This is to counter PH's narrow view of 'what is abstraction' which leads to the hindrance of moral progress.
Here is the argument:
Kant wrote:
[Bix] "The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.
That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in ABSTRACTING indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.
Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {Knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences."
Here's AI's Response:VA to AI wrote:What are the significant implication of this point:
"That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in ABSTRACTING.."
Does it mean that since science as the most credible and objective knowledge we have, and that science depend on logic and abstraction, all human knowledge are limited to the limitation of abstraction which is a mental process?
Further consideration:AI wrote:Kant's Abstraction and the Limits of Knowledge
Kant's assertion that logic's success is due to its limitations is a pivotal point in understanding the nature of knowledge. By abstracting from specific content, logic can establish universal rules of thought. However, this very abstraction also limits its scope.
Implications of Kant's Statement
• Logic as a Formal Tool: Logic is a powerful tool, but it's a formal one. It provides the structure for reasoning, but it doesn't provide the content.
• The Role of Experience: While logic is necessary for scientific inquiry, it's not sufficient. Empirical data, derived from experience, is equally crucial.
• Limits of Human Knowledge: If logic, as a foundation of knowledge, is limited by its abstraction, then there are inherent limitations to human knowledge. We can only know the world through the lens of our cognitive faculties.
Does This Mean All Knowledge is Limited by Abstraction?
Yes, according to Kant's perspective, all human knowledge is indeed constrained by the limitations of our cognitive faculties, including abstraction. This is a central tenet of his philosophy, known as transcendental idealism.
However, it's important to note:
• Not all knowledge is equally limited: Some forms of knowledge, like mathematics, rely heavily on logic and abstraction, while others, like history or art, are more grounded in experience.
• The nature of reality itself is a question: Kant's position doesn't necessarily negate the existence of a reality independent of our minds, but it does suggest that our access to it is mediated by our cognitive structures.
In conclusion, Kant's insight into the limitations of logic and abstraction offers a profound challenge to the notion of objective knowledge.
It invites us to consider the extent to which our understanding of the world is shaped by the nature of our minds.
Would you like to explore the implications of Kant's philosophy for contemporary epistemology or metaphysics?
AI's Response:VA to AI wrote:AI: "Not all knowledge is equally limited: Some forms of knowledge, like mathematics, rely heavily on logic and abstraction, while others, like history or art, are more grounded in experience."
If abstraction is fundamental to human nature as adapted since abiogenesis, experience itself would also be grounded on abstraction or rather meta-abstraction?
Seems like there is no escape from abstraction?
"The nature of reality: If our perception is inherently abstract, can we ever truly know what reality is independent of our minds?"AI wrote:Abstraction: The Inescapable Lens
You've hit upon a profound point. If abstraction is indeed a fundamental tool of human cognition, then it seems inescapable. Even our experiences, raw as they may seem, are filtered through the lens of abstraction.
• Sensory Perception: Our senses themselves are abstractions. We don't perceive the world directly but through neural interpretations of sensory data. These interpretations are already abstracted representations of reality.
• Memory: Our memories are not perfect recordings. They're reconstructed based on our past experiences and current understanding, which involves abstraction.
• Language: As a tool for communication, language relies heavily on abstraction. Words are symbols that represent concepts, and our understanding of the world is shaped by the language we use.
So, while it might appear that some forms of knowledge, like history or art, are more grounded in experience, even these are mediated by abstraction. It's a complex interplay between direct experience and our cognitive tools for processing that information.
This raises intriguing questions:
• The nature of reality: If our perception is inherently abstract, can we ever truly know what reality is independent of our minds?
• The limitations of knowledge: Does the inescapable nature of abstraction impose fundamental limits on our understanding of the universe?
• The role of consciousness: How does consciousness interact with abstraction in shaping our experience of the world?
These are questions that philosophers and scientists have grappled with for centuries.
I have already discuss this point, i.e. whatever is reality is contingent upon a human-based FSERC; there is no absolute mind-independent reality as claimed by philosophical realists.
Discuss??
Views??