Kant's Four Questions

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:23 pm

Dubious wrote
"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”
We may not comprehend it but if a person opens to the direction leading to knowledge it will change everything. That is why sacred music is intolerable for some. It opens our being to what our personality is trying to block to sustain its dominance.

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:04 am

Socrates said: I know nothing

Kant asked: What can I know?

The last sentence Simone Weil wrote in the notebook found after her death was: "The most important part of education--to teach the meaning of to know."

Can these three observations be reconciled as one in the cause of human education? IMO modern society is collectively incapable of such a human reconciliation. There is too much education opposing it. Kant’s question will only be objectively answered by a relative few. The majority will argue over what they know without appreciating what it means “to know.”

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:39 am

Oh, I want to tilt at this;

1. What can I know?
I know myself, through knowing that I know nothing, and in turn I am Nothing unless I make myself something.

2. What do I have to do?
I have to do what makes sense at the time, and in accord with my then present beliefs/virtues given the circumstances in which events present themselves.

3. What can I hope for?
What I can hope for is a resolution to any given event that perturbs me, or rejoices me in a way that allows me continue acting in a manner consistent with my beliefs/virtues that are always under revision.

4. What is the human being?
In turn, a human being is an actor that must affect a cause, or endure an effect with the knowledge and understanding that they presently have.

Overall, too dumb to know better, smart enough to know the difference, wise enough to make the decision.

Not necessary to appeal to a deity, but said focus allows a lens to cohere as to allow an issue to resolve itself. It's like an appeal to the "process" of life. That there are other actors who act in seen, and unseen manners that influence the same events we are privy to.

Just my thoughts, though.

..., and a thought regarding the notion of music, if music can change your moods so drastically, are you really in "control" as much as you think you are? This is an appeal/recognition of outside powers (not necessarily God), but a realization that one may need to search within more. For if music can affect one, what can affect one with the same level? Propaganda? Subliminal messages? Hateful Rhetoric? Little, and casual goads?

Meaning, it may be a potential call to build new values, for oneself. Not necessary to just sit back and "recognize/understand". One has to act.

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:38 am

Plato's Rock wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:39 am
Oh, I want to tilt at this;

1. What can I know?
I know myself, through knowing that I know nothing, and in turn I am Nothing unless I make myself something.

2. What do I have to do?
I have to do what makes sense at the time, and in accord with my then present beliefs/virtues given the circumstances in which events present themselves.

3. What can I hope for?
What I can hope for is a resolution to any given event that perturbs me, or rejoices me in a way that allows me continue acting in a manner consistent with my beliefs/virtues that are always under revision.

4. What is the human being?
In turn, a human being is an actor that must affect a cause, or endure an effect with the knowledge and understanding that they presently have.

Overall, too dumb to know better, smart enough to know the difference, wise enough to make the decision.

Not necessary to appeal to a deity, but said focus allows a lens to cohere as to allow an issue to resolve itself. It's like an appeal to the "process" of life. That there are other actors who act in seen, and unseen manners that influence the same events we are privy to.

Just my thoughts, though.

..., and a thought regarding the notion of music, if music can change your moods so drastically, are you really in "control" as much as you think you are? This is an appeal/recognition of outside powers (not necessarily God), but a realization that one may need to search within more. For if music can affect one, what can affect one with the same level? Propaganda? Subliminal messages? Hateful Rhetoric? Little, and casual goads?

Meaning, it may be a potential call to build new values, for oneself. Not necessary to just sit back and "recognize/understand". One has to act.

Let’s see if I understand this. You admit that you know nothing until you make yourself something built on knowledge of nothing but ever changing subjective opinions which change moment to moment.

You can hope to experience momentary resolution to ever changing circumstances together with ever changing beliefs. This organism called human being must try to cause what it doesn’t understand only to please momentary beliefs. For example, a man can awaken in the morning and proclaim his everlasting love for his wife. Then if he learns that she is cheating n him feels justified justified in killing her. Makes sense.

It isn't necessary to appeal to a deity for this quality of reasoning. We are capable of it on our own.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:20 pm

Sure, it's just as subjective as believing in God..what god, who's god, what flavor of god would you like? A person has to place an ontological cornerstone somewhere, some choose religion others choose culture...to me that ontological cornerstone could just likely be a grand ol' "lie" (lie here being an old fundamental "truth") to convince ourselves of certain beliefs. And if we're not moving towards the truth that is enabled by said deceit are we actually growing wiser?

I mean isn't it just as conceivable that if you were raised in a Hindu household, you'd believe in Shiva more than Jesus/God?

Why not believe in "Nothing", call it "Nothing" cause that's what it is, and realize every instance in the world is sort of a fabrication of someone elses whimsy? Appeals to "historical precedent" seem like an appeal to authority..."My book is Older thus it is better!". We can neither confirm, nor deny the existence of God, or Jesus. Only reputable artifacts, and understandings that are conveyed to us through our then present Ontology/Understanding/Worldview.

Doesn't mean it's the "best" way... just a way to do so. It's like believing in "Plato's Cave Allegory"...it's a metaphor meant to portray truth. Doesn't mean it's true, or truth in itself.

As an appeal, Nietzsche argued that Christianity destroyed itself, or will destroy itself over time. In my point of view, Christianity may be able to "redeem" itself over time too.

Ex; A person can't ask a dark age peasant what they thought Heaven was, or what God was like. And if they did it was influenced by the then Cultural Zeitgeist. Jesus/God is like a King, but the Most Benevolent king a person could imagine. And that imagination is based upon the experiences that a person has had up until that point. Ask someone today, what Heaven is like in their conceptions..., and you hit a wall. Same if not similar to asking what Hell is like. It's a changing metaphor. At least from my experience.

Even the idea of crossing into heaven is a little odd. Is there a "loading screen"? Some people say "Limbo", but that wasn't until after Dante's Divine Comedy with purgatory. Catholics don't make a stance on Limbo as far as I can remember (although I'm extremely rusty here).

Dubious
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Dubious » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:58 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:23 pm
Dubious wrote
"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”
We may not comprehend it but if a person opens to the direction leading to knowledge it will change everything. That is why sacred music is intolerable for some. It opens our being to what our personality is trying to block to sustain its dominance.
No it wasn't me. Look back a page. Also, what you wrote makes no sense in context.

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:55 am

Plato's Rock wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:20 pm

Sure, it's just as subjective as believing in God..what god, who's god, what flavor of god would you like? A person has to place an ontological cornerstone somewhere, some choose religion others choose culture...to me that ontological cornerstone could just likely be a grand ol' "lie" (lie here being an old fundamental "truth") to convince ourselves of certain beliefs. And if we're not moving towards the truth that is enabled by said deceit are we actually growing wiser?

I mean isn't it just as conceivable that if you were raised in a Hindu household, you'd believe in Shiva more than Jesus/God?

Why not believe in "Nothing", call it "Nothing" cause that's what it is, and realize every instance in the world is sort of a fabrication of someone elses whimsy? Appeals to "historical precedent" seem like an appeal to authority..."My book is Older thus it is better!". We can neither confirm, nor deny the existence of God, or Jesus. Only reputable artifacts, and understandings that are conveyed to us through our then present Ontology/Understanding/Worldview.

Doesn't mean it's the "best" way... just a way to do so. It's like believing in "Plato's Cave Allegory"...it's a metaphor meant to portray truth. Doesn't mean it's true, or truth in itself.

As an appeal, Nietzsche argued that Christianity destroyed itself, or will destroy itself over time. In my point of view, Christianity may be able to "redeem" itself over time too.

Ex; A person can't ask a dark age peasant what they thought Heaven was, or what God was like. And if they did it was influenced by the then Cultural Zeitgeist. Jesus/God is like a King, but the Most Benevolent king a person could imagine. And that imagination is based upon the experiences that a person has had up until that point. Ask someone today, what Heaven is like in their conceptions..., and you hit a wall. Same if not similar to asking what Hell is like. It's a changing metaphor. At least from my experience.

Even the idea of crossing into heaven is a little odd. Is there a "loading screen"? Some people say "Limbo", but that wasn't until after Dante's Divine Comedy with purgatory. Catholics don't make a stance on Limbo as far as I can remember (although I'm extremely rusty here).
Plato's Rock
Why not believe in "Nothing", call it "Nothing" cause that's what it is, and realize every instance in the world is sort of a fabrication of someone elses whimsy? Appeals to "historical precedent" seem like an appeal to authority..."My book is Older thus it is better!". We can neither confirm, nor deny the existence of God, or Jesus. Only reputable artifacts, and understandings that are conveyed to us through our then present Ontology/Understanding/Worldview.

Could we also agree that nothing in the world satisfies the need for meaning existing at the depth of our being. I agree that it is foolish to blindly believe in false gods but they dominate the world as well. If Socrates was right to say "I know nothing," why blindly believe? Are you capable of disbelieving in the false gods of the world regardless of their origin so as to save a space within your psyche to receive a real experience? Simone explains what I mean

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:49 am

Nothing, itself, does satisfy a fundamental meaning for existence at the depth of our being. I don't mean that there is no "value" to "nothingness". Nothing is a positive value when taken in a second case. The first being this thing is "worthless". The second case is, in my opinion, that yes this thing is "worthless", but it is in the "Eye of the Beholder" to determine worth. It is a subjective appraisal.

Take any rock, or stone for instance, in itself it is worthless...it's a rock, right? And yet, in the hands of a "beholder/creator/intelligent being"....it may become something. A wall for a house? A foundation in a building? A projectile for hunting? What sort of uses can you think of for a "rock"? Computers are another...the silicon in the components..., or if you want to get "special". The elemental composition of every rock varies, and thus every rock may be appraised differently. Gems, rocks. Lenses for lasers/optics...rocks...polished rocks...whatever.

Thus when I think Socrates was "right" to say "I know Nothing"...it should be interpreted solely not as a declaration ignorance/limits of awareness, but in adjunct that "this can mean no-thing". I know that I am "no-thing" that is "Nothing" until I make myself "something". I am "Dust" that came from "Dust". And yet, even though I am dust, I have choices to make. Do I choose to act upon this life, or do I choose to not do so? I know "No-Thing"...I have embraced, and recognized my Mortality.

And regarding "False Gods"....who determines which ones are False? History, the believers, or the "non-believers".

For a fun thought, consider the notions of "Existentialism"; Existence precedes Essence. That phrase could be an affirmation of a material universe in which we can, or may act. We are born before we're aware. As a child did you think of this stuff, in as much detail? I would feel safe in assuming no.

In the end, I don't think reality can be argued down to an "Either/or" case. It's not all materialist, and it's not all Idealist. It's a smattering of both, for both concepts exist.

And to give you a clue as to my "theological position". I think that "God" is a process, and an Ideal. Not a static Object. If it's possible to have a personal relationship to deity. Then it would make sense that each and every single individual has the ability/right to relate in their own terms. To me the Ideal of God is a state I can aim towards. A sense of Beatitude which even the Catholics assert is a thing...Saints. Thus in striving to be a better "me", and to actualize myself in accord with myself, and understandings...am I not serving the "good"? The Church doesn't decide who's worthy of salvation, only God does, right?

“Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.” -Friedrich Nietzsche

Note: I am not saying "I am God", which I've been accused of before, but more of "I can be a Friend of God, and create my own values that may be of worth".

Further, I don't believe in "False Gods"...there are only "gods/ideals". I believe in "My God" (If you wish to use that label), but "My God" is not the "sole God". Evangelism, as per definition, is about spreading the "Word" of God. Not God. The word, the idea...not necessary the God itself. For that may be a form of Idolatry.

Just like "Christ" meant anointed one in ancient Greek. It shouldn't be confused for name/identity...it's a title. Anyone may have a title.

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:09 am

Plato’s Rock, I like the way you reason. I’ve found all too often that there is something about deeper conversations which make some people go berzerk with denial. You seem to appreciate the paradox rather than condemn it
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” Kierkegaard.
Perhaps we can build on this conversation. You wrote that the value of nothing is purely subjective. I take this to mean that you deny objective value as explained in the great chain of being.

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/12 ... 0chain.htm
In their 1936 work, The Great Chain of Being: The History of an Idea, the scholars E. M. W. Tillyard and A. O. Lovejoy argued that ancient and medieval thought was shaped by particular ideological framework known as the "The Chain of Being." Sometimes called the Scala Natura (scale of nature), this view saw all of creation existing within a universal hierarchy that stretched from God (or immutable perfection) at its highest point to inanimate matter at its lowest. One can see something of this hierarchy in Plato's ranking of human souls in the Phaedrus, but also in Aristotle's notion that the capacity to act upon reason rather than instinct distinguishes human beings from animals.

Indeed, each link in the Great Chain of Being represented a distinct category of living creature or form of matter. Those creatures or things higher on the Chain possessed greater intellect, movement, and ability than those placed below. Thus each being in the Chain possessed all of the attributes of what was below plus an additional, superior attribute:

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

As a result of this hierarchy, creatures and things on a higher level were believed to possess more authority over lower ones. Plants, for instance, were believed to have authority over the minerals in the soil. They were superior to minerals because, unlike inert matter, they were alive and capable of growth. Consequently, they had God’s sanction to draw nutrients from the earth and grow upon it, while the minerals and soil existed to support plants. Similarly, animals--a step higher on the Chain of Being--were thought to have authority over both inanimate plants and minerals. So horses could trod on rocks and earth and eat plants. Humans in turn were believed to possess greater attributes than animals. Thus it was proper for them to rule over the rest of the natural world. Similarly, spiritual beings like angels and God had greater ability than humanity and so ruled over and controlled humanity as well as the rest of the animal and the inanimate world.
I’m not asking you to believe it but are you open to it as a potential in which rocks have a purpose along the great chain of being?
Ecclesiastes 1:14: “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”


You seem to be making the same point as Solomon that it is all meaningless. Solomon also claims it is all meaningless under the sun.

Plato’s divided line separates the intellectual realm from the visible. The visible realm is the domain of opinions while above the line the intellectual realm which is unseen is the domain of knowledge and objective meaning or the unity which devolves into opinions.

So I agree with you that as we are under the sun we are nothing. We serve as creatures of reaction transforming substances through our bodily processes as does the rest of organic life. But does this mean we are incapable of conscious evolution? Is there any reason to deny our conscious potential to become a quality of being that doesn’t exist under the sun but above the divided line and able to express objective human meaning and purpose rather than acquired indoctrinated opinions?

I’m not asking you to believe it but are you closed to the possibility?

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:09 am

Well, it happens to help if you've been diagnosed and treated as "insane" for ~7 years both by others, and yourself as a result of said treatment. Especially to find an appreciation of paradox because you can gain more lateral room to maneuver in thought/ideas/life. I wouldn't advise going down said route, but it's something I've dealt with. And regarding the "berserk" button, imagine if you had to defend the foundations of your life without knowing why, or what they're founded upon...it essentially ends up with "Because I said so" if they're kids asking...adults not so much. Anger/confrontation would seem to be a reasonable response in that light, would it not? Don't ask me questions to answers/thoughts I haven't visited upon myself, or even considered because I have a nice cushy life already!

As my Dad says, mind over matter,...and once you lose your mind it just doesn't matter. Say/do act weird, be different, and well it's my "condition". Draws off some of the fire.

Onto the topic at hand; With the notion of objective value explained by the great chain of being, who demarcated it? In the first sentence of your second quote it mentions peoples names, and they refer to their work as an argument for "medieval thought" shaped by "ideology". Given the thought of Medieval ideas, one has to take into account context of the time they're referring to (this is sort of applying postmodernist thought, I think). One has to consider how society was arranged, Kings -> all the way down to peasants who weren't really educated, and afforded few/little privileges of "nobility". The Church was supposed to be a "separate" structure of society, but a lot of "unlanded sons" of nobility ended up in said edifice. Now given this, would it not make sense to orient it as a chain of being with a certain figure at the top, and some sort of causation/rationale for those below? Have to remember Divine Right was meant as a Justification for Kings/Emperors. "I am King because I am born to this position, and because I am lucky to have done so". Not because their ancestors used force/coercion to take "leadership".

As a counter question, if Matter/Rocks are so destitute why is it that such material rights are so strongly fought over? Why do Kings, and Princes fight over land? Why do present day corporations, and by extension CEO's/Presidents...etc work so hard to accumulate wealth/prestige....Why do Churches need "donations"? Shouldn't, or better yet, couldn't the believers work to maintain their own sacred Temples voluntarily? You know if you're a carpenter, and a devout Christian...fix the door for free? (type notions).

So if the "Great Chain of Being" is like a "Food Chain" in who can exploit what with no repercussions...who's going to define it to suit their interests? And given our personal physical characteristics (excluding mental/social)...we should be justifying Bears/Sharks/Lions eating us by that logic, shouldn't we?

Simple, but stupid question; Isn't Plato's Divided Line, Plato's Opinion? It is a "rational construct/model", but it's still his personal model. Not mine.

I don't think there is such a thing as "Conscious Evolution" because logically those terms shouldn't connect that way. "Evolution" is, as far as I know from a couple semesters in College Biology courses, stumbling drunk in an alley. There is no conscious intent behind evolution itself. There's "natural selection" where it's "environmental/uncontrolled factors", and "artificial selection" where there is "outside elements" (Like humans throwing back Samurai Crabs because to us they seem to have a face https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heikegani ).

At best, you could thus argue for "artificial selection"...which I'll readily admit to with humans too. The Media, Popular Opinion...etc...causes an "artificial basis" of discrimination for reproduction. Like "Blue eyes are in this season, or beards are out, but denim is..."...although one probably could argue that is "natural selection" in a contrived manner too....possibly.

If there is a "conscious factor" that is working according to a plan, or design, it is then an argument for "intelligent design". And if that is the case, why not make an analogy that "I'm intelligent, and I design stuff with some intent." Therefore, if "I get smarter, work harder, apply myself more...etc"....I could in theory ...(Omega Point...whatever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point ).

..., and overall, a person can believe whatever, it just doesn't guarantee that it is true/absolute/objective. I'm perfectly valid in my belief of "Substrate independent minds" (SIM), or "Everyone is an alien" in the sense they may be an "Other" that is not privy to my "sense of Self". One may, or may not be true...don't know yet (SIM). The later sort of makes sense, but could be worded "more appropriately". Yet that in itself doesn't really matter now, does it?

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:18 am

You don’t seem insane to me. If so we need more insane people.You have probably asked annoying questions which respectable people find intolerable. True seekers of truth strive to experience the contradiction. Simone Weil provides a beautiful explanation for the value of the contradiction experienced with impartiality.
"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door."
It has become normal to resolve contradictions by lies which is why a seeker of truth is considered dangerous. This person is like the kid who uttered these fabled words leading to him being boiled in oil: “The Emperor has no clothes.”

Are you familiar with the expression: “The human condition?” It explains why even if the universe makes perfect sense, we are closed to experiencing it.

A normal balanced human being would have three main parts: mind, heart (emotions) and body. A normal human being would be governed by their mind. Emotions would provide the force necessary manifest the ideas and the body would be the means to carry out these ideas. But the fallen human condition has turned us upside down. We are led by bodily desires while our emotions serve the purpose of self justification and our mind rationalizes the importance of self justification.

You’ve provided many examples of our absurdity but what else can be expected for collective humanity suffering the fallen human condition?

All of the great traditions refer to awakening in one form or another. They suggest we are asleep to reality. The only way to make our hypocrisy tolerable is through imagination. How can we go through life if we consciously witness our nothingness sustained through imagination? Talk about going insane. That will do it. But there is a minority of people who are seekers of truth and strive to awaken to reality. How can they verify reality and avoid falling into imagination? It begins with the conscious efforts to “know thyself” in place of our acquired tendency to imagine ourselves.

Does conscious evolution exist? Efforts at self knowledge can prove that the quality of our consciousness changes. One moment I can say “it is sitting at the computer and I am conscious of it. Momentarily I am self aware. But when I entered the room it was just the result of a sequence of events. Consciousness was unnecessary. If I have witnessed that the freedom of conscious self awareness is possible, what are its limits? I don’t know but I do know it is possible as opposed to altered states of consciousness.

What is your goal for philosophy? Why are you interested in it? Is your interest aimed at furthering your denial of objective meaning or opening to what conscious experience can prove? We are alike in that we both know that life on earth is absurd. However is Man doomed to perpetual absurdity or can we consciously evolve to experience objective meaning? Kant asked what is a human being? Perhaps it is a quality of being that exists in us as a potential and all we need is the ability and will to consciously look but it rarely happens. Imagination is too attractive.
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:21 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:00 am
I don’t know much about Kant either but it doesn’t take a great deal of study to get in tune with the main outlines of his thought…definitely worth knowing and still valid.
Well, I live in Canada, and have taken four philosophy courses in post-secondary institutions. All courses covered Kant partially (they covered others, and they did not cover Kant totally) and I am left with a miasma of disparate thoughts about what Kant's actual philosophy is. In Canada, as much as in the rest of the English speaking world, there is a strong downplaying of German thought, as many of them lead to WWII and people are scared to scratch the thoughts lest they find something ugly. So they DON"T TEACH KANT properly. They can't. They won't.
Dubious wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:00 am
...but to my mind a more profound expression of that is as Wagner symbolized in Parsifal who “is on his way to the temple of the Grail Knights and says: “I hardly move, yet far I seem to have come”, and the all-knowing Gurnemanz replies: “You see, my son, time turns here into space”.
This rubs against the Einsteinean theories of relativity too closely... it can't be an accident. And I appreciate Wagner was a generation before Einstein.

Again, this morphing of energy to matter, time into space, and the discovery of the morphing being not only possible but necessary, may be a function of the German cultural and lingual tradition. (Both in numinosity and in physics.) I strongly believe that a culture or a language shapes a nations' thinking, making it markedly different in certain aspects from other cultures/ nations. Proponents of this theory keep citing that the Inuit (Eskimos) have many words for snow fall, and Arabs, as many for dust storms. But that's superficial. I say that the Hungarian language promotes finding special cases for well=known algorithms, and creates short cuts when certain conditions exist. It is due to Hungarian being an extremely convoluted language, and people form age two on are forced to think hard to cut down on the excess in their speech and writing.

It is no wonder that it's the French who came up with the two most bizarre but true concepts of the self, of the "I" (Cogito ergo sum, and Sartre's maxims.) And of course, as we see, the Germans come up with Einstein's theories, and then come the abstractionists of the Quantum Mechanics, with equally surprising and counter-intuitive results: Heidegger's, Heimlich's, Heimstattener's, Heimgestotten's, Heimgeistligkundestundestaben's, and Heimgewesenschluss's Well, surprise: They thread in Wagner's footsteps, who discovered space-time morphing in the spirit world of humans.
Dubious wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:00 am
The numinous reveals itself as an inflation of feeling which anchors the moment causing time to compress blending itself into space; it inverts time, so to speak, to make the “outer reaches of inner space”, (to slightly paraphrase Joseph Campbell), much more palpable. In fewer words, the numinous is an instance of psychic compression music being one its most potent catalysts.
In my simpler mind, I invoke the holy trinity: poetry, songs, and god-worship. They helped each other tremendously over the ages into existence and thriving. To me, a good poem is like a song: it lifts you up, you close your eyes and you transcend into another world. A good song is like a religion: your experience of spiritual matters becomes keen and sharply defined. And religion is like a good poem: it has its life-rhythm, it talks to you, and yet you maintain a clear separation between you and your god. If you have one or some to start with.

Early, tribal religious tradiitons involved song, poetry and dance; and in fact I am sure if they have developed ex nihil together for mankind.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:43 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:18 am

What is your goal for philosophy? Why are you interested in it? Is your interest aimed at furthering your denial of objective meaning or opening to what conscious experience can prove? We are alike in that we both know that life on earth is absurd. However is Man doomed to perpetual absurdity or can we consciously evolve to experience objective meaning? Kant asked what is a human being? Perhaps it is a quality of being that exists in us as a potential and all we need is the ability and will to consciously look but it rarely happens. Imagination is too attractive.
Well, regarding a goal for philosophy, I don't have one. It found me, I found it. I had come to a part in my life where I had hated the apathy, indifference, and general greasiness of human behavior, including my own. I started asking simple, but stupid questions about society... like why is there a Columbus Day, and only certain people get it off even though it's a Federal holiday? In addition to having small thought experiments, like if I was blind, deaf, and mute...would I know it? I started realizing that I hated the notions of Nihilism, and Relativism (moral). How they're used to disregard characteristics of the "human condition". Dug deep into despair/depression instead of crying out, and got diagnosed schizophrenic. Then started digging into literature trying to cope/defend against said ailment. Realized after a couple of years, that everyone is building a "sand-castle" in effect. Some of them are aware of doing so, others aren't. Ex; of the "sand-castle"; Schizophrenia for instance wasn't a recognized ailment until fairly recently (late 1800's if I recall correctly) , and even then the definitions used to change to suit the social climate. "Deviants" from the 50-70's in the US, like Hippies, or civil rights protesters were labeled such, and "locked away" under said diagnosis. And even then with Schizophrenia, some people (at least one psychiatrist) thinks it's a new stage of Human evolution and/or possibly the Nietzschean Ubermensch ( http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/ ... nietz.html ).

I'm not denying objective reality completely, I think from our perspective/situation in time/life. It's hard to make a concrete understanding of it. Virtual Reality is coming down the tube, and that may or may not support arguments in favor of the Nested Simulation Reality, Holographic Reality...etc. And at that point a person has to ask, what is "Real'...What is "Objective". If I'm a virtual construct, in a virtual environment, is my virtual life any less or more in danger from a virtual weapon? If the simulation is realistic enough, yes. Thus I'd be a "real thing" from my point of view.

To me, Objectivity is based upon what you tie your sense of Reality down to. That ontological cornerstone/foundation. I tied it down to my sense of self like Descartes, but more of through a thought of "I AM WHO I AM". My sense of Self is my Reality. If you wish to call that subjective, fine, but your reality is no less subjective to me in my perspective. They both exist, though. Objective, and Subjective. It's not either/or. My subject is your object (vice versa). This post on this forum becomes an object for the "Other" as soon as I post it.

And what is "human", your reference of the term and the characteristics it defines may be entirely different than mine. Mainly because it is a self-reference to self-knowledge. The "human" string in your writings could just as easily be a series of characters that my mind self-assembles with it's own understanding/meanings. You, myself, or Anyone could be the sole progenitor/survivor of an "Entire Species". Just like how most humans are related to Genghis Khan, supposedly.

Nick_A
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:35 pm

P R,
And even then with Schizophrenia, some people (at least one psychiatrist) thinks it's a new stage of Human evolution and/or possibly the Nietzschean Ubermensch ( http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/ ... nietz.html ).
He is probably closer to the truth. I cannot see how human evolution is possible without first sensing the absurdity of the human condition. Without this awareness there is no incentive to awaken. Consider how Nietzsche describes “wretched contentment.” This is called being normal. But normal for who? Is it normality for a human being or normal for a conditioned reactive animal in Plato’s cave. Something in you opposes wretched contentment. I see it as a good thing. Nietzsche wrote:

In truth, man is a polluted river. One must be a sea to receive a polluted river without becoming defiled. I teach you the Overman! He is that sea; in him your great contempt can go under.

What is the greatest thing you can experience? It is the hour of your greatest contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becomes loathsome to you, and so also your reason and virtue.

The hour when you say: What good is my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness should justify existence itself!

The hour when you say: What good is my reason? Does it long for knowledge as the lion for his prey? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my virtue? It has not yet driven me mad! How weary I am of my good and my evil! It is all poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my justice? I do not see that I am filled with fire and burning coals. But the just are filled with fire and burning coals!

The hour when you say: What good is my pity? Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no crucifixion!

Have you ever spoken like this? Have you ever cried like this? Ah! If only I had heard you cry this way!

It is not your sin -- it is your moderation that cries to heaven; your very sparingness in sin cries to heaven!

Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the madness with which you should be cleansed?
To me, Objectivity is based upon what you tie your sense of Reality down to. That ontological cornerstone/foundation. I tied it down to my sense of self like Descartes, but more of through a thought of "I AM WHO I AM". My sense of Self is my Reality. If you wish to call that subjective, fine, but your reality is no less subjective to me in my perspective. They both exist, though. Objective, and Subjective. It's not either/or. My subject is your object (vice versa). This post on this forum becomes an object for the "Other" as soon as I post it.
Well I can see how you can disturb normal people. You ask important questions. In earlier times you could have been boiled in oil.

First let me ask you if objective reality would still exist if the earth were hit by an asteroid and everything on it were destroyed? Would the universe continue to function serving its purpose of transforming substances? If the universe would continue the process of existence wouldn’t it be more accurate to think that the human condition prevents us from understanding it – from feeling its reality?
And what is "human", your reference of the term and the characteristics it defines may be entirely different than mine. Mainly because it is a self-reference to self-knowledge. The "human" string in your writings could just as easily be a series of characters that my mind self-assembles with it's own understanding/meanings. You, myself, or Anyone could be the sole progenitor/survivor of an "Entire Species". Just like how most humans are related to Genghis Khan, supposedly.
Another important observation. It raises the question of how we can verify. How can we begin to distinguish between truth and fantasy necessary to satisfy our need for “meaning?” This article may help explain the value of what it means to Know Thyself which is the only way IMO we can acquire the quality of consciousness necessary to distinguish

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html
A friend of mine told me recently that all his life he had been interested in the meaning of things and, naturally, that led him to a study of philosophy. What he found there, he said, was one of the greatest disappointments of his life. Instead of tackling the exciting questions, most philosophers seemed to be snared in the problems of dissecting language, and probing the nuances of grammar and semi¬arbitrary logic. There was no vitality in this work; it was all dry academic, intellectual gamesmanship. He was looking for philosophers who, as he said, "really care about reality"; who would apply their philosophical training to help cut through the intellectual morass, clarify methodologies, and get back to the relationship between reality and experience. He very kindly described me as one of those philosophers who "really cares about reality".
As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive………………….

Plato's Rock
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Kant's Four Questions

Post by Plato's Rock » Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:40 pm

Interesting article, I have a few comments to make off of it later on, but to answer your query about if objective reality would still exist if earth was hit by an asteroid. In order to do so, I'll ask a question, "What worth is a grain of sand to you?".

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.... - Auguries of Innocence, William Blake ( https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ ... -innocence ).

That was a roundabout approach, but I do think that if Earth was eradicated...completely, like say through atomic vaporization....would the Universe really "care"/acknowledge? It is just one planet, one little rock, where we fight over definitions, and who has the better rock (piece of sand). Thus to some observers the universe would still exist, but to the observers present on the vaporized rock...not likely. Does the universe have a purpose? I honestly don't know, I see it as more of a sandbox where we're allowed to play. Purpose implies meaning, meaning needs an observer. If the universe has a purpose, it's purpose is relevant to you (aka it's subjective).

Back to the article, one of the thought processes I developed/toyed with in my few years of questioning is a thought of combining "Psychological projection" with social mirrors. You project your emotions, fears, and the like onto those around you instead of acknowledging them yourself, generally ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ). Social mirrors, are people who act/think in reflection to your projections; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mirror_theory .

Now let's say, I'm going to project a thought your way (I am doing so), you're going to reflect a thought back. It is up to my consciousness to determine if said thought was a "reflection of my thought" in veritas, or a projection of yours. Say you react with "hate/misunderstanding". I have to decide if I'm reading hate into your words myself, or am I sub-consciously angry right now? Or can I stay neutral, and react accordingly? You can see this in some posts upon these forums...where a person seems to be arguing with themselves, or their "understood presentation" of their counterpart.

I was doing some of it before with the "Preemptive notions" about arguments for Deist remarks. I've seen some of your previous posts where you've argued in said vein, thus I'm forming a "image of you", but it doesn't mean it is you.

....I think it's possible to create an internal mirror where one can reflect their own thoughts back upon themselves prior to interacting with another. Kinda like it's mentioned in Al Siebert's articles...the "bi-phasic" personality of survivors. You can be both agreeable, and hostile. Both introverted, and extroverted....etc.

Also, if you think the universe has a purpose, maybe you're projecting into the universe what you are actually thinking about yourself (a person can project into anything really). I've heard of people projecting, and attaching to bomb disposal robots...it's the same thing with pets. We're keyed into doing it, but we have to hone it if we want to seemingly make sense of reality, my opinion.

Further, regarding Kant's opinion that we don't have the ability to experience thinginitself...may be true, but I think we can define/understand thinginitself through "negative logic" where I may not know truth, but I can know the deceits around said truth masking it as an extrapolation/application of Artistic thought ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space ).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atla, Nick_A and 4 guests