Why are you so hard on yourself? I presume you consider yourself a human being. If so why just shut up? Is your greatest hope really for just some brains? Why do you consider yourself only ""A piece of trash that stands on the mantle, and occasionally chimes the hour and the fifteen-minute interval points between hours."? You must be worth something even if you don't believe it.
Nick_A, you are one of the users here who read the first sentence of a write, and assume that the write does not develop into anything else. Well, surprize: oftentimes it does. I suggest you read through my posts before your make an arse of yourself by acting as a condescending boob, because the first sentence I write and you read may not be so totally indicative of my message.
Most replies I've read dealing with topics like this on this site are concerned with what humans do. This is the norm for educated people. The educated are concerned with what humans do. You are writing as an educated person.

People of wisdom in contrast are concerned with what they do as opposed to what humans do. The purpose of this thread is to discriminate between what educated people and what people of wisdom do in pondering Kant's questions. It has become evident that there is a great difference between the understanding of educated people and people of wisdom. Why this is so is an important question for those concerned with the value of philosophy.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:29 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:16 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:10 pm
Nick_A, you are one of the users here who read the first sentence of a write, and assume that the write does not develop into anything else. Well, surprize: oftentimes it does. I suggest you read through my posts before your make an arse of yourself by acting as a condescending boob, because the first sentence I write and you read may not be so totally indicative of my message.
Most replies I've read dealing with topics like this on this site are concerned with what humans do. This is the norm for educated people. The educated are concerned with what humans do. You are writing as an educated person.

People of wisdom in contrast are concerned with what they do as opposed to what humans do. The purpose of this thread is to discriminate between what educated people and what people of wisdom do in pondering Kant's questions. It has become evident that there is a great difference between the understanding of educated people and people of wisdom. Why this is so is an important question for those concerned with the value of philosophy.
Okay, you quickly turned the subject when slipping is a real hazard. But I am game.

Wisdom, as I understand you understand it, is a knowledge. an applicable knowledge, and oft applied knowledge of the universe and human relationships in their dynamics, as the faith of a god-fearing person might allow. This includes, necessarily, a faith in god, and a willingness and eagerness to get to know god and what it wants the faithful to do. And perhaps the unfaithful.

But this is not going to stick with me, for the obvious reason that I believe there is no god. Your definition, if I got it right (which is not guaranteed, please correct me if I was wrong above), excludes your people of wisdom from those I'd call wise, and vice versa.

So... What's the next topic.

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:49 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:29 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:16 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:10 pm
Nick_A, you are one of the users here who read the first sentence of a write, and assume that the write does not develop into anything else. Well, surprize: oftentimes it does. I suggest you read through my posts before your make an arse of yourself by acting as a condescending boob, because the first sentence I write and you read may not be so totally indicative of my message.
Most replies I've read dealing with topics like this on this site are concerned with what humans do. This is the norm for educated people. The educated are concerned with what humans do. You are writing as an educated person.

People of wisdom in contrast are concerned with what they do as opposed to what humans do. The purpose of this thread is to discriminate between what educated people and what people of wisdom do in pondering Kant's questions. It has become evident that there is a great difference between the understanding of educated people and people of wisdom. Why this is so is an important question for those concerned with the value of philosophy.
Okay, you quickly turned the subject when slipping is a real hazard. But I am game.

Wisdom, as I understand you understand it, is a knowledge. an applicable knowledge, and oft applied knowledge of the universe and human relationships in their dynamics, as the faith of a god-fearing person might allow. This includes, necessarily, a faith in god, and a willingness and eagerness to get to know god and what it wants the faithful to do. And perhaps the unfaithful.

But this is not going to stick with me, for the obvious reason that I believe there is no god. Your definition, if I got it right (which is not guaranteed, please correct me if I was wrong above), excludes your people of wisdom from those I'd call wise, and vice versa.

So... What's the next topic.
The topic is still the same. Nothing has changed. Here again is the essential question from the OP:
Philosophy for Plato is the love of wisdom. The philosopher is the friend of or lover of wisdom. What would it take for a philosopher to answer Kant’s questions as expressions of wisdom as opposed to educated sophistry?
We appreciate wisdom differently. The beginning of the Serenity Prayer really expresses my understanding of wisdom:
God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
A person can argue about what humans do as much as they like but the wisdom that deals with Kant’s questions is acquired from experiential knowledge – from efforts to “know thyself” or have the impartial experience of oneself. Most prefer to argue about what humans do. It is the way of education. Only a minority have a love of wisdom sufficient to become open to the way of wisdom.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests