Kant and the Thing in Itself

[lancek4]

That's why many go to philosophers like Kant and others - so they can see deeper meaning in life.

Such as?

My best bet is delusional crap, just like many people turn to religion for imaginary answers, but please prove me wrong!

What is delusional? Do you ever ask yourself how you come about this criterion? I bet you would say the science of psychology shows or proves what is true.

Shall I poke holes in psychology for you? Or do you validate yourself on how right and sane your are? I wouldn't want to arouse offense to your holy scientific faith now. Oh yeah, you wouldn't be able to hear it anyways.

But please, how do you know what is delusional?

[lancek4]

I think it depends on whether the universe is expanding or collapsing or static.

To blaggard:

I think what Chaz is saying here is the way we would know of the different conditions of your math-universe depends on what discursive situation is occurring for the discussion, not that these situations necessarily posit any absolute truth of the universe.

The point with Kant (again, I didn't read the article) is that these categories are intuited, and in so much as they are indeed intuited and then compared with other human mathematical discursive intuitions, the negotiation itself represented in the apparent progression of such discourse, must be necessary to our knowledge, whether or not it indeed reflects The True Universe; its all we have to work with. But in this Kant suggests and maybe foreshadows Hegel and his Historical Consciousness.

The problem with science is that (are you listening HH) is that it indeed 'forgot' Kant, or at least the lesson we can gain from him. That such categories as they are transcribed for human knowledge merely represent a scheme by which we are capable of making sense of what makes sense to us. It does not place us in a position at the forefront of Gods creation, as Kant might intuit under a different category; it merely shows that we indeed are coming upon knowledge as it is presented to us as we are not segregate from the operating universe. The difference then can be seen in the attitudes that arise such as HHammer; the arrogance capitalizes upon itself in its own glorification of power, such that those who do not submit to such demagogues of divine providence are irrelevant or just plain dumb. And this is what happened in colonialism, and its justification.

What I see, then, as the issue is: how or why can human beings develop such an idea that we operate from a position on the universe sufficiently segregate to be able to think that we are 'discovering' how the eternal and true universe operates? What is this feature of being human that tends toward self aggrandizement ?

[HexHammer]

But please, how do you know what is delusional?

One has to have a clear mind, no stress and such which can cause delusions and a good amount of cognitive abilities.

You are VERY delusional, how did it come to pass? Just born that way or some illness got the better of your mentality, or just bumped your head?

[WanderingLands]

One has to have a clear mind, no stress and such which can cause delusions and a good amount of cognitive abilities.

You are VERY delusional, how did it come to pass? Just born that way or some illness got the better of your mentality, or just bumped your head?

Hex, I think you are only projecting your own incompetence (whatever you have) onto other people. I say that judging from your bad grammar, and that you don't really make good arguments or even read an entire article before making judgments, that it is you who is delusional.

[Wyman]

I Kant make claims upon what the essay says.

Nice pun. Or Freudian slip.

[HexHammer]

One has to have a clear mind, no stress and such which can cause delusions and a good amount of cognitive abilities.

You are VERY delusional, how did it come to pass? Just born that way or some illness got the better of your mentality, or just bumped your head?

Hex, I think you are only projecting your own incompetence (whatever you have) onto other people. I say that judging from your bad grammar, and that you don't really make good arguments or even read an entire article before making judgments, that it is you who is delusional.

My own incompetence? LOL? Are you stupid?

Then please enlighten me, now that you seem to possess superior knowledge.

[WanderingLands]

My own incompetence? LOL? Are you stupid?

Then please enlighten me, now that you seem to possess superior knowledge.

You don't really need another person to tell your own incompetence: that you have grammatical issues; you ask people what kind of job they have, as if it is really anything that big of a deal; you can't really make arguments without resorting to insults, along with asking people about their job; you have many misconceptions about philosophy - thinking that it's 'outdated' compared to modern science, even though it is quite clear that you probably haven't really got too much into philosophy to determine whether it is relevant or not.

[Blaggard]

I think it depends on whether the universe is expanding or collapsing or static.

To blaggard:

I think what Chaz is saying here is the way we would know of the different conditions of your math-universe depends on what discursive situation is occurring for the discussion, not that these situations necessarily posit any absolute truth of the universe.

The point with Kant (again, I didn't read the article) is that these categories are intuited, and in so much as they are indeed intuited and then compared with other human mathematical discursive intuitions, the negotiation itself represented in the apparent progression of such discourse, must be necessary to our knowledge, whether or not it indeed reflects The True Universe; its all we have to work with. But in this Kant suggests and maybe foreshadows Hegel and his Historical Consciousness.

The problem with science is that (are you listening HH) is that it indeed 'forgot' Kant, or at least the lesson we can gain from him. That such categories as they are transcribed for human knowledge merely represent a scheme by which we are capable of making sense of what makes sense to us. It does not place us in a position at the forefront of Gods creation, as Kant might intuit under a different category; it merely shows that we indeed are coming upon knowledge as it is presented to us as we are not segregate from the operating universe. The difference then can be seen in the attitudes that arise such as HHammer; the arrogance capitalizes upon itself in its own glorification of power, such that those who do not submit to such demagogues of divine providence are irrelevant or just plain dumb. And this is what happened in colonialism, and its justification.

What I see, then, as the issue is: how or why can human beings develop such an idea that we operate from a position on the universe sufficiently segregate to be able to think that we are 'discovering' how the eternal and true universe operates? What is this feature of being human that tends toward self aggrandizement ?

Possibly but then only reading a short excerpt it's had to tell if there is any philosophical point at all. Hex's arrogance is not uncommon, knowing a little tends to lead some people to think they know enough. It is not an uncommon problem, there seems to be a sort of inbuilt mechanism in many people that causes them to overemphasise some things and under play what they don't know. That is probably a topic for a psychology thread and beyond the remit of this thread really.

The point I was making was that someone opined, kant could be wrong because he insisted on Euclidean geometry, my point was directed at that, in that the two systems don't really have much more than an arbitrary distinction. Non Euclidean geometry could equally be used to describe the difficulty with which an object finds passing through a medium in a totally flat universe, and in fact originally he wanted to keep the terms bending and folding of space out of the whole picture as it might mean some people got the idea space/time was some sort of fabric that had material intrinsically. It's interesting to note that Higgs theories use the terms dragging to denote the sort of force the field exerts on mass objects that pass through it too. Suffice to say gradient or permeability there is no need for any curvature at all. I'm not sure why Kant is being labelled as wrong, either, considering his knowledge, but then I would probably need more to go on than a few paragraphs. To be honest the idea that the Universe is saddle shaped or flat has nothing much to do with the point I was making other than to say, it is not possible to know what shape it is, certainly not because as far as we know the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and this speed is in and of itself increasing over time, meaning we cannot see the extent of it, so our maths is merely hypothetical conjecture. For all we know the universe might be square, with the facts we have at hand and the ideas of relativity we simply should not posit a conclusion as if it were a scientific one.

[HexHammer]

My own incompetence? LOL? Are you stupid?

Then please enlighten me, now that you seem to possess superior knowledge.

You don't really need another person to tell your own incompetence: that you have grammatical issues; you ask people what kind of job they have, as if it is really anything that big of a deal; you can't really make arguments without resorting to insults, along with asking people about their job; you have many misconceptions about philosophy - thinking that it's 'outdated' compared to modern science, even though it is quite clear that you probably haven't really got too much into philosophy to determine whether it is relevant or not.

How is grammar incompetence compared to both Kant and philosophy? How is logical and critically thinking bound to grammar? I'm afraid you are babbeling again, you only desperately grasp for straws, now that I've proven that Kant doesn't have relevance and you as always doesn't have a clue.

So, back to saying something intelligent which you havn't, just try for once!

[lancek4]

I think it depends on whether the universe is expanding or collapsing or static.

To blaggard:

I think what Chaz is saying here is the way we would know of the different conditions of your math-universe depends on what discursive situation is occurring for the discussion, not that these situations necessarily posit any absolute truth of the universe.

The point with Kant (again, I didn't read the article) is that these categories are intuited, and in so much as they are indeed intuited and then compared with other human mathematical discursive intuitions, the negotiation itself represented in the apparent progression of such discourse, must be necessary to our knowledge, whether or not it indeed reflects The True Universe; its all we have to work with. But in this Kant suggests and maybe foreshadows Hegel and his Historical Consciousness.

The problem with science is that (are you listening HH) is that it indeed 'forgot' Kant, or at least the lesson we can gain from him. That such categories as they are transcribed for human knowledge merely represent a scheme by which we are capable of making sense of what makes sense to us. It does not place us in a position at the forefront of Gods creation, as Kant might intuit under a different category; it merely shows that we indeed are coming upon knowledge as it is presented to us as we are not segregate from the operating universe. The difference then can be seen in the attitudes that arise such as HHammer; the arrogance capitalizes upon itself in its own glorification of power, such that those who do not submit to such demagogues of divine providence are irrelevant or just plain dumb. And this is what happened in colonialism, and its justification.

What I see, then, as the issue is: how or why can human beings develop such an idea that we operate from a position on the universe sufficiently segregate to be able to think that we are 'discovering' how the eternal and true universe operates? What is this feature of being human that tends toward self aggrandizement ?

Possibly but then only reading a short excerpt it's had to tell if there is any philosophical point at all. Hex's arrogance is not uncommon, knowing a little tends to lead some people to think they know enough. It is not an uncommon problem, there seems to be a sort of inbuilt mechanism in many people that causes them to overemphasise some things and under play what they don't know. That is probably a topic for a psychology thread and beyond the remit of this thread really.

The point I was making was that someone opined, kant could be wrong because he insisted on Euclidean geometry, my point was directed at that, in that the two systems don't really have much more than an arbitrary distinction. Non Euclidean geometry could equally be used to describe the difficulty with which an object finds passing through a medium in a totally flat universe, and in fact originally he wanted to keep the terms bending and folding of space out of the whole picture as it might mean some people got the idea space/time was some sort of fabric that had material intrinsically. It's interesting to note that Higgs theories use the terms dragging to denote the sort of force the field exerts on mass objects that pass through it too. Suffice to say gradient or permeability there is no need for any curvature at all. I'm not sure why Kant is being labelled as wrong, either, considering his knowledge, but then I would probably need more to go on than a few paragraphs. To be honest the idea that the Universe is saddle shaped or flat has nothing much to do with the point I was making other than to say, it is not possible to know what shape it is, certainly not because as far as we know the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and this speed is in and of itself increasing over time, meaning we cannot see the extent of it, so our maths is merely hypothetical conjecture. For all we know the universe might be square, with the facts we have at hand and the ideas of relativity we simply should not posit a conclusion as if it were a scientific one.

Well, I wonder what the article is saying

Your reply here reminds me of a Ted talk I listened to. About physics and the universe. I will try to paraphrase. The guy (sorry, don't remember his name) was saying that when we look out to the edge of the universe, we see it is expanding , but that it is accelerating in its expansion, so that the 'edge' of the universe, the stars or what there, took however millions of years for their light to reach us, and that we just happen to be able and be looking right at this time to notice the edge and its acceleration of expansion. That due to this expansion, and our coincidental looking, we are being able to come to certain conclusions about the actual nature of our universe that scientists in the future will not be able to account for due to the edge, that we see now, at that point in the future will be so far away, having expanded at a rate faster than the light would be able to reach them (the future scientists). That they will not be able to confirm our observations and thereby will probably come to a totally different conclusion than we have now. Or something like that.

This guy scientist was so exited and admimant about what wonderful things are occurring for science right now. But I could not help but wonder how he could be so exited about such discoveries that more than likely are not based and any real actual truth, since this truth he's so exited about he is already admitting will no longer be true and any real sense. I could not help but be amazed at the arrogance and presumptuousness that informs ones ability to proclaim the 'true truth' over and beyond the 'obviously misinformed' truth that the future scientists will encounter. Or even that the 'now truth' does not seem to be willing to be informed by the possibility involved in the very truth they have found, which is that in the future there will be no scientific method to verify what science through the scientific method is finding now.

I guess its just the philosopher in me. He seems to be fully invested in a truth that is not really true. And so I can call it 'faith'. And somehow I cannot avoid seeing that the scientific truth is bringing up some very philosophical questions that cannot or should not be avoided, questions that then also question the very nature of what we have come to know of philosophy itself.

[Blaggard]

That's not good science, and is probably something you read outside of a proper science medium. Scientists are as apt to leap to tall ideas as anyone, as long as it's kept out of the Journal of physics, I don't think it's all that damaging, in fact sometimes it gets people interested to know more, and then they find that he or she was full of shit, and it's an enlightening process. These days though there is the advertising aspect, science is a commodity like anything else, and it has its spin doctors, a scientists says now I know this is all specualtion but, and the only part that makes it in is the content after that. If you asked the same scientist to write a paper that would be subject to peer review on the subject, he'd probably go er hell no, that's just me being excited and what I do in my down time. That said I think perhaps the most apt thing philosophy has done in the last 200 years is bring science down to Earth and get its head out of the clouds. For that it must be lauded but the journey is not over.

"wake up with a hypothesis, destroy it over breakfast, then you are ready to work."

Anon.

That's the working mind set. You do get a lot of pulp fiction in and around any field though. In my experience when scientists are at work the only time they will get all gooey about stuff is when they are outside of the lab, around the water bottle marked freedom, discussing shiz that was on their mind. The process of science requires creativity, it's not such a bad thing that some of the creativity that spills over into the meme space, is just their idle speculation.

I think what philosophy has done is make scientists aware of truthiness if not truth which is not a subject they deal in, whether they were aware that the material they covered had once undergone a process of philosophy is probably something they are unaware of. Scientists in my experience consider philosophers to be a little too vague and uninformative at best, and probably don't need too much direction in truth. Philosophers think scientists are uncaring of philosophy as a rule, and they are right. I am not sure this is wise as a potential scientist myself. One must have rules on how to think (you don't build a solid foundation on clay/wet mud), in fact in some of the better universities you study metaphysics in physics, which most philosophers are unaware of. For example a friend of mine studied The Ascent of Man in his physics degree at Oxbridge. But then Oxbridge tends to be a better standard, they wont even let students get part time jobs the syllabus is so full, they'd give you a grant rather than see you waste time in the mediocre pursuit of work, which as we know both absorbs and degrades the mind. Someone said that once I forget who.

[lancek4]

That's not goof science, and is probably something you read outside of a proper science medium. Scientists are as apt to leap to tall ideas as anyone, as long as it's kept out of the Journal of physics, I don't think it's all that damaging. These days though there is the advertising aspect, a scientists says now I know this is all specualtion but, and the only part that makes it in is the content after that. If you asked the same scientist to write a paper that would be subject to peer review on the subject, he'd probably go er hell no, that's just me being excited and what I do in my down time. That said I think perhaps the most apt thing philosophy has done in the last 200 years is bring science down to Earth and get its head out of the clouds. For that it must be lauded but the journey is not over.

"wake up with a hypothesis, destroy it over breakfast, then you are ready to work."

That's the working mind set. You do get a lot of pulp fiction in and around any field though. In my experience when scientists are at work the only time they will get all gooey about stuff is when they are outside of the lab, around the water bottle marked freedom, discussing shiz that was on their mind. The process of science requires creativity, it's not such a bad thing that some of the creativity that spills over into the meme space, is just their idle speculation.

Yet such over zealousness of scientists abounds everywhere. Maybe there are some keeping their head down in the science, so to speak, but there is a tendency, I would say everywhere, to make human conclusions about what the science means. It is difficult for me to think that there are scientists who do not view their work as discovering important things. How can they be important without a human context ? Do they not drink beers and speculate? Do not such speculations reach further than those conversations amoung friends who really know what's going on? And are not those conversations about science likewise informed by the conversations that are had that are not based around the 'true' meaning of scientific work? Its not all math. Its math being transcribed into meaning. To sort out that some people are involved with a 'truth of truth', even if it admits is limits in hypothesis and theory, that others are taking it incorrectly, sound to me like what the Scholastics were doing around the topic of a God.



But on another note: The picture you seem to be portraying of science and scientists seems very well in line with what Quentin Miesalloux argues for in his book "Beyond Finitude". That the true is in the math and we have to stop thinking transcendentally.

[Blaggard]

How would you know about the 99% keeping their head down, farming out papers that passed peer review, doing reserach that invents a new super strong material that can be used to patch up bone fractures, these occur in the real world after 20 years of the necessary testing, and in journals you will probably never read. You probably have no idea about real science any more than any Scientist generally has an idea about real philosophy. I think that's a point I have tired to make in general, philosophers don't really know enough about science, unless they have a PhD in the philosophy of science, and yet they still think they know science. Scientists well the same reversed, unless they really know philosophy. Keep it logical people.

What you read in a pop science magazine, or documentary you saw, is the flotsam the stuff that is floating around on the surface (whose veracity is subject to a filtering process on the garbage that is flotsam and the facts that are actual worthwhile things you can keep). What you really see if you have experienced any actual science, is the stuff that makes the ocean currents move that drives the business, the money end sure, money is where it is at we live in a capitalist age, but it is what fundamentally drives invention, the waves and where the flotsam or jetsam lands well that's due to the sun and the moon and the wind therein, these things science has no control over.

I don't think the truth is just in the math, I think the truth is in finding by a reciprocal process how to model reality with better math and math with better reality. Experiment is where it starts, the maths is wrong always by some margin of error, reality is never wrong, approximating reality even if it is unreachable, not maths, is where science should be at.

[Ginkgo]

My particular interpretation of the article has to do with a bit of history.

The big debate at the time of Kant was... let's call it Metaphysics versus Empiricism. Hume attempted to crush metaphysics and the notion that apriori reasoning could produce any useful knowledge. Hume wanted us to go through our libraries and burn all our books on metaphysics- for all the use they were. Hume wanted to replace apriori reasoning with aposteriori reasoning because he saw this type of knowledge as reliable knowledge gained from experience.

Kant was metaphysician in the rationalist tradition. A significant breakthrough in terms of bringing metaphysics and empiricism into a coherent theory came when Kant declared, "It was Hume who woke me from my dogmatic slumbers"

Instead of having two categories of truth apriori and aposteriori (Hume referred to the aposteriori as synthetic propositions) Kant proposed a third category that contained elements of both, a synthesis of the two. His proposal was a new category called the synthetic apriori.
Obviously still very much the topic of hot debate today.

[WanderingLands]

e]How is grammar incompetence compared to both Kant and philosophy? How is logical and critically thinking bound to grammar? I'm afraid you are babbeling again, you only desperately grasp for straws, now that I've proven that Kant doesn't have relevance and you as always doesn't have a clue.

So, back to saying something intelligent which you havn't, just try for once!

You've only asserted that Kant was irrelevant; you did not provide reason or evidence for why you thought he was irrelevant at all. For example, what part of his Metaphysics, or his Ethics, do you think is wrong? Those are the type of things that I am looking for, which is different than simply saying that he's 'irrelavant'.

Having good grammar skills, which includes spelling, punctuation, etc., has a lot to do with competance, as by having good skills in grammar you've shown that you are capable of writing and that also, it's easier for people to read and decipher and would not show sloppiness on part of the writer, ie. You.