RoR: Forum

So, Kant inherited a view that was not familiar with the concept 'orthogonal' and instead, categorized a change in axes as a 'divide.'

Mankind exists in the material world with or without deep intellectual or even any thought; that is what makes the concepts 'orthogonal'. (For example, purely reptilian thought is often sufficient for mankind to get by in the material world; "Can I eat it? Can it eat me?")

The difference is, with thought, mankind navigates the material world. Without thought, he simply exists in the material world, for as long as he might.

Movement along both axes-- the material world, the intellectual world -- is not impeded by any actual 'divide' other than one Kant imagined on the axis he imagined it on... The orthogonal nature of what is permissable on one axis, and what is permissable on the other, is pretty easy to comprehend.

Mankind is able to imagine on one axis that which cannot exist on the other. (Of course, what Mankind can do, not all men do.) Mankind is not free to imagine on one axis that which does not and cannot exist in reality -and- bring it into existence on the other axis. Such whimsies are restricted purely to the imaginative axis..but on that axis can exist freely. But mankind can and often does imagine things that do not exist but that can exist and so, as allowed because it is not activwely prevented-- brings them into existence on the other axis--by rearranging that which is into that which can be --but only if same passes the absolute filter of what is allowed in reality--including, changes to or extensions to those filters brought about by the same process. Bacon's observation.

What do you think was Kant's purpose, if any, in reinforcing the belief that this orthogonality was really a 'divide?' Was he trying to modify that inherited belief, reconcile it? Or, since his outcome was the opposite, was that in fact his intent?

A 'divide' requires a bridge of some type to cross, even if it is an imagined bridge. Orthogonalities require no such bridges-- movement on both axes is readily possible under the rules/laws of each, with no 'bridge' required, even an imagined one. So on what basis resuted Kant's reinforcement of a 'divide?'

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 11:34am

Kant is also unfamiliar with or hostile towards the concept of calibration.

He claims the actual existence of an imperceivable difference between a thing and itself, forever unavailable to us via the means we have access to. And yet, how has he verified the existence of this difference in even one example-- of the thing he claims is not subject to verification in the least, if it is imperceivable to us? At most, by his own assertion, be can only have imagined it, forever beyond the reach of calibration.

Only Kant can know of the existence of the 'transcental object?'

Then perhaps his name should have been 'Kan.'

Sort of like that mirror universe of anti-gravity speeding away from ours at the speed of light, it is clear that, until it is calibrated, it 'exists' for us only on an imaginary axis. In that indeterminate period of time before that hypothetical verification, its existence is only conditional to -us-, locally, and not to any of its actual or non-existing inhabitants. To weight that parochial fact as having universal existential weight is, well, precious.

regards,
Fred

Post 22

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 8:45am

Fred,

What do you think was Kant's purpose, if any, in reinforcing the belief that this orthogonality was really a 'divide?' Was he trying to modify that inherited belief, reconcile it? Or, since his outcome was the opposite, was that in fact his intent?

Kant was reacting to Hume. Hume said he had achieved certainty regarding the "fact" that you cannot ever be sure of anything (because knowledge is fallible). So Kant proceeded in philosophy in a manner that would allow a thinker to become sure of some things in spite of Hume's objections. Accepting Hume's premises, he found a way to achieve certainty by introducing a 'divide' between thought and things. In essence, he did Descartes one better. Descartes said that he had become sure that he exists because he had made a mental note that he was thinking (performing a mental action). The realization that he was engaging in an activity had convinced him that he, in fact, exists -- though he could not be sure if anything else besides himself exists. After all, there could be a demon tricking him into thinking that the world was real.** So, that's essentially solipsism.

Kant said that other stuff (besides the thinker, himself) exists, too -- but in a special realm that is really not much better than Descartes' imaginary world.

Recap:
Descartes: I'm sure I exist, and the world might, too -- but I can only really be sure that I am, in the least, imagining that an external world exists
Kant: I'm sure I exist and -- because of rationalistic circumlocutions -- I'm also "sure" that an external world exists, though I can never be directly aware of it (in essence, I can argue for it "on paper")

Ed

**The proper way to think about Descartes' dilemma (where a demon could be tricking you) is to imagine an angel tricking the demon into thinking that he was tricking you. If anyone objects to such an arbitrary postulation, then agree wholeheartedly -- and make him retract the postulation of the demon in the first place. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If some parsimony is a good thing, then more of it is even better. It is not something that you can get "too much" of.

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/02, 8:53am)

Post 23

Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 9:29am

Here's an imaginary, trans-temporal, round-table discussion of the matter:

--------------------------------------
Descartes: You know, if you start inside your head, you can never get to the outside world.

Hume: Descartes is right! If we start inside our heads, we can never get to the outside world! We are all doomed!

[mass chaos; philosophers running around in circles in panic, screaming bloody murder and grabbing and shaking each other; with some of them leaping to their deaths from the window at the top of the tower]

Kant: Everybody calm down! I have got this thing all figured out ...

[all philosophers]: Oh, please tell us!

Kant: Well, you start inside your head and ...

Aristotle: Are we really all that sure that in the endeavor of human epistemology that it is correct to be starting the procedure from the inside of our heads?

Rand: Aristotle is right, you know. You are all going about this process in the wrong way. You can never run a mile by only taking steps in the opposite direction. You will have to turn toward the finish line if you ever hope to finish the race. This involves accepting the fact that you are in a race with a metaphysical finish line and it is your responsibility, in any race, to obtain a proper understanding of where the finish line is -- something which cannot be evaded without intellectual dishonesty on your part. You are all failing in that responsibility, but Kant -- who is performing the most work under evasion -- is the worst among you.
--------------------------------------

:-)

Ed

Post 24

Saturday, May 24, 2014 - 5:37am