edited
And Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale is even worse than that…
someoneisatthedoor:
“And Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” is even worse than that…”
K: You have mention this before. You really hate this book don’t you.
I mean really hate.
Kropotkin
Yes you’re right - not purely either at any rate.
Thanks for the book ref, I’ll check it out.
Kant is so far the second philosopher I have read who has not made me want to ‘follow’ in suit. Usually I do end up romancing each until the next comes along. So far…so far…
edited
Haha, I love it.
Well Kant’s rationalist answer to the golden rule worked out really well for at least one person, that being Kant. His life style was so rigid that the citizens of Königsberg would set their clocks to his daily walks around the edge of town. The man was an anal retentive nut and it shows in his philosophy.
Some deep, hidden imperative forces me to point out that the whole “clockwork orange” legend is fake. Kant was a sociable man, he was rather gregarious and enjoyed dinner parties. Only towards the end of his life did he adopt a stricter way of life.
It’s been argued that Kant’s expectations are inhumane and absurd, that by throwing his exigencies on the table he spurns human frailties, that the kantian moral man is reduced to the formal appearance of an absolute practical hieratism uncontaminated by the real world, thus becoming ridiculous.
Not so true. In a world made up of phenomenons, Kant only affirms his skepticism. He promises no reward or satisfaction, not only that of a safe conscience or a certitude. He teaches not even to look for it, for it would spoil the fun you have by taking free decisions, ‘free’ meaning, obviously, the capacity of aknowledging the constraint of the absolute moral conscience - in one word, duty. Because when you think you are doing only what you want, you are actually being guided by the causal world you live in, to which you are part through body and psychological self. You subsume yourself to nature and its laws and call its causality ‘freedom’. But true freedom is not about that, oh no, freedom cannot be a causal sclave. True freedom is assenting to do your duty, because only it, through its universality and necessity, transcends the phenomena barrier, into the noumena world. To be free is to put forth the autonomy of your will, meaning that your actions have to be ruddered only by the moral law in its absolute. By positing the primate of “duty”, Kant isn’t really trying to be the hatchet man of ‘fun and games’; he is only affirming his transcendental idealism.
Well said Mucius Scevola, but its still rotten nonsense. Kants duty ethics are unrealistic and even worse they are contradictory! I ask this, how is it possible to have an absolute moral law which contradicts itself by using its own method of uncovering universal necessity? An example is the case where one must lie, break a promise, or take no action. In a maximally universalized moral system this situation falls apart.
Also yes as a youth Kant was a sort of man about town, but that changed rather quickly until we have the crazy anal-retentive old man. As his philosophy got more unrealistic so did his life style.
I can honestly say that the only thing I have read of a philosophical nature that was worse than Kant, was Simulacra Simulacrum, by Jean Coulliard.
Kant…blah. Give me Aristotle.
Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard?
i thought it was pretty decent myself. Not as good as Deleuze or Lacan, though.
You mean Jean Baudrillard. “Simulacra and Simulations” is one of my favorite books. What was it that you didn’t like about it? I’m just curious, everyone has their opinions.
As a leader of the German Sturm und Drang movement, Johann Gottfried von Herder was quite naturally at odds with much of Kant’s philosophy. And yet Herder wrote of Kant, the man,
“I had the good fortune to make acquintance of a philosopher, who was my teacher. Through the prime of life, he still had the joyful spirits of a young man, which he kept, I believe, into extreme old age…He was never indifferent to anything worth knowing. No, intrigue, no sectional interests, no advantage, no desire for fame ever possessed the slightest power to counteract his extension and illumination of truth. He encouraged and gently compelled people to think for themselves: depotism was alien to his nature. The man, whom I name with the deepest gratitude and reverence, is Immanuel Kant; I recall his image with pleasure.”
Kant, Roger Scruton
His detractors occasionally point to the Maria von Herbert affair as evidence of his coldness. And while it was an unfortunate incident (she eventually commited suicide), he’d taken the time to answer her first (unsolicited) letter at-length. How many of today’s celebrities would do that much? And hearing nothing back from her for over a year he followed-up by making inquires about her. Hearing that her melancholy had been the result of a love-affair turned-sour, Kant forwarded her correspondence to a friend; in effect, washing his hands of it. Doubtless, he could have done more to help her, and yet this was Kant, not Freud or Jung. A Critique of Pure Reason is necessarily ill-fitted solace for a broken heart.
On the question of reading Kant from beginning to end, I’d supposed most of us had read his little Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. It was required reading back in Phil. 101 (admittedly, donkey’s years ago). My advice to a non-specialist setting out to read something like Kant’s, Critique of Pure reason, or Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is simple. Don’t. At least, not before you’ve read Kant or Sartre through at least a few other writers first. Start with one of the hundred-page thick introductory booklets that are so common these days in the stores. This will acquaint you with the “big-picture” of the philosopher’s thought. Next, it might be a good idea to visit your local university library where you’ll have your pick of a half or even two dozen in-depth explanatory works. Most university libraries allow you to purchase an annual library lending card for less than most folks pay for a month of cable TV. For most of us, that will be enough Kant for a while. If not, try having a crack at the original tome. But at least try to locate a later translation; an 18th century English translation of an 18th century German work is still going to sound a bit like Greek to most folks. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood’s, 1998 translation of the Critique of Pure Reason is a welcome improvement on the old Kemp-Smith standby. As for me, I keep the text as reference. I wouldn’t think of trying to plow a furrow straight through it. I’ll leave that pleasure for Kant’s apostles.
In my work I’m normally called upon to repair television broadcasting equipment down to the component level. Even with the help of a schematic circuit diagram, the prospect of finding the fault would be far more difficult if I didn’t first have a familiarity with the so-called, “block-diagram” for that particular piece of equipment. Which is to say, I need first to know how the designer blocked-out the main functions of the equipment before I could gainfully begin to devise the tests and measurements needed to isolate the problem down to an integrated circuit, resistor, or transistor.
In the same way, when you approach Kant or Heidegger, for example, it’s good to carry a block-diagram of their ideas in your head before you delve into the microcircuitry of their arguments. And for those philosopher’s whose work you don’t find particularly interesting, a block-diagram of their ideas will have to suffice. Leave the uninteresting works to academics who are paid to grind through them. A lifespan is not enough to read all the interesting philosophy already in print; and more is printed everyday than came the day before.
“Art is long, life short…” Goethe
Happy reading,
Michael
I appreciate your eloquence, Polemarchus. I would only add, from personal experience, that it can also be useful to approach a new thinker via the perspective of a thinker with whom you are more familiar. It is really just a matter of translation and triangulation.
Regards,
James
p.s. I’ve been told that Deleuze’s book on Kant is quite good - very short and covers all three critiques in one go; also lacks his usual dense style…
Now you tell me this!? As a non-specialist I decree that I was ruined by Sartre years ago and I don’t know if I can turn back. I think I should just ride it out.
A little late on the advice, sir.
But remember I did once tell you this story.
A writer once visited Heidegger in his office. On the corner of Heidegger’s desk was a copy of Sartre’s Being and Nothingness. It had only recently been published but it was already making waves in philosophical circles. Seeing it, the writer excitedly asked, So what do you think of it? Heidegger backhandedly waved at it, saying, How would I know? who could understand such rubbish?
Isn’t that rich? Here is Heidegger complaining that Sartre is opaque.
Btw détrop, that’s a gorgeous avatar you’ve got. It looks to be Islamic calligraphy, or am I mistaken? Some years ago I was standing in the train station up in Quebec City and I happened to notice a guy in front of me reading a book containing this incredibly fanciful, flowing script. We got to talking; turns out he was reading the Quran. Man, if Islamic theology is as beautiful as their calligraphy then I might want to convert to Islam.
But since then, I’ve cultivated an eye for Islamic art. If you’ve a similar bent you’ve got to get over to Southern Spain - the Alcazar at Seville has just come to mind. I’ve wondered if the two years I spent living in Morocco as a young boy attuned me to Islamic art. (oh, listen to me, I mention Heidegger and now I’m dropping words like “attune”). 
Best,
Michael
Great advice Polemarchus - Satre particularly has a more damaging potential than Kant, who is simply just more likely to confuse and not lead to any particular problem beyond that…
For my input, I suggest a study of CPR starting with Georges Dicker and his ‘Kant’s Theory of Knowledge’ - an Analytical Introduction. Pub by OUP. Has worked well for me.
I’m not sure what significance it has. It is the cover to the album by King Crimson- “Discipline.” Friends have called it a “celtic knot,” but I’m not sure what the design is meant to represent, if anything at all. I’m sure there are some links somewhere explaining its origins. Maybe its just a peice of art someone locally made as an album cover. I dunno.
I just recently noticed, by looking at it closer, that it is one string. I never thought about it or looked at it closely before. I assumed it was many at first glance. Nothing important, really, but it does make a good metaphorical imagery for monism. The appearance of several individual strings, while at closer inspection its just one.
Far out.
It might also be a graphic depiction of the theme of some of the music. The way the meters and phrasings are interwoven, such that it sounds like many things are going on but really its all on the same time meter…or same “string,” as would be the metaphor of the imagery. Some of the songs at the end of the album demonstrate this idea. Think of it as a few polyrhythms overlapping each other “at first sound,” but mathematically they are syncronized. Sometimes you have to count in your head to notice. The ears don’t pick it up immediately unless you know what to listen for.
Interesting though.
Oh, right. I hadn’t noticed that it was an endless string either. I like the symbolism as well. I’m thinking how an otherwise plain thread of a life can be knoted and twisted into a thing of beauty. But I think that’s how it is with “good” art; it suggests, but mostly it mirrors back to you an aspect of your thoughts that you mightn’t have noticed otherwise - or as you’ve said, “The ears don’t pick it up immediately unless you know what to listen for.”
Btw, when I was a kid I used to listen to a radio show called, “The King Crimson Flour Hour.” Good music. Hadn’t thought of that in a coon’s age.
Good stuff,
Michael
It looks like Celtic knot to me.
Back during the Viking period their religion had this idea of an endless tree that supported the various worlds that existed. So, those are an endless tangle of branches.
Thanks Adlerian,
I think you’re probably right. Wouldn’t it be charming if our philosophical arguments looked like this?
This supposedly says that a true friend tells you the truth.
Cheers,
Michael