I changed the title a bit on this essay. At first, it was called 'Deconstructing Wittgenstein' whereas now it is called 'Faceoff: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1 - What is Philosophy?'.
I think I will run with this 'Faceoff' idea for the remainder of 'Hegel's Hotel'. The more I can contrast the style, the contents, the process, and the ideas of DGB Philosophy with other known philosophers, the more it helps to define and describe DGB Philosophy as having its own unique place in the sun, located somewhere in the 'gaps' between these other known philosophies and philosophers.
DGB Philosophy is basically a mutation, and the evolutionary product of 2600 years of Western philosophy -- and some Eastern philosophy too ('yin', 'yang', Daoism, some little known philosophy papers by Mao tse Tung which are great papers, even though the man himself was a sociopath who didn't care one iota about how many people died under his leadership -- a collision of the highest order in terms of 'incongruence' between 'philosophical idealism' and 'political realism').
Philosophy, in my opinion, has a bad rap, a bad steretype -- both inside and outside the universities. The stereotype as I see it is one of bearded professors, snoring students -- and 'philosophical mind games' -- i.e., let's see what kind of logical contortions we can put your mind through today? There is also the stereotype of philosophy being something that is practised from 'the head up' and/or a form of 'mind and body relaxation process -- like the theory and practise of Budhism -- where we try to escape from the stresses of our day-to-day urban rat race'.
I remember five years back or so I went into downtown Toronto to check out a 'School of Philosophy' around Spadina and Bloor. I met with the receptionist and asked what kind of philosophy they taught there. They reinforced the stereotype -- or at least my stereotype of the way philosophy is often taught and presented to students and the general public. I can't remember exactly what the receptionist said, but the gist of it ran something like this. They taught a 'philosophy of soothing stressed out souls' -- kind of like an Eastern, Budhist style of philosophy, a philosophy of meditation, taking your brain to soothing places to relieve it from the day's stressful 'rat race'.
I said that's fine -- but do you teach any Hegel or Nietzsche? What about 'social activist, post-modern, deconstructive' philosophy -- do you teach any of that?
Paraphrasing the receptionist: 'No, we don't teach that kind of philosophy. You have to go somewhere else for that type of philosophy.'
DGB: 'Okay. Thank you.'
Now, 'meditative philosophy' is not where this brain wants to go to...I'm a social activist deep down at heart, even though I've never spent a minute in a social activist group -- other than in the board room of the 'Progressive Canadian Party' here in Newmarket, Ontario. I spent about a year attending their meetings -- a squashed version of the old Progressive Conservative Party that didn't want to merge with The Reform Party. They continue to practise 'PWP' -- Politics Without Power' -- and I decided I could practise 'PWMP' -- Politics With More Power' -- right here at my computer chair without moving a leg from my living room. It's not that I'm lazy or that I didn't like part of the process of being involved in a 'political-social-activist' group; it's just that I hated the group's decision-making inefficiency and felt like i could move my own philosophical and political agenda along faster within the confines of my own blogsite than listen to a group of people that couldn't get their heads together and move together with any kind of quality and efficieny -- in the same direction. Call it one of the drawbacks of 'democracy' if you will, but call it also a lesson in 'group inefficiency'. Regardless, I wanted to move in a different direction. Today, the direction is Ludwig Wittgenstein:
..................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (April 26, 1889 – April 29, 1951) was an Austrian philosopher who worked primarily in the foundations of logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[1] His influence has been wide-ranging and he is generally regarded as one of the twentieth century's most important philosophers.
Before his death at the age of 62,[2] the only book-length work Wittgenstein had published was the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Philosophical Investigations, which Wittgenstein worked on in his later years, was published shortly after he died. Both of these works are regarded as highly influential in analytic philosophy.[3][4]
.....................................................................................
DGB: Now I am not here to 'bust egos and intellects' -- well, partly I am -- with allegedly one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. I fancy myself as having a good, healthy intellect but nothing up around the '160 IQ' range -- to the extent that 'IQ measurements' say anything meaningful about intelligence. (You can be the most intelligent guy or girl in the room but if you don't do anything meaningful with it -- for yourself and/or others -- then what good is it? A gift from God, un-utilized?)
My self-stated job as a philosopher is to ground philosophy in clarity, common sense, rational-empiricism, integration, humanistic-existentialism (compassion, freedom, assertiveness, personal/social/group accountability...), and functional practicality (utility).
Relative to Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, my self-stated job is to bring the reins in on him to some extent, to catch him in his own philosopohical hypocrisies, and to in effect say: 'Woah, Mr Wittgenstein -- slow down here. I don't care how much mind-bending logic you throw at me, you are not going to convince me -- like you did Bertrand Russell, according to at least one source (John Heaton, Introducing Wittgenstein, 1994, 2005, Penguin Books, Canada, Totem (Icon) Books, the USA) that 'there is a hippo in my living room'... There is a point at which philosophy needs to come back to earth and meet common sense -- even defer to common sense -- and that point is here and now.'
.............................................................................
DGB: I am going to use John Heaton as my 'interpreting guide' to Wittgenstein. We are going to aim to teach and practise 'DGB KISS Philosophy' here -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.
..................................................................................
Wittgenstein: The purpose of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 40).
DGB: Philosophy -- at least DGB Philosophy -- is about much, much more than the logical clarification of thoughts. The clarification of thoughts is very important but philosophy is also about 'putting good thoughts into action': it is about demonstrating passion and compassion towards people (humanism); it is about being accountable for our own freedom -- or perceived lack of it -- and at least partly accountable for the effect that our actions have on others (humanistic-existentialism). Furthermore, relative to logic, logic can be a useless and/or even dangerous tool in the mind of the wrong person -- just like 'statistics' that can be used to support or denounce any thesis and/or brand of ideology. Again, logic needs to be grounded in common sense, rational-empiricism, humanistic-existentialism, pragmatism and functionality, dialectic-democracy, and divorced from the context of narcissistic, malicious, dictatorial people in order to be worth giving any degree of philosophical credibility to it. And again, logic should not be used to play 'non-sensical mind games' -- unless that is the explicit, agreed upon goal of the 'mental exercise' -- with all due respect, it should not be used to try to convince anyone -- Bertrand Russell, I'm a bit disappointed in you -- that 'there is a hippo in anyone's room' unless someone can empirically (observationally) verify it, and/or the room is in a 'zoo', and/or the room is large enough -- including the door -- to actually contain a hippo, and/or the room is actually in a country where hippos are known to exist...You get my drift...
.................................................................................
Wittgenstein: Philosophy is not a teaching but an activity.
DGB: Then why did Wittgenstein teach? Because he was hired to help students learn the dynamics of the types of cerebral activities that he did very well -- and was being paid to pass on to them. Having said this, additional clarification is needed relative to the goals of DGB Philosophy. Philosophy is a 'multi-dialectic integrative activity' that can be constructed in the shape of a 'six-sided figure': 1. sensual-empirical activity (primarily observation and personal experience); 2. cerebral activity (involving a combination of language, meaning, epistemology, and ethics); 3. emotional activity (involving hopefully a combination of passion and compassion for your own creative, self-assertiveness, as well as a passion and compassion for the well-being of other people); 4. behavioral activity (involving putting all your 'good' thoughts into action -- with lots of room to argue over the meaning of the word 'good'), with the evolving support functions of: 5. teaching (someone knowing what they are doing and being excited about the opportunity of passing what they know onto others); and 6. learning ('You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.' Similarily, you can lead a student to a philosophy class but you can't make him or her learn unless he or she wants to learn.)
That makes this six-sided figure a 'sexagon' -- which I am sure will wake students up and make them quite happy -- or, I guess that should be 'hexagon' -- having corrected myself from the internet; previously snoring philosophy students can go back to sleep again.
.....................................................................................
Wittgenstein: A philosophical work consists mainly of elucidations.
DGB: When Wittgenstein wrote: 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus', I'm not sure who he thought he was elucidating -- except himself. I get stuck on the title (which I believe I read was named in reference to a work by Spinoza). Essentially, no-one could understand him. He couldn't get a publisher without the credibility and help of Bertrand Russell. And I'm not sure how much he understood the book. Wittgenstein himself wrote in his preference: 'It's purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it.' This hardly seems like a work that is aimed at 'elucidating' and 'clarifying' ideas for readers. This seems to make up a good part of the paradox -- dare I say 'elucidating hypocrisy' -- that makes up Wittgenstein and his philosophy.
When I first started writing DGB Philosophy, my dad used to complain that he couldn't understand a thing I was writing -- and my dad is an intelligent man. Way too much 'techno-garble'. This was a few years ago. I have since tried to simplify my writing, eliminate much of my own techno-garble, and make my work more reader-friendly. I still wanted/want my work to be academically important and of a scholarly nature but with some educational and entertainment compromises for my intelligent lay readers and beginning philosophy students in the name of trying to make my work feel less dry than the Sahara desert.
All philosophical works could/can use a little -- if not a lot -- of Nietzschean fire, excitement, and passion. I like Fritz Perls as a writer who in my opinion was a modern day version of Nietzsche.
...................................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fritz Perls
Born July 8, 1893(1893-07-08)
Berlin, Germany
Died March 14, 1970 (aged 76)
Chicago
Occupation psychiatrist and psychotherapist
Spouse(s) Laura Perls
Friedrich (Frederick) Salomon Perls (July 8 1893, Berlin – March 14, 1970, Chicago), better known as Fritz Perls, was a noted German-born psychiatrist and psychotherapist of Jewish descent.
He coined the term 'Gestalt Therapy' for the approach to therapy he developed with his wife Laura Perls from the 1940s, and he became associated with the Esalen Institute in California in 1964. His approach is related but not identical to Gestalt psychology and the Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy of Hans-Jürgen Walter.
At Gestalt Therapy's core is the promotion of awareness, the awareness of the unity of all present feelings and behaviors, and the contact between the self and its environment.
Perls has been widely evoked outside the realm of psychotherapy for a quotation often described as the "Gestalt prayer". This was especially true in the 1960s, when the version of individualism it expresses received great attention.
Gestalt prayer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Gestalt prayer" is a 56-word statement by psychotherapist Fritz Perls that is taken as a classic expression of Gestalt therapy as way of life model of which Dr. Perls was a founder.
The key idea of the statement is the focus on living in response to one's own needs, without projecting onto or taking introjects from others. It also expresses the idea that it is by fulfilling their own needs that people can help others do the same and create space for genuine contact; that is, when they "find each other, it's beautiful".
Text of "prayer"
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
...............................................................................
Wittgenstein: The result of philosophy is not 'philosophical propositions, but the clarification of propositions. Philosophy should take thoughts that are otherwise turbid and blurred, so to speak, and make them clear and sharp. (Tractatus, 4.112; Introducing Wittgenstein, pg 40).
DGB: I would argue -- I am arguing -- that, in Tractatus, Wittgenstein took a host of intertwined ideas that had the potential to be stated clearly and sharply -- and made them turbid and blurred. DGB Philosophy aims to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Tractatus and get to what has the potential to be stated more simply, more clearly, and more functionally usefully (i.e., importantly). My main mentor here is Alfred Korzybski, author of 'Science and Sanity', and founder of 'General Semantics'. Personally, I believe that Korzybski was the better linguist, semanticist, and epistemologist -- in fact, I would argue that Korzybski was the best -- and most under-rated -- epistemologist in the history of Western philosophy. The two -- Wittgenstein and Korzybski -- were philosophizing and writing during almost the same period, they wrote about many of the same things, and I cannot believe that there was not some amount of either 'one-sided' or 'mutual, dialectical' influence going on here. More research is needed.
................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (pronounced /kɔ'ʐɨpski/) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950), was called, among many labels, a Polish-American, philosopher and scientist. He is most remembered for developing the theory of general semantics.
..............................................................................
DGB: ...I could do a better introduction on Korzybski than this...and will do so at a future time. The Wikipedia introduction only underscores my point that Korzybski deserves more philosophical attention than he is currently getting. Korzybski influened the development of a number of significant psychotherapies today including Gestalt Therapy and various forms of Cognitive Therapy...)
.................................................................................
We will come back to Wittgenstein again shortly and discuss/critique his ideas concerning:
1. The relationship between philosophy and science;
2. His theory of the relationship between: words, meaning, phenomena, and epistemology.
I think we have accomplished enough for today. I'm not sure if this essay is better or worse than the one I wrote yesterday but it shares the same basic focus and theme.
Don't talk about clarity -- and leave us chasing the moon.
(Or looking for phantom hippos in our room -- although we, as independent philosophers, need to take at least half the responsibility here if we are actually so stupid as to allow ourselves to get caught up in this type of nonsense and seriously start looking for them.)
If the argument defies both our empirical senses and our common sense -- then exit the argument. Someone's playing with our head. It's a 'mind game' designed to drive us to drink and/or shake your very sanity. I still can't believe Russell let Wittgenstein take him there.
Shame on you, Bertrand! You were a great philosopher -- you have many, many things to feel very proud of -- but Ludwig must have been slipping you some funny stuff in your coffee on this one. How else could he have taken you for such a magic carpet ride?
For everyone else, alive and ticking, have yourselves all a clear and sharp, rational-empirical, humanistic-existential, common-sense day!
-- dgb, July 19th, 2008. modified Aug. 30th, 2008.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
The DGB Sixteen Mythological Idols of Philosophical Extremism (Building From Sir Francis Bacon's Four Idols)
1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietzsche would put it;
2. Idols of The Cave: Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people;
3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-gound yourself;
4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the goddess Gaea): Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;
5. Idols of The Theatre, The Magician, or The Sophist: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself;
6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title;
7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean;
8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life;
9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life;
10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- except perhaps to only the person or people you most trust, and even this is dangerous, because things can change, people can change;
11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war;
12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction;
13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.
14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it;
15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and die -- in marriage.
16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others.
2. Idols of The Cave: Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people;
3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-gound yourself;
4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the goddess Gaea): Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;
5. Idols of The Theatre, The Magician, or The Sophist: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself;
6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title;
7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean;
8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life;
9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life;
10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- except perhaps to only the person or people you most trust, and even this is dangerous, because things can change, people can change;
11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war;
12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction;
13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.
14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it;
15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and die -- in marriage.
16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)...From The Internet
From Wikipedia...
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.
At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.
At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.
The Four Idols of Sir Francis Bacon
From the internet...google...The Four Idols, Sir Francis Bacon
I don't know much about Sir Francis Bacon -- I plan to learn more -- but I love the way he thinks...as attested by the following essay on Bacon written by Manly P. Hall. To me, Bacon is a 'good idol' of what it means -- and how -- to be a good epistemologist.
-- dgb, August 24th, 2008.
................................................................................
The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&
The New Instrument of Knowledge
by Manly P. Hall
In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.
An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.
Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)
Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.
*************
After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.
It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.
The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.
Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.
Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the 4 IDOLS
I don't know much about Sir Francis Bacon -- I plan to learn more -- but I love the way he thinks...as attested by the following essay on Bacon written by Manly P. Hall. To me, Bacon is a 'good idol' of what it means -- and how -- to be a good epistemologist.
-- dgb, August 24th, 2008.
................................................................................
The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&
The New Instrument of Knowledge
by Manly P. Hall
In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.
An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.
Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)
Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.
*************
After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.
It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.
The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.
Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.
Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the 4 IDOLS
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy Re-visited
This essay was written about 9 months ago and then just re-written a couple of weeks ago (August 9th, 2008). Now, I am re-addressing the essay for a third time and this essay eliminates the last two. Perhaps with an evolving better and better knowledge of Kant in the months or years to come, I will have to rewrite this essay again at some future point.
Time will tell but hopefully this essay will stand the test of time for a while. It is based on new and conflicting information I just recently read about Kant from the internet. Interpretation is critically important -- it creates the foundation for our evaluations and actions. Different interpretation; different evaluation.
Also, the credibility of the author is at stake here. Just as you must reasonably ask the question: How well do I know Kant and what he believed? -- similarily, I must ask the same 'credibility' question of the author I am reading who is interpreting Kant. Because, obviously, if I am taking the author as being a credible Kantian source, then it may mean the difference between my making a 'left turn' and making a 'right turn' in terms of the way I interpret and evaluate Kant. One way makes me a 'post-Kantian epistemologist' whereas the other way makes me an 'anti-Kantian epistemologist'. That is a big difference.
This is where a Kantian scholar -- or any person seriously concerned with epistemological accuracy -- would insist on 'proper references' -- and rightly so.
The critical 'new interpretation' for me lies in this sentence here:
The path to resolving the paradoxes of Kant's theory opens up with two basic realizations: (1) Kant always believed that reason connected us directly to things-in-themselves, and (2) Kant's system is not a Cartesian theory of hidden, transcendent objects, but a version of empirical realism, that we are directly acquainted with real objects.
It can be found if you google Kant and read the essay that is now second from the top...The essay appears scholarly and knowledgeable but no author is listed -- which raises some degree of suspicion relative to its credibility. I will search other credible sources to verify and/or contradict what is being said here...
For years now, I have tried not to get dragged too deeply into the world of Kant -- because I could get lost in there forever and I have so many other things I still want to write about -- but I can feel myself starting to dig -- or be dragged in -- deeper. At least a decent knowledge of Kant is important for the credibility of my own presentation of DGB Epistemology -- and DGB Philosophy as a whole. Kant's epistemology -- as well as his philosophy as a whole -- was a major turning point in the history and evolution of Western Philosophy, influencing Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other major philosophers in major ways. One of my readers has even said -- rightly so by the looks of things -- that there would have been no Hegelian dialectical philosophy if it was not for Hegel leading him in this direction. Other essays and references obviously look like they will be needed here... And -- God forbid -- I may (will) have to read sinificant parts of 'The Critique of Pure Reason' myself.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...
Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.
His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]
In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.
Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.
..............................................................................
From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...
Critique of Pure Reason (1787)
Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)
Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)
Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)
Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."
A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)
Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)
Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)
Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)
All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)
.................................................................................
Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited
I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.
Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.
Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.
Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.
I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.
At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?
This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.
The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?
That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.
Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?
If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.
Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.
You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.
It depends on your perspective.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?
Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?
Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.
When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.
What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.
So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.
Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.
Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.
In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.
And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.
This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.
For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.
This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.
From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)
Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
Time will tell but hopefully this essay will stand the test of time for a while. It is based on new and conflicting information I just recently read about Kant from the internet. Interpretation is critically important -- it creates the foundation for our evaluations and actions. Different interpretation; different evaluation.
Also, the credibility of the author is at stake here. Just as you must reasonably ask the question: How well do I know Kant and what he believed? -- similarily, I must ask the same 'credibility' question of the author I am reading who is interpreting Kant. Because, obviously, if I am taking the author as being a credible Kantian source, then it may mean the difference between my making a 'left turn' and making a 'right turn' in terms of the way I interpret and evaluate Kant. One way makes me a 'post-Kantian epistemologist' whereas the other way makes me an 'anti-Kantian epistemologist'. That is a big difference.
This is where a Kantian scholar -- or any person seriously concerned with epistemological accuracy -- would insist on 'proper references' -- and rightly so.
The critical 'new interpretation' for me lies in this sentence here:
The path to resolving the paradoxes of Kant's theory opens up with two basic realizations: (1) Kant always believed that reason connected us directly to things-in-themselves, and (2) Kant's system is not a Cartesian theory of hidden, transcendent objects, but a version of empirical realism, that we are directly acquainted with real objects.
It can be found if you google Kant and read the essay that is now second from the top...The essay appears scholarly and knowledgeable but no author is listed -- which raises some degree of suspicion relative to its credibility. I will search other credible sources to verify and/or contradict what is being said here...
For years now, I have tried not to get dragged too deeply into the world of Kant -- because I could get lost in there forever and I have so many other things I still want to write about -- but I can feel myself starting to dig -- or be dragged in -- deeper. At least a decent knowledge of Kant is important for the credibility of my own presentation of DGB Epistemology -- and DGB Philosophy as a whole. Kant's epistemology -- as well as his philosophy as a whole -- was a major turning point in the history and evolution of Western Philosophy, influencing Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other major philosophers in major ways. One of my readers has even said -- rightly so by the looks of things -- that there would have been no Hegelian dialectical philosophy if it was not for Hegel leading him in this direction. Other essays and references obviously look like they will be needed here... And -- God forbid -- I may (will) have to read sinificant parts of 'The Critique of Pure Reason' myself.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...
Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.
His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]
In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.
Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.
..............................................................................
From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...
Critique of Pure Reason (1787)
Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)
Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)
Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)
Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."
A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)
Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)
Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)
Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)
All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)
.................................................................................
Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited
I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.
Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.
Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.
Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.
I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.
At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?
This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.
The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?
That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.
Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?
If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.
Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.
You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.
It depends on your perspective.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?
Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?
Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.
When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.
What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.
So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.
Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.
Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.
In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.
And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.
This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.
For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.
This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.
From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)
Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
