Philosophy Now Forum

In thinking about "German Idealism", as I am studying it
right now.....I have some general thoughts about certain things...

we "know" things as adults because we were taught these things as children...
what seems to be painfully obvious to us today, isn't so obvious
if you actually think about it...it is painfully obvious that
1 + 1 = 2.... we take this for granted... but it isn't that clear upon
reflection....

Hand a child a stick, (now note that the child may not even know
what a stick is.. Daddy, what is this? Son, it is a stick... and daddy,
where do sticks come from? They come from trees... and daddy,
what are trees? ... and so on and so forth...as a parent, I can
attest to this line of Inquiry from children....so, back to the stick...
we hand a child a stick, then hand that child another stick...
and we say, Son, what do we have here? Daddy, I don't know...
Son, we have two sticks... and that is quite clear to us... but think
about it...hand a child a stick... to a child that is simple something
in their hand (and the idea of a hand needs explaining)
to us we think, one stick in a child's hand...add another stick
and we have two sticks... but from a child's standpoint, it is
just another object in their hands.. you say, Son, you have one stick
plus one stick, that means you have two sticks... one plus one equals two...
but what is the reality to a child? a stick is a physical reality, and
another stick is a physical reality, but what about that word, plus....
1 + 1 = 2 means one stick plus one stick equals two sticks...
but that word plus is not a physical reality.... the idea of plus
is a mental construct... the idea of plus does not exists within the world...
we have to teach children this concept about plus, and we have to
teach them about the minus sign and the division sign and the
multiplication sign... math or the act of adding or subtracting,
is an mental act.. and learned as a child.. why do you think we
spend years practicing our math tables, one plus one is two,
two plus two is four, four plus four is eight... and we do this
for years... this math is not "a priori" before experience...
we must experience this to actually understand this...and we spend
years "experiencing" math... from simple math, pre-algebra to the
higher math, calculus to linear algebra and differential equations
to set theory.... and all of it, is learned by practicing it....by
experience.... math as we understand it, does not exist in the real
world... it is a human construct...plus, equal, divide, are
words that have no physical presence in the world...
or said another way, we spend our lives interpreting the world...

so, for example, take a stick... if we are children, we don't
even know what a stick is until someone, a parent or teacher
or a sister tells us what a stick is and how to use a stick...
the knowledge of a stick is not "a priori" knowledge,
it is learned... so let us relook at that stick...
what is a stick? depending on our understanding or
interpretation of a stick, a stick needs to be "defined"..
which means what? we can define a stick, as a weapon,
a means of math, a part of a tree, a tool to walk with,
for a dog to carry or fetch....to place the stick into context,
to understand what that stick is to do, we must interpret
that stick into context... and any interpretation we do,
is a mental construct...which is something we learn
as part of our history... we learn what a stick is within
our own history...as we are taught what a stick is, that lies
within part of our history/our own experiences...
which is a long way of saying that philosophers often think
of concepts like 1+1=2... as a physical reality right here,
right now, with no history... 1+1=2 is learned within our history..
it is not "a priori" and we think it is "a priori" because we forget
that we have learned everything we know.... everything you know,
math, god, science, your name, tree's and sticks are things you learned
because somebody, most likely in your childhood, taught you those
things....we think that some things are "a priori" because we forget
that we were taught these things as we grew older...Kant thought that
time and space were "a priori" knowledge... but in fact, we know
about time and space because we grew up with that knowledge...
met me in 5 minutes.... that knowledge is a mental construct because
what exactly is 5 minutes? that idea of 5 minutes does not
exists within our reality....time, minutes, hours, days, a years
are an artificial construct... and have no reality outside of us..
but this idea of 5 minutes is not "a priori", before experience...
or think of it this way, we create or interpret time as being
5 minutes... but it has no reality outside of us...

our understanding of the universe is really just a matter of
our interpretation of reality... learned from our history of/with
experience...

take a tree... unless someone explains what a tree is and its
various connections to the surrounding space, we have no
idea what a tree is....if I were to look at a tree for the very first
time, without any explanation of a tree before me, I have no
idea what a tree is is...someone explains what a tree is according
to their own interpretation of a tree...what their explanation/experience
of a tree is....

our very understandable of the universe is simple a series of
interpretations of other people's experiences of the world...
all education/experiences are, is simply tools that enable us
to interpret the world... and if our education/experiences are
faulty, then our interpretation of the world is faulty...

take this interpretation... all blacks are inferior...
if I look at a black man and believe that he is inferior,
that is an interpretation from a faulty education/ experience..
or as they say in the computer biz, garbage in, garbage out...
all education/experiences do is provide us with the "knowledge"
to interpret what we see... our knowledge of the universe comes
from our interpretation of what we see... which is provided to
us by education and experiences....there is no "a priori" before
experience.. there is just education and experience that allows
us to interpret what we see...

our understanding of the world/universe is simply our
interpretation of what we see based on our own individual
education and experiences...
everything I see, hear, taste, touch, smell is interpreted by me,
based on my own individual experiences and education...

the entire human experience is one of, how do we interpret this....
and that interpretation is a mental construct based on our
education and experiences...

a stick is just an object until we interpret it to be a stick or
a weapon or a tool to count... everything is simply a question
of interpretation... how do I interpret this?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:31 pm a stick is just an object until we interpret it to be a stick or
a weapon or a tool to count... everything is simply a question
of interpretation... how do I interpret this?

Kropotkin

If "object" is/were an act of interpretation, then maybe a stick isn't even an "object" before we encounter and "interpret" it?

so if we were to correctly understand our ''human existence"
we would understand that the "human condition" is simply
something that is a human construct, the universe/world
is simply something that we interpret... that is not
to say that material/matter doesn't exists, it just means that
to make sense of matter, requires us to interpret it....
the universe and world and matter all exists...
we just have to interpret it for it to make any sense to us...

and Plato/Kant hold that the way we interpret the universe
is by the means of categories.... and that categories
are "a priori" before experience... we hold them in our minds
before experience.. but this simply isn't true...

as a child, walk into a kitchen... what is there?
we have random shapes, colors and sizes...
and even those words, shapes, colors and sizes must
be experienced before we can make sense of them...
even the word kitchen makes no sense until someone
explain to us what a kitchen is...so we walk into a kitchen
and ( I shall describe my own kitchen as I have walked into it)
on the left, is a white box.. but even that idea of box and white,
needs explaination.....

as a child, I ask my mom, what is that? and she might say, that
is an oven, but to my little mind, is the oven, the color, the shape
or the function of that box? I actually don't know....my mom might
say, Kropotkin, that color is white.. thus I learn what a color is...
that is the creation of a category... and that oven is box shape,
the creation of another category, shapes...
and that oven is hot, the creation of another category, heat/cold...
we learn about the "so called" categories from someone teaching us
what categories are..... heat, shape, color are all categories that
we learn as children, not as adults and not "a priori"....

this very idea of categories is simply something we learned as
children from someone teaching us and through their interpretation
of those shapes, colors and heat....unless someone tells us or
interprets those shapes, colors, heat.. as categories, we
have no idea what things are.. and we cannot have categories
unless it is taught to us... the very idea of categories is learned from
our childhood... it is not "a priori" but learned from others..
and based upon their own interpretations of "reality"

"a priori" ideas are not given to us by some random universal
act, but are given by experience/education and interpretation of those
experiences/education.....

now some might say, as Noam Chomasky says, that language is innate,
"a priori".. but think about it.... if we believe in evolution,
and within evolution, we are taught to speak, we have over
a million years of language behind us...this million of years
of language, is firmly engrained into us... like us being
social creatures... that comes from a million plus years
of evolution...just as being social creatures is ingrained into
us by evolution, language might be ingrained into us
by evolution.... which in fact also explains the concept of
god in human beings... it isn't part of reality but is ingrained
into us as being social and language is ingrained into us
by evolution....instinct is simply evolution at work
over millions of years...we are human beings because
it has been imprinted, programmed into us by millions
of years of evolution... the notion of "a priori" is simply
millions of years of evolution programming us to certain
acts or beliefs....just as my childhood programmed me
to be non-religious.. a million years of belief in god,
had programmed human beings into believing in god....
that is what "a priori" means.. programming into us...
and is the basis of language, our social nature, our
dependence on each other... our social structure,
the family... and our morality.. ethics is simply
a million years of programming....it doesn't exist
"a priori" without experience... it has a million plus
years of experience in it...." a priori" knowledge
is simply millions of years of experience which
is programmed into us... as instincts are millions
of years of experience....programmed into
animals, of which we are one....

and what separates animals from humans? is the act
of possibility in which we humans can overcome our
instincts, our programming and animals cannot overcome
their instincts... it is right here that separates animals from
humans... the possibility of overcoming our instincts/programming
is what makes us human...
so let us think about this for a moment....

is becoming religious, going to god, overcoming our instincts,
our programming? NO, as I have said, the belief in god comes
from a million of years of imprinting from evolution....
our history and pre-history of humanity has programmed the
idea of god into us... and we can escape this instinct, programming
and that moves us further along from animal to animal/human to
finally becoming fully human... to becoming human means
we must overcome our instincts, our programming...
if we remain locked into our instincts/programming,
we are nothing more than animals....and we
now see the value of the "Enlightenment"

It was an attempt to overcome our instincts/our programming
and escape being an animal... the "Rennaissance" is
another attempt to overcome our instincts/our programming...

the point of being human is not to make money or gain fame,
material goods, power or titles... but to overcome our
instincts and a million years of programming which is evolution....
to go from animal, to animal/human to becoming fully
human....that is the real journey/destination of human beings...
to overcome our instincts and a million years of programming.....

to become more than just "a priori" or instinctual animals,
but to become human....

Kropotkin

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:50 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:31 pm a stick is just an object until we interpret it to be a stick or
a weapon or a tool to count... everything is simply a question
of interpretation... how do I interpret this?

Kropotkin

If "object" is/were an act of interpretation, then maybe a stick isn't even an "object" before we encounter and "interpret" it?

K: yep....but for the statement to make sense, I have to call it a stick or
an object or something, for my statement to make any sense...
I have to name and by that name, we can then make sense of my statement...
if I don't call it an object, or a stick, how would we know what I was
talking about? what is an object before it becomes an object? what
would we name that?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:50 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:31 pm a stick is just an object until we interpret it to be a stick or
a weapon or a tool to count... everything is simply a question
of interpretation... how do I interpret this?

Kropotkin

If "object" is/were an act of interpretation, then maybe a stick isn't even an "object" before we encounter and "interpret" it?

K: yep....but for the statement to make sense, I have to call it a stick or
an object or something, for my statement to make any sense...
I have to name and by that name, we can then make sense of my statement...
if I don't call it an object, or a stick, how would we know what I was
talking about? what is an object before it becomes an object? what
would we name that?

Kropotkin

Well if it's Idealism we're concerned with then I assume we can't or else maybe are not supposed to say anything about anything prior to interpreting it? As soon as we interpret it it becomes something. Before that, it just wasn't.