Kant: Completeness, Thoroughness & Self-Sufficient

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think there are philosophers who had made such bold claims?

In his CPR, Kant made this bold claim which I agree with;
Completeness in this case refer to Principles not the details.

• Completeness:
  In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  #Completeness means clearness and sufficiency of characteristics;
  
  thoroughness
  In the execution of the plan prescribed by the Critique, that is, in the future System of Metaphysics,
  we have therefore to follow the strict method of the celebrated Wolff, the greatest of all the Dogmatic philosophers.
  He was the first to show by example (and by his example he awakened that spirit of thoroughness which is not extinct in Germany)
  how the secure progress of a Science is to be attained only through orderly establishment of
  1. Principles,
  2. clear Determination of Concepts,
  3. insistence upon strictness of proof, and
  4. avoidance of venturesome, non-consecutive steps in our Inferences.
  
  It [Pure Understanding] is a Unity Self-subsistent, Self-sufficient
  Pure Understanding distinguishes itself not merely from all that is Empirical but completely also from all Sensibility. B90
  It [Pure Understanding] is a Unity Self-subsistent, Self-sufficient, and not to be increased by any additions from without.
  The Sum of its Knowledge thus constitutes a System, comprehended and determined by One Idea.
  The Completeness and Articulation of this System can at the same time yield a criterion of the correctness and genuineness of all its components.
  This part of Transcendental Logic requires, however, for its complete exposition, two books,
  1. the one containing the Concepts,
  2. the other the Principles of Pure Understanding.

The above completeness supports Kant's Mission and Vision, i.e.

1. What is there to know? - epistemology
2. What can I do? - morality
3. What can humanity hope for? Perpetual Peace?

The above completeness enable one to have a 'helicopter view' of the whole philosophical issues faced by mankind; thus I can see where and how you are entangled with a dogmatic view and not being able to get out of its tall dark silo.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
One critical point with Kant I did not emphasize is,
"Systematic Completeness" and Principle of Systematic Unity

Transcendental Philosophy, in seeking for its Concepts, has the advantage and also the duty of proceeding according to a Single Principle.
For these Concepts spring, Pure and Unmixed, out of the Understanding which is an Absolute Unity; and must therefore be connected with each other according to one Concept or Idea.
Such a Connection supplies us with a Rule, by which we are enabled to assign its proper place to each Pure Concept of the Understanding, and by which we can determine in an a priori manner their Systematic Completeness.
Otherwise we should be dependent in these Matters on our own discretionary judgment or merely on chance.
B92

An example of "Systematic Completeness" is like
accounting for the completeness [not absolute] of reality from the Big Bang to the present and the foreseeable future where in principle nothing is left out.
Within the above relative completeness we have relative determination where everything is connected systematically from the Big Bang to the present.

The point here is, for whatever is philosophize we must be mindful of the above systematic completeness and principle of systematicity.

What most of the philosophical gnats and beetles are doing here are philosophizing merely on independent parts without reference to the complete whole. [as in Kant and Hegel].
Realists focus on the mind-independent reality without taking into account how the subject influences the reality the subject is intricately part and parcel of.

This 'man is an island by itself' thought is typical of Peter, FDP and others when they keep insisting 'the fact is a feature of reality that is just-is' 'perception' is not the-perceived, appearance is not that-which-appear, the description is not the-described without giving allowance of the reality the description is interdependent with the-described, i.e. the description<-->the-described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Skepdick]

Discuss??
Views??

Kurt Gödel told us that we have to make a choice in Mathematics, and I believe this choice transfers over to ALL philosophical matters.
There is no system recursively axiomatizable system (yada yada) which is consistent AND complete.

The choice is thus: consistency XOR completeness.

I've made my choice. I am the enemy of anyone who values consistency.

[Harbal]

I've made my choice. I am the enemy of anyone who values consistency.

And do you always take that approach?

[Skepdick]

And do you always take that approach?

Of course!

Some times I am consistently inconsistent.
The rest of the time I am inconsistently consistent.

[Atla]

I don't think there are philosophers who had made such bold claims?

In his CPR, Kant made this bold claim which I agree with;
Completeness in this case refer to Principles not the details.

• Completeness:
  In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  #Completeness means clearness and sufficiency of characteristics;
  
  thoroughness
  In the execution of the plan prescribed by the Critique, that is, in the future System of Metaphysics,
  we have therefore to follow the strict method of the celebrated Wolff, the greatest of all the Dogmatic philosophers.
  He was the first to show by example (and by his example he awakened that spirit of thoroughness which is not extinct in Germany)
  how the secure progress of a Science is to be attained only through orderly establishment of
  1. Principles,
  2. clear Determination of Concepts,
  3. insistence upon strictness of proof, and
  4. avoidance of venturesome, non-consecutive steps in our Inferences.
  
  It [Pure Understanding] is a Unity Self-subsistent, Self-sufficient
  Pure Understanding distinguishes itself not merely from all that is Empirical but completely also from all Sensibility. B90
  It [Pure Understanding] is a Unity Self-subsistent, Self-sufficient, and not to be increased by any additions from without.
  The Sum of its Knowledge thus constitutes a System, comprehended and determined by One Idea.
  The Completeness and Articulation of this System can at the same time yield a criterion of the correctness and genuineness of all its components.
  This part of Transcendental Logic requires, however, for its complete exposition, two books,
  1. the one containing the Concepts,
  2. the other the Principles of Pure Understanding.

The above completeness supports Kant's Mission and Vision, i.e.

1. What is there to know? - epistemology
2. What can I do? - morality
3. What can humanity hope for? Perpetual Peace?

The above completeness enable one to have a 'helicopter view' of the whole philosophical issues faced by mankind; thus I can see where and how you are entangled with a dogmatic view and not being able to get out of its tall dark silo.

Discuss??
Views??

You and Kant are forgetting that if humanity has to artificially construct a largely false mental reality in order to survive and totally abide to it, in other words if people are going to have to deliberately deceive themselves and chain themselves to the self-deception, then humanity will rather choose to die. Kant didn't consider the human need for freedom.

[Skepdick]

You and Kant are forgetting that if humanity has to artificially construct a largely false mental reality in order to survive and totally abide to it, in other words if people are going to have to deliberately deceive themselves and chain themselves to the self-deception, then humanity will rather choose to die. Kant didn't consider the human need for freedom.

What nonsense is this? We evolved for survival, not truth. Self-deception is the default mode of being.

Anything else requires effort.

[Atla]

You and Kant are forgetting that if humanity has to artificially construct a largely false mental reality in order to survive and totally abide to it, in other words if people are going to have to deliberately deceive themselves and chain themselves to the self-deception, then humanity will rather choose to die. Kant didn't consider the human need for freedom.

What nonsense is this? We evolved for survival, not truth. Self-deception is the default mode of being.

Anything else requires effort.

In that case, it has to be self-deception that people don't notice. Kant's thousand-page long autistic constructivist systems are like the exact opposite of that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double-posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

Discuss??
Views??

Kurt Gödel told us that we have to make a choice in Mathematics, and I believe this choice transfers over to ALL philosophical matters.
There is no system recursively axiomatizable system (yada yada) which is consistent AND complete.

The choice is thus: consistency XOR completeness.

I've made my choice. I am the enemy of anyone who values consistency.

Kant argued God is an illusion.
As such, Kant's completeness is not absolute God-given completeness but rather relative completeness.
For example if one were to examine for faults in a car, we example every part of the complete car rather than a certain section of it.

It is the same for 'consistency' i.e. relative consistency to a context rather than absolute consistency.

[Skepdick]

Kant argued God is an illusion.

Which isn't the same thing as the denial of God's existence.
It's much the same as arguing that morality is an illusion. OK. It's an illusion.

Is that a bad thing?

As such, Kant's completeness is not absolute God-given completeness but rather relative completeness.

Soon as you have a way to relate/rank two things you can rank/relate all things.

For example if one were to examine for faults in a car, we example every part of the complete car rather than a certain section of it.

You can examine all parts and find no defect with them and the car still wouldn't work. You are out of fuel

It is the same for 'consistency' i.e. relative consistency to a context rather than absolute consistency.

If you have a way of determining relative consistency then you can recover absolute consistency from it.

By induction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant argued God is an illusion.

Which isn't the same thing as the denial of God's existence.
It's much the same as arguing that morality is an illusion. OK. It's an illusion.

Is that a bad thing?

Kant argued all ideal moral principles as in morality is objective [FSRC-ed] but ultimately illusory; nevertheless, they are useful illusions as a guide.
It is the same as the absolutely definitely 'real' North Poles which is ultimately an illusion but it is nevertheless a useful illusion as a guide for navigation.

Any claim that Polaris, or the North Star is really real is false, because it is an illusion in one sense and likely be definitely an illusion in real time; for in real time now, that North Star may not be existing as real now in real time, i.e. it could have imploded and what we perceive as the North Star are merely its historical light from billions of years ago.
BUT this illusory star is a useful illusion in that it has helped ancient people to survive via navigation, facilitate progress, find new lands and enable other positive utilities.

As with the above,
all ideal moral principles as in morality are illusory but are objective within a morality-proper FSRC as a useful illusion.
Other than the above, there are other nuanced perspectives but no need to get into them at this point.

[Skepdick]

Kant argued God is an illusion.

Which isn't the same thing as the denial of God's existence.
It's much the same as arguing that morality is an illusion. OK. It's an illusion.

Is that a bad thing?

Kant argued all ideal moral principles as in morality is objective [FSRC-ed] but ultimately illusory; nevertheless, they are useful illusions as a guide.
It is the same as the absolutely definitely 'real' North Poles which is ultimately an illusion but it is nevertheless a useful illusion as a guide for navigation.

Any claim that Polaris, or the North Star is really real is false, because it is an illusion in one sense and likely be definitely an illusion in real time; for in real time now, that North Star may not be existing as real now in real time, i.e. it could have imploded and what we perceive as the North Star are merely its historical light from billions of years ago.
BUT this illusory star is a useful illusion in that it has helped ancient people to survive via navigation, facilitate progress, find new lands and enable other positive utilities.

As with the above,
all ideal moral principles as in morality are illusory but are objective within a morality-proper FSRC as a useful illusion.
Other than the above, there are other nuanced perspectives but no need to get into them at this point.

Too bad that any use of the word "illusion" carries a negative connotation in philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One critical point with Kant I did not emphasize is
"Systematic Completeness" and Principle of Systematic Unity

Transcendental Philosophy, in seeking for its Concepts, has the advantage and also the duty of proceeding according to a Single Principle.
For these Concepts spring, Pure and Unmixed, out of the Understanding which is an Absolute Unity; and must therefore be connected with each other according to one Concept or Idea.
Such a Connection supplies us with a Rule, by which we are enabled to assign its proper place to each Pure Concept of the Understanding, and by which we can determine in an a priori manner their Systematic Completeness.
Otherwise we should be dependent in these Matters on our own discretionary judgment or merely on chance.
B92

An example of "Systematic Completeness" is like
accounting for the completeness [not absolute] of reality from the Big Bang to the present and the foreseeable future where in principle nothing is left out.
Within the above relative completeness we have relative determination where everything is connected systematically from the Big Bang to the present.

The point here is, for whatever is philosophize we must be mindful of the above systematic completeness and principle of systematicity.

What most of the philosophical gnats and beetles are doing here are philosophizing merely on independent parts without reference to the complete whole. [as in Kant and Hegel].
Realists focus on the mind-independent reality without taking into account how the subject influences the reality the subject is intricately part and parcel of.

This 'man is an island by itself' thought is typical of Peter, FDP and others when they keep insisting 'the fact is a feature of reality that is just-is' 'perception' is not the-perceived, appearance is not that-which-appear, the description is not the-described without giving allowance of the reality the description is interdependent with the-described, i.e. the description<-->the-described.