New Kant post ....
Kant said something akin to "Hume awoke me from my dogmatic slumber"
... by dogmatic, Kant meant rationalist
By ratioanalist ... Kant meant ...
... a group that believed most all mathematical truths were analytic (true by the form of presentation) ... and that the core beliefs of humankind (Newtonian science) were likewise reducible to analytic truths.
But Kant argues that not only were the rationalists wrong about physical world truths ... they were wrong about mathematical truths. Most mathematical truths, at least the important ones, are NOT analytic to Kant.
The early parts of the Critique of Pure Reason are given to this topic.
Yet, still, Kant wants to validate reason.
He takes time, too, to attack the skeptic (of reason) in the Critique
... the skeptic believes that all reason is only polemic.
But free citizens seem to get together and agree on many things.
True ... where agreement is coerced, there we have force agreement. Such "truth" agreements are limited by geography and time.
Free citizen agreement is important for just this. It allows a notion of agreement outside coercion.
(Foucault, and ilk, in a nutshell, is the claim that there is no, never, "without coercion")
And, lastly, Kant will attack the relativist project in truth, about reason. Limited goals for truth gain us nothing. This lies somewhere between the rationalist and the skeptic.
Kant's positive project is this ... taking what materials and capacities we have, what can humans build. They cannot reach Rationalism in truths, but they are not reduce to Skepticism either. This is a main claim of the Critique.
At heart ... the Critique is saying ... there is a problem (hence the Rationalist is wrong), but the problem is not that reason can come up with no truths (and so Rationalism is wrong, in his day). The problem is this ... there does seem to be a "reason" that is the coming together of free men. But ... they can come up with many solutions, given our material input and our capacities.
This will come out many years later as the notion of "underdetermination". The problem is not so much that we can't agree on what is true as that we can agree on so many things (non cohesive) being true.
Today ... in the world of the Foucault skeptic, where all reason is reason by coercion ... we can say equally that it is one of the truths ... which has defeated other truths by coercion ... and both of these notions can hold at the same time.
The most basic truth of Kant, then, is the awakening from rationalism thus described. From there, it dependends on the skeptic or positivist-materialist in yourself (and in my case, i like to think, both). Underdetermination or non-reason.
... by dogmatic, Kant meant rationalist
By ratioanalist ... Kant meant ...
... a group that believed most all mathematical truths were analytic (true by the form of presentation) ... and that the core beliefs of humankind (Newtonian science) were likewise reducible to analytic truths.
But Kant argues that not only were the rationalists wrong about physical world truths ... they were wrong about mathematical truths. Most mathematical truths, at least the important ones, are NOT analytic to Kant.
The early parts of the Critique of Pure Reason are given to this topic.
Yet, still, Kant wants to validate reason.
He takes time, too, to attack the skeptic (of reason) in the Critique
... the skeptic believes that all reason is only polemic.
But free citizens seem to get together and agree on many things.
True ... where agreement is coerced, there we have force agreement. Such "truth" agreements are limited by geography and time.
Free citizen agreement is important for just this. It allows a notion of agreement outside coercion.
(Foucault, and ilk, in a nutshell, is the claim that there is no, never, "without coercion")
And, lastly, Kant will attack the relativist project in truth, about reason. Limited goals for truth gain us nothing. This lies somewhere between the rationalist and the skeptic.
Kant's positive project is this ... taking what materials and capacities we have, what can humans build. They cannot reach Rationalism in truths, but they are not reduce to Skepticism either. This is a main claim of the Critique.
At heart ... the Critique is saying ... there is a problem (hence the Rationalist is wrong), but the problem is not that reason can come up with no truths (and so Rationalism is wrong, in his day). The problem is this ... there does seem to be a "reason" that is the coming together of free men. But ... they can come up with many solutions, given our material input and our capacities.
This will come out many years later as the notion of "underdetermination". The problem is not so much that we can't agree on what is true as that we can agree on so many things (non cohesive) being true.
Today ... in the world of the Foucault skeptic, where all reason is reason by coercion ... we can say equally that it is one of the truths ... which has defeated other truths by coercion ... and both of these notions can hold at the same time.
The most basic truth of Kant, then, is the awakening from rationalism thus described. From there, it dependends on the skeptic or positivist-materialist in yourself (and in my case, i like to think, both). Underdetermination or non-reason.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 1:18 AM
2 Comments:
buy tramadol overnight tramadol hcl for pain - tramadol package insert
The Best Burberry Store to buy cheap Burberry outlet products online www.burberrytrenchcoatsoutlet.com. Discount [url=http://www.burberrytrenchcoatsoutlet.com/]Burberry outlet[/url] save off upto 70%, and free shipping!
Post a Comment
<< Home