And, also, I may be lost in the noise.

I’d be surprised if you were not with the familiar 1783 passage regarding “dogmatic slumbers”. THAT….is the root of Kantian dualism, the unity of rational vs empirical doctrines prevalent in his time. The two-world or two-aspect-of-one world confabulation was the illegitimate, red-headed stepchild of a veritable PLETHORA of successors, except Schopenhauer, methinks to be the foremost immediate peer that actually understood wtf the noise was all about.

Noise. Including, but not limited to….whether or not that which can be treated as a science, actually is one. — Mww

Heh, fair. I'm familiar, but undecided on the right way to read.

My preference is actually for the one-world interpretation, though it may only be a prejudice extending from my way of reading Pluhar's translation.

I think it gets along with the anti-metaphysics Kant espouses -- if there were two worlds then we could say there is a noumenal and phenomenal world, which looks a lot like a knowledge claim to me. Rather than two-worlds I think the two-aspect view gets along with the notion that we cannot know the noumenal -- it could be a second world, but it could also just be the things we can't know about the world we are in. Only God knows.

In that case, I am not sure if Hegel was understanding Kant properly. Because from my view, it is not clear that Kant's world view was dualism. What Kant said was that our knowledge can only give us understanding to the point of our experience, and that is the limit our reason. — Corvus

And @Mww

I don't believe that Hegel cared to understand Kant in the "proper" sense --i.e. in the sense that he'd count as a Kantian -- he only riffs on Kantian ideas to do his own thing.

But whether or not Kant was a dualist I think is still a matter up for debate because it sounds like the question of whether or not Kant was a one-world or two-world theorist. (Theorist isn't the right word -- these are two competing interpretations in the literature): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TwoAspInt

I own a copy of Science of Logic by Hegel, but it's huge. It's the A. V. Miller translation.

I'm wondering what the ISBN of that book is in your picture? I want to look it up and see what the difference is.

Far too few of us, I'm afraid.

Ahhh OK. Makes sense.

...

Now I might be contradicting myself, but then it seems like philosophy might be useful at something after all ;)

I should preface by saying that I've never been all too enamoured with morality as a field of study quite frankly. Using obtuse thought experiments to parse what is good and bad simply always seemed like a rather pointless endeavour, and I personally feel it's more fruitful to investigate morality in specific terms rather than universal terms and evaluate morality more so from a personal and societal perspective than from a seemingly objective view-point. — Dorrian

I cannot claim to say I always felt this way, but I do now.

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

I believe that all moral systems are flawed.

I do not believe that they are futile.

I can understand the feeling between the two. But upon examination it seems to not hold up.

A moral system can be flawed in this or that circumstance, and I have even less control over what circumstance I'm in than I have with respect to my believed moral system.

I'd point this out as at least an analogy for living: When I first started building wood structures I was terrible, now I'm OK. It takes time to become better, and on top of that there is more than one acceptable moral system to follow depending on what you're doing.

Continuing the craftsman analogy: You need to call a plumber, an electrician, a building maintenance manager, an automated engineering technology specialist, etc., to fix the job.

Why not treat morality as specifically as we treat the various industries where we make specifications?

In some ways I feel like it's the first social morality -- as I was influenced to pursue what I wanted as a child, so goes the moral systems.

They're not futile systems as much as incomplete, but necessary (in spite of their incompleteness!) ways of thinking. Or suggestions.

Heidegger ends Being and Time on Hegel's analysis of time. — Gregory

I think it's important to see that Heidegger never ended Being and Time by his own design.

I think he got lost in his own hermeneutic, or perhaps just ended in aporia from his initial ambitions.

The important thing to note is that he never finished his thoughts -- so they are interesting, but he didn't do what Camus did, for instance, in posing a question and then answering it.

You're making me want to become persnickity in the use of terms :D

"Intuition" has a special meaning in Kant, for instance -- it's the form in which the given is given. He doesn't insist upon intuition, though, but argues for it in the Transcendental Aesthetic.

I'd say that Kant's formulation of the categories of cause are the response to Hume.

But, I agree that these considerations are often...

a luxury not available to all. — Paine

For Hegel contradiction is the essential element in the changes and progress of the world. — Corvus

Yeahrp.

:up:

Reason itself is a faculty which analyses and finds truths, but if it is to employ transcendental logic for its operation, then does it not duplicate itself with another faculty of truth telling system? Does it imply that reason says true on X, but the logic says false on X at the same time? If both of them says true, then why does reason need the logic, and why logic needs reason?

Are they not rather actually the same faculty expressed in different terms? — Corvus

No.

There's a lot of lingo there that can be interpreted in various ways. But "No", I think, is the true answer to all of your questions above.

"Faculty" is a fun word from the early modern period. It doesn't specify much other than thought-furniture/functions in the imaginations of the early moderns.

Reason, in Kant, is a generalizations of the various powers of judgment which ultimately want truth.

I'd compare "Faculty" to "Category" in Kant, though -- not so much that reason itself is a faculty but faculties (categories) are a part of Reason.

Can it be that it it is the concept of "beyond our grasp" that is beyond our grasp?
(My old friend Ludvic suggested this to me.) — unenlightened

I think that's about right. To continue the metaphor, though, I'd say that we're grasping for something we sense but do not know where it's at -- such as when we feel a vibration through water of a liferaft being thrown to us. It's just out of grasp and yet we have a sense of where that's at without having a grasp of it.

:chin: I've no idea what you're talking about. Any links for the ignorant?

What is Kant's one great idea? — Gregory

According to Bertrand Russell it was the transcendental aesthetic, in the CPR.

I'd say it's his introduction to the CPR, though. A and B editions make different arguments, but the distinctions he's exploring in each just by way of formulating his question is amazing and great.

He had more than one, however ;)

In relation to Hegel I'd say his distinction between "Logic as such" (formal logic) and "Transcendental Logic" is similar in height to Hegels historical dialectic.

****

But really I think the two thinkers are different -- as a historicist might say :)

I, and others, do understand what it is to follow plus and quus and to choose which to enact. — Banno

Can confirm.

I would encourage people to participate, especially if they enjoy philosophy. — Sam26

I encourage you to participate on that basis, else fall into performative contradiction ;)

But, yes -- my thinking is that it ought be a celebration of the philosophical creative mind, and not necessarily the "greatest" paper ever or whatever that might mean. I promise to give constructive feedback to any entrant, as in I'll try to improve the essay from the perspective of the writer writing it, as the "hook".

But I say that because I look forward to reading lots of brave and original philosophy essays from our people.

except I rather think contradiction is certainly a necessary part of logic. Or, maybe, if not a necessary part, then at least the fundamental ground for the validity of logical constructs. — Mww

Good point.

"contradiction" is part of the logic, but in Kantian terms I'd say he'd deny that contradiction is ever true in the transcendental logic.

Heh, if Kant was anything he was not an absurdist, in my view. More the opposite -- that everything which can be understood can be understood in logical form. "One side", again, is a Hegelian philosophical concept. Kant does not subscribe to Hegel's notion of concepts having sides at all. "sides" would be, were I to take a guess, part of the categories in some fashion. Cartesian coordinates come to mind as a conjunct of the qualitative and quantitative super-categories. And the Ideas, in Kant, are things like God, Freedom, and Immortality -- there is no anti-God which defines God, or anti-Freedom which defines freedom (or whatever the contrary we'd decide to pick for the concepts).

The big difference between Kant and Hegel is that Kant set out to create a static philosophy that could be referenced in the future in resolving problems, much like Copernicus' science. His question is the possibility of treating philosophy, especially metaphysics, in terms of the sciences like Newton and Leibniz, but with a reflection to the problems of empiricism due to Hume. And Hegel incorporated the notion of history which moves rather than a static logic.

Hegel's notion of "one-sided" is basically his critique of Kant -- to be able to name an antinomy you have to be able to stand on both sides of it.

I disagree with Hegel's argument, for what it's worth -- I can point to a mountain without climbing over it, for instance.

j

was contradiction a necessary part of logic and/or reality in the worldview of Kant? — Gregory

No.

If we can only see two sides of an idea, how do we know they unite at a highet level?

Kant's use of the antinomies was to demonstrate that we do not know such things -- we can rationally argue for both the assertion and the negation, and both will appeal to reason, and they can be put side-by-side and end up in contradiction. For Kant this shows a limitation on reason's ability to answer some questions.

Ideas having a two-sidedness is very much a Hegel move and not a Kant move.

I agree, but feel like I shouldn't... — Banno

Welcome, brother! :D

To my circle of thinking that ends in . .. circles... of thinking......

Well he seems to think differently, though in my view if irony is based on expectation then nothing is ironic if you have no expectations.

That's why I'm thinking he's meaning relative or subjective, not ironic. — Darkneos

Does anyone have no expectations? Is that a good basis for understanding irony at all?

I can't say what David Moore means.

I don't take Quora seriously, to be honest. I participated a for a small time there in answering labor questions and saw how it's basically a social media game.

I don't think that irony is relativism, though. I'd go back to Plato to define Irony ostensively.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1635/1635-h/1635-h.htm

Ion is a great dialogue for defining irony; it ends in an aporia that makes Ion the butt of the joke, and it doesn't explain that throughout. You have to "get it"

I don't think irony is based on a lack of expectations, though if you're a dullard without any expectations I could see how irony is lost on a person.

heh ,no.

The thought that came to mind was how if the thread was posited this or the other way @Banno would say his bit, and I was thinking how it'd be right to say it -- whether it be against big knowledge claims or for small knowledge claims, it'd be right to point out those difficulties in relation to a philosophical question.

And you would have been right, just as you are right now. :D

To keep my annoying persona, I must say both-and :D

I didn't mean that up front though. And find:

My joke is rimshot cheese shit eating grin opportunity strikes... yours and Banno's joke is different and I definitely didn't think about it at all, until being pinged by Banno. — DifferentiatingEgg

A refreshing change of pace.

Well, here we are, talking about π - so, no, it is not beyond our grasp...

At least for some of us.

And what that AI describes as "the philosophy of Pi", isn't - any more than are the outbreaks of verse that sometimes litter these fora. Fluffy nonsense, like knowing the millionth digit of Pi — Banno

I'll take as the original joke. Not beyond our grasp, though there are some of us... -- it's a rimshot joke.

Though if forced I'd say that the litter of outbreaks in verse on these fora are closer to philosophy than the nonsense of the AI bots.

Well, you responding in this manner makes me wonder if I understand the joke?

I'm guessing we all pretty much get the joke?

We shall overcome, though. Unless we throw spanners in.

Stop which - the calculation, or the thread? — Banno

Well, it must be the calculation since the thread will never satisfy -- given how often we go past the point of explanation here :D

Well, here we are, talking about π - so, no, it is not beyond our grasp... — Banno

That's what I first thought -- and not just talking about pi, but knowing what we're talking about in saying pi.

Pi = the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. — ucarr

What else could "grasping" consist in such that we don't grasp pi in the manner @ucarr says above?

There could be something deep in there --

What do we do with numbers like pi that go on forever? — frank

I'd suggest we stop at the point we are satisfied, while knowing that the procedure can carry on.

I think dude in Quora is expressing a point that makes enough sense, but I wouldn't put it in the terms of "everything is ironic" on a philosophy board.

Plato, I think, expresses an ironic attitude towards life; given the nature of the dialogues we can't say it was his intent or whatever, but Plato almost invented the notion of irony with his dialogues.

But he did so on the background of a universal desire for truth, at least. Even his allegories can be read ironically, as poetic testaments to a feeling of communing with the forms.

But, and this is what is so delicious about Plato, this interpretation will remain ironic in the technical sense -- that it's unexpected, a step removed, and itself will have contenders that bring about a deeper meaning without settling the question of irony or the question of the essay.

Everything isn't irony because most things don't end in aporia or comedy.

I've been hesitant to reply because I think 's response is better than I can muster.

But the OP isn't around and it's been three days and I'm still thinking about it, so I'll post anyways.

This is the bit I take the most umbrage to:

It is remarkable that men really communicate with one another only by passing through being or one of its properties. Only in this way do they escape from the individuality in which matter encloses them. If they remain in the world of their sense needs and of their sentimental egos, in vain do they tell their stories to one another, they do not understand each other.

And I feel I'm threading a needle here; there's the sense in which I do not want to deny Maritain at all.

And there's that quote up there that uses "only in this way..." -- and I think that's what philosophers often get wrong.

There are people who dedicate their lives to dancing, for instance. There aren't even stories to tell at that point, but dances to dance. It is only the philosopher who doesn't see this as a form of understanding, among all the various other ways people do, in fact, really communicate with one another without passing through being or one of its properties.

The "on the other hand..." is that I don't want to say that the monastic life is lesser than the dancers -- but it strikes me that the monastics tend to want to say that their life is better than the performers who don't commune, who are "lost" in the sounds of "bar bar bar"

(Also hesitant because this takes us astray from the OP... but, again the OP has been silent, and my mind keeps thinking...)

My view of the situation is an honest appraisal based upon what we are doing, what we know, and what we are able to do.

What we are doing is hoping the future figures it out, when we have the means to address climate change in terms of our engineering and scientific knowledge.

Or, really, that the future is the one who pulls the lever.

What I see is a bunch of adults hoping that the children of tomorrow are bigger adults than they are after they die; leaving very little of an example for our children to learn from.

Or, in the worst of cases, saying that the future will birth a bright genius who will save the world. That's a familiar story that's told in more than scientific lingo. That's asking for Jesus Christ to solve the problem: It may stave off pessimism, but it's still scientifically false.

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid?

It wouldn't matter either way; we're clever enough to see a problem, but stupid enough to want to keep it.

Won't technology become better with time?

No.

The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem. We already have the means to address it in terms of the science -- we just don't want to because we like the way things are, so we imagine that there's going to be a future invention that will save us.

In terms of science that's about as good as praying to Jesus Christ. It makes sense to believe in it, but there's no reason to do so.

But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent....

There are many other problems but that is enough for now. — Agree-to-Disagree

Which governments are using force to get people into EV's?

It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things?

At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them.

But note how it's not addressing the issue: CO2 levels continue to rise, and the various predictions linked to that continue to be true.

I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt.

This need not be read too literally. In a way what we are to the industrial revolution this future generation will be to us -- the industrial revolution inherited the benefits of "free" energy because it was later generations who pay the price of trying to figure out how to support billions of people with a resource that is finite, and which is continuing to warm the planet.

In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal.

...
There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it. — Agree-to-Disagree

Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for?

Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them -- you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change"

?

Ahhh OK. That makes sense. Thanks.

True.

I like Nietzsche a lot. So I'm responding in that capacity -- as the man said “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

What the thread is about, however, is this moment.

The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore. The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people. — Amity

Nietzsche, I imagine at least, would be fine with these various struggles -- not that he'd like them, of course, but would accept them as the Will to Power.

Which seems to go against the idea that this moment is Medieval. The real Nietzsche would abhor our current circumstances, I believe. But his written philosophy -- in terms of what it does, rather than its truth -- supports this endless striving.

It's a lumpen-Nietzsche, but it's popular.

And, in that way, I don't think he's the best philosopher to deal with these issues.

A good question for your thread here:

But not in this thread, is all I mean.

However, this morning I read about Jackson Katz and his 40-year struggle to end violence against women. More urgent than ever since Trump became the US President. Katz has written a book about his activism; how he used his 'position of influence as a straight, white man and sportsperson' to speak out. 'Changing the culture from within'. — Amity

I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through.

Whereas this thread is talking about

The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore.
The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people — Amity

Which, you probably know, Nietzsche had a disdain for "ordinary people"

There is one problem here that I can't get past. Hume's account is right to say that it is not the case that everybody's opinion is of equal value (although everybody is entitled to an opinion) but his account of the standard of taste seems elitist (and I suspect was intended to be elitist in its application). I can't let that go. So my application of this account allows that anyone may acquire the qualfications simply from being interested and opinionated and talking to other interested and opinionated people about what they see and hear. — Ludwig V

There we agree.

I wondered if it was because he was a noble that these were his prejudices -- but reading the wikipedia page on his life it looks like he's more of an elitist because he was just that smart: "there is nothing to be learnt from a Professor, which is not to be met with in Books" :D

Yeah -- quite the tragedy it looks like too. Last I heard it was asphyxiation from a gas leak, explaining why it was him and his wife and one dog.

*shakes fist at the algorithm, in solidarity*