AAh screw it, it keeps copying the original Language which mixes in with the English. I have no time to play with it. So:
I see that kant only looks at one side of the issue. Without social compliance and specialization Humans would not be as advanced. This does not promote laziness it can and does promote more time for other things. A person will be lazy depending upon their traits. You cannot be educated into laziness. Well , you can to a certain extent but, over all when we comply with society we give ourselves more time to be ourselves.
Lets go section by section shall we? it keeps a thread a tad more coherent for later reference
Given that the first thing Kant talks about is growing out of superstitions that are held by children, likening the Enlightenment to the rejection of Catholic authority by self-aware Protestants – errr, isn’t this more of a “philosophy” thing than a “religion” thing?
Considering the subject matter being examined, I’ll let it ride until it appears far more philosophical than religious in concern.
But the work cited is presenting the issue of adherence (religious mostly) and reason’s alleged juxtaposition.
Enlightenment is about beliefs right? Searching for enlightenment can be said to be religious.In discussing Kant’s work, objet and I are endeavoring to discuss topic/s pertaining to uumm, faith, belief, understanding comprehending and well when he gets here he can put his two cents in. Cuz I am not sure fully where he wants to go with this
I would definitely say it is about a book, but since no review is present I would say philosophy since the enlightenment Kant is talking about nearly got him burnt at the stake by the (no longer active) inquisition…He did get visited by the Prussian Emperor though! Well, only to make clear that he should no write such a-religious things anymore…At least he was allowed not to go into church when his pupils went to sermon…
Okay, I will elaborate on my thought:
What kriswest says here is really great:
This is precisely not what Kant is talking about (and one of the problems with the English translation if I remember correctly). I once tried translating this piece to Dutch, but it was too much for me. I taught myself German and it did not live up to the required knowledge to do so.
Anyway, what Kant is trying to explain here is that if we take a source as creditable simply because it is seen as such, promoted or socially accepted (or something like that) we become lazy in our analyses of the things around us. We might, for instance, think that the area the polar ice covers is getting smaller (while it has been growing for the last 9 years) because of ‘global warming’ or something, which is untrue. And on this we may base our behavior: try to reduce the man made global warming. Okay, I might have looked for a less argue-able example, but it is the thought that counts.
What Kant is concerned about is that if we do not think things out for ourselves we become some sort of automaton, like a man-machine (nice twist on this idea of Kant’s btw) and thereby allow others to be fore-mouthed by others. Do we not often read about hordes of misGUIDED people (in politics) for instance that oppose other misGUIDED people, which leads to harsh discussion, smearing and violence? So, Kant is talking about being mislead by letting others fore-mouth us. Critical thought necessitates a certain mouthlyness according to him. It is this thinking for oneself that Kant calls ‘Aufklärung’. For do not children believe in the tales of Santa Claus until they examine the facts critically? Similarly with the churches dogma.
We were talking about ‘spells’ in the Necronomicon topic. Is a non critical person by the own unmouthlyness not easily ‘spelled’ into obedience, or … enthralled?
Kant decides that Having others make specific decisions or to specialize in certain areas creates laziness anf fear to try to do things or ourselves. True to a point but, that is only one aspect. In Dogmas of Church Government morality ethics we also find an ability to release us from having to make repetitive decisions, it allows us to explore our desires talents and life. Every tool has the ability to be misused. What Kant suggests is akin to making everyone a chief and no indians or everyone is a chef and noone does the mundane work. He equates following guidelines/dogmas with immaturity and unenlightened in this first part of his work. That rules or specializing has stifled the human. Not so. We humans are rather territorial we also tend to kill or fear that which we don’t understand or that which we see trespassing. Thats our instinct as hunter gathering type of beings. All such creatures have this. They tend to not socialize with other groups of their species to well. A group of chimps invades the territory of another group and a bloody massacre will happen. We humans did the same thing for a very long time. It is religion/politics that brought us together peacefully for the most part. The dogmas within have allowed us to grow past chimp rage and to cohabitate with strangers. It has allowed us to pursue individual freedoms as well as social freedoms.
To malign that which serves us well shows me that Kant only saw one side. In all there must always be those that follow in a social species, there must be leaders and there must be those that are distinctly niether. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians would have and will destroy the species not allow it to evolve. It takes time to evolve to a stable sentient species. We have only had somewhat world cooperation for just under 500 years, that is not that many generations. It may sound like a long time but its not, not in the greater scheme of a longlived species. 70 yrs is a longlife span 60 years is too for an earth wihere the majority of species can count their lives in under 3 decades.
If religious leaders had not preached dogmas and caused mass belief in one way, we would most likely not have these wonderful little communicators called computers that allows us to reach past oceans and have delightful conversations with strangers from other cultures and beliefs. We as a species must become enlightened first as a species then as individuals. Yep there I said that. The species must come first or there will be no individualality. Chew on that one my new friend
Kant is not speaking against specialization. Kant is speaking against laziness and cowardice. That we do not have the time to investigate everything is natural. I do not care about which paint is best used to cover a certain material, but a friend of mine knows that down to an art form. He, on the other hand, does not care about the difference between Language and language, which frustrates me immensely. However, this is his choice. He does not pretend to know and dabbles on with his life and wife and gets confronted by me once in a while, only for him to say he doesn’t get it and forget about it again. However, he never refers to it in the sense that I have said it, or some famous work claims so. He simply is formless there.
There are many others who read Kant for instance and refer to him, so as to make sure their thoughts on the matter remain out of the argument. They have allowed Kant to be ‘Vormündig’ to them. This is what he speaks out against. If one tries to grasp something, one will use one’s own words and be able to defend them. When one uses somebody else’s words one is often unable to do so. Only claiming: he said so. So, by not investigating something, one keeps oneself ignorant and ‘Unmündig’.
Btw: I hope you can forgive Kant for his rather sexist separation?
picks up the glove
I think you consider the chicken and the egg question again: which comes first: individual enlightenment or collective enlightenment? Only a chicken can lay an egg, but only from an egg can a chicken grow. This is a question that concerns the System (as Lacan) calls it. Lacan refers to Kant in this, incidentally to the little phrase I am using as my sig at the moment:
The reason he does so is that it shows one cannot imagine the numbers separate from the operators (+,-,x,:, etc), or vice versa. They both have to spring into existence at the same time. This just might a bit of topic though…being the content of many of the most difficult works. It would also be more appropriate in the psychology subforum.
Anyway, Kant is of this opinion (it corroborates his distinction between causality (phenomena) and reciprocality (noumena)). Apart from that there have been studies that show that if certain parts of the genetic structure of a being (a salamander in this case) are removed it comes back in the next generation(s) because it is inherent in the species. Well, this might go even further of topic.
I grasp that dogma can help to keep the peace (from your perspective), but dogma can also inflame riots. Therefore it is not the dogma that does so and we must search for another reason. I would like to point towards the intent to act only in such a way that one can simultaneously will everybody else to act. That is the only thing which keeps from riots/wars.
I’ll give an example (being from Amsterdam and having just been to the Athenaeum book store (to pick up a loeb classic on Aristotle), which takes me from the train station, through the red light district): In most cultures hookers are frowned upon. However, every culture has them. In Dutch society prostitution is legal, which makes for the situation that, while being a hooker is not considered decent, nor visiting a hooker, at least the hookers are not forced to hide or forced to be a hooker. In other societies we see that prostitution is illegal, making for hookers to be forced almost 100% of the time to be hookers and often being physically threatened and abused (not to speak of the forced sex). The personal drama’s are indescribable. If we now replace the world culture for dogma (since they are both synonym with ‘Über-Ego’), we see how dogma has a detrimental effect in the less liberal case.
To press my point home I would like to voice that even in Dutch society the hookers and their customers are frowned upon severely and in that sense personal drama’s are still present 100% of the time (A friend of mine is a social worker working with prostitutes, while personal stories are confidential, the thing all have in common is a certain attitude towards themselves, which makes them allow abuse). It is this culturally determined dogma which is the cause of allowing oneself to be treated in such a way and this kind of culturally determined dogma which keeps prostitutes from changing because they feel deserving of it. To score a home run I would like to say that the abusers feel justified in their abuse by the culturally determined dogma. Both serve the effect of not being able to break free: of being ‘Unmündig’.
I hope you will pardon my example. Passing through the red light district and looking into a hookers eyes has this effect on me.
Knowing that USA English is not your first language makes this much more of a challenge and interesting I am truly sorry I do not speak your language. You speak English extremely well( far better than I) but, I think we use it differently.
My first part of my last post was more about following the norm not so much about specializing as a Doctor or a mechanic but, the norm or average attitudes or dogmas of society. The guardians of society enforce what society wants and requires in order for individuals to be individuals. Once individuality is removed society stagnates and becomes opressive and repressed. But to be too individualistic the society would fail also it would explode into minor wars, death and new dogmas with the demands of " follow or else.
The laziness and fear we seem to show in what Kant sees in followers is more just a survival mode for the individual. In society there must be Guardians of beliefs because there is so much we do not know we would fight over it and so destroy society. it frees us up as individuals to follow our specialized individualality.
I care not about Kant’s sexism or any Sexism from the older generations. That is a minor glitch. It is never really intended to insult. It is just part of their view of their world. Too many women take humbrage at unintentional sexism. How other philosophers and Kant view the sexes is part of the peel not the meat of the orange. Unless it is a deliberate work.
It maybe a tad chicken egg but, not wholly, without society to learn from how can the individual Learn? Look up feral children, children raised outside of a society or family or minimal contact with humans. Its an interesting subject and is part of this in a way.
As far as prostitutes example I would say that all humans have that. It is the way we are taught or how we may learn that stifles it within. Can we really stand to be around a human that thinks they are the best of the best? its the same thing. Too much ego and too little. Either way is frowned upon but we need them to teach us control. Ethics and morals must be learned they , are not a part of our genetic makeup.
Okay, I do not think I misaddressed anything, but I think I went a bit overboard. I am unsure how I can show my point without going overboard though. So, I will try to be more selective. For this endeavor to work I need some information:
Do you think cause and effect exist outside the mind?
Do you believe in a first unmoved mover of some sort?
Do you see how the ‘chicken and the egg’ relate to the above two?
yes
2.Uuuuuummm OK I think I get your drift. I think that all things started when two particles of matter collided and started a chain reaction or domino effect. And thus universes began. I don’t think an energy being came from out of nowhere and started everything. An energy being had to begin from something. I guess you could say I am a firm believer in evolution, Not particularly Darwin but, just plain simple logical “Hey it had to start somehow” type of evolution.
Sure. But flip that around. Niether can exist without the other. Both applications are relevent.
ROTFLMAO my friend, what if it always was just there. Why does the beginning have to be made? Matter fills all but the most vacuumests of voids. Why not understand that a thing is because it is? A flip of the coin, a game of chance half of one and six of the other. All things do not have to have made, they can just be. Sometimes we tend to overthink things in our quests for knowledge. we take a simple thing and make it complicated. I have done it , I am reasonably sure you have done it, most of us have done it. Sometimes the only answer is ,because thats how it was done. or started or well hell ,how else would you get things started if there wer no particles You can’t just make something from absolute nothing., OH Godddsss am I going to regret that last part???
The best translation for Unmuendigkeit is probably “dependency”, though “immaturity” or “minority” would also work as well.
Given that, I think the first thing we need to examine is Kant and his time and social situation. As someone who had access to education, he was of a class where one truly could think of themselves as being “independent” because the social strata below them (upon which they depended) were not noticed. While not strictly a member of the noble leisure class, his position afforded him the ability for conspicuous leisure such as philosophizing. When he famously challenges people to “dare to know” what he is doing is making a call for conspicuous leisure. All of this serves to create the illusion of the autonomous individual, the one who is “daring to know” based off of their own rationality as opposed to other, inferior forms of knowledge that aren’t “known” so much as they are imposed from some authority. Right there, of course, is Kant’s problem.
As for the ice caps:
Yup, they are shrinking. Gotta be careful on what sources you use.
This article carefully points out some of the problems with studying ice caps. Since they are continually in a process of melting and renewal, there will be some periods where the ice caps do grow more than they shrink. However, the overall pattern needs to be observed in order for a proper picture to be developed. Statistics are rather crucial in this sort of thing . . .
On a related note, I’d say that turning one’s self into a commodity represents being in a state of “dependency” . . .
–edit–
The image doesn’t show right, so just a link…
So, which source is proper?
@Kriswest:
Thank you for making my point. If indeed something is because it simply is, it is not causal. So, either ‘it’ is not causal, or ‘it’ is not causal. Hence, cause and effect exists only (provably) in the mind.
That the Kantian philosophical call is a call to conspicuous leisure as a means to separate the classes within a society.
Sea ice does not equal the size of the ice caps, indeed, as ice caps shrink we would expect an increase in the volume of sea ice due to glaciers breaking apart, sliding off the landed portion of the Antarctic and into the ocean.
I disagree. From my perspective Kant was trying to show people how to get to personal constructs in the mind by not allowing somebody else to become ‘Vormundig’. What is the source for your POV?
Perhaps, but an increase in the area of sea covered by ice is an increase in ice and therefore constitutes a cooling down of the earth, as the earth has been doing for the last nine years. In fact, I believe the coldest winter of the century has been predicted for coming winter?
My friend I think we are not in the same boat… For me wether it is or is not causal it does not matter, the saying “shit happens” applies.Things can be causal or shit just happens. Or it just is. Our minds can only process so much we have yet to get out of the linear.
Trying to build a building with one type of nail just is not possible. Unfortunately that is what I see all too often on these forums. Everyone wants their nail to be the right one, when there is no right one yet if ever
I’m not honestly sure where I got it from, precisely. Obviously from reading Kant, and likely from Communist/Marxist Critiques of both Kant and the certain elements of the Sinic traditions (where parallels with Kantianism have been observed).
But we’re saying the same thing. Kant’s philosophy is based off a Promethian impulse (it rejects tutelage as a legitimate means for intellectual advancement). That Promethian impulse can only occur to someone who is economically independent and whose skills set and occupation is an expression of conspicuous leisure. Otherwise, the advantages of tutelage become immediately obvious. We need to undergo a state of minority before we can actually have a proper opinion about anything. Admittedly, Kant does address this somewhat but I still think he was too extreme in this regard. Granted, there are good historical reasons for this. The stereotypical Prussian relies a little too much on opinions derived from authority, but I think Kant doesn’t rely enough on opinions derived from authority.
Once again, sample selection is very important. You’ll see this sort of thing when people argue against vaccinations, for example. While the Earth has been cooling over the past few years, average temperatures are still well above the median. If you look at a graph of global temperatures over a long period of time, you’ll see a steady climb (with some variation including occasional periods of dips). Right now, we are in one of those dips but not only is the overall trend moving upwards, but even the dips don’t (as an average) go below what would have previously been normal. As for this winter being predicted to be the coolest of the past 100 years, I’d need to see a source on that, I haven’t heard anything about that.
As for the area of the sea covered by ice, that isn’t what your graph showed. Your graph calculated the volume of ice in the sea, there is an important difference between those two statements. While it is theoretically possible that this increase is due to decreased temperatures, that hypothesis is contradicted by the overall upward trend in temperature. Furthermore, the fact that the Antarctic shelf is shrinking and glacial cleavage increases the volume of ice in the sea would suggest that the hypothesis that the rise in the volume of ice is due to ice leaving the Antarctic shelf and entering the ocean substantially more parsimonious.
