Transcending the Kantian a priori.

It seems Kant might have been afraid of the materialists.

He says God must be seen only as the original ground of the laws of nature.

This would seem like a sowewhat limited perspective as far as real transcendence is concerned.

Could it be that he was looking for unity, or rather the cause of the appearant unity of forces of nature and the laws they follow???

kant was a metaphysical dualist, and this thinking extended into every aspect of his philosophy. language, logic, appearance, truth, ethics, what have you. a priori vs a posteriori is but one limited example of this, and certainly not one that is limited to kant. we could talk about analytic vs synthetic for a more kantian example of this (flawed) way of thinking.

his need for God was a result of his metaphysical nature, “reality itself” and all that-- while his “being afraid of materialists” what a result of his dualism, of his need to JUSTIFY this metaphysical nature by conforming reality itself to his whims and needs.

materialism would have shattered the view of reality that kant tried (and mostly succeeded) to create… its just too bad for kant that materialism is in fact correct, because this renders much of what old kant had to say as nothing more than irrelevant mystical fantasies.

kant, of course, still made great contributions to other areas of philosophy, but it is his “contribution” to epistemology and metaphysics which has rendered him infamous throughout the history of philosophy as one of the single greatest destroyers of the human mind. he split man as he split reality, and we still suffer today from this false and blinding paradigm, in far more ways that merely within academia itself.

That’s just your opinion.

yes, it is.

got a different take on it?

I am not arguing a Kantian position.

However your sweeping definition of ‘materialism’ is limited due to its derivation in Kant’s notion of ‘dualism’.

His understanding of dualism was limited as was your reaction to it.

Material and spiritual reality are blended through ‘the analogical equation’.

Unfortunately for secular materialists the other side of the equation is ‘abstract’.

A true materialist is a spiritualist and a true spiritualist is a materialist.

They are not mutually exclusive. They are blended.

Kant’s ‘dualism’ is secular as is, unfortunately, your reaction to it.

You need to get past the idea that God is only a priori, in exactly the same way Kant needed to.

Also your prejudice towards mysticism is likewise limiting.

No offense meant.

Kant opened up a lot of areas for discussion and while limited (as is everyone) didn’t quite have the power to destroy the human soul.

i am not a Materialist per se, i am not a member of a ‘group’ or ‘position’; i am asserting the obvious and logical fact that there is only one world, the real world, that which is, and it is an unending symphony, intersecting, diverging and plurality of energies and energy-forms.

creating a fundamental divide within reality, regardless if you call it phenomenal vs noumenal or “material and spiritual”, is the same thing, and amount to the same falsification of the only reality that actually exists.

there are no fundamental dualisms; there are only multiplicities of difference and pluralities of energies and energy-forms… on the most subtle level, everything is made of the same ‘stuff’, its all unified in the furthest evaluation.

this is certainly not true for all or even most materialists, and would depend on a very fluid and vague definiton of both materialism and spiritualism.

as you say, but like your criticism of me, thats just your opinion. and as i said, im not a “Materialist”.

kant’s dualism is NOT secular, however my interpretations here are. kant’s is a fundamentally religious (i.e. “spiritual” if you want to call it that) interpretation… mine is not. mine is naturalistic, historical and non-religious.

i dont have any idea of God, a priori or otherwise.

as i said, theres only one reality. call it what you want, just dont posit fundamental divisions and dualisms.

no, he didnt; what i meant was that he went a long way to devaluing and undercutting the human mind, reason and empirical experiencing. kant convinced people to DOUBT themselves, their senses and their judgments/conclusions… not in a rational or logical way of “sure, some things i believe are wrong, lets look at it empirically and logically and see what makes the most sense”, but in a far more sinister and subversive way of “no matter what you do, you will never be able to learn truth because you will never see the noumenal world, the thing-in-itself. human reason and logic are impotent to tell us about reality”-- and THAT is exactly the harm that kant caused to philosophy and humanity itself. he gave ammunition to nihilism and a defeatist attitude towards man’s efficacy and power over nature and reality, by convincing the world that we are fundamentally POWERLESS, because our senses and logic necessarily lie to us and hide reality from us.

as i said, his splitting of reality into two ‘worlds’ distinct and fundamentally apart extends to the mind, as he split man’s conceptual and cognitive faculties into “appearance” and “unknown (real) reality”, of which there is no way to get around. this is the lie kant created, and it is how he gave justification and the appearance of legitimacy to nihilism and mystical interpretations of reality, which serve no better than religious explanations of the Sun and the Moon giving birth to the Earth… such mystical idealism serves no purpose other than illusion and fantasy. kant just dressed it up in layers of philosophizing and pseudo-logic (“analytic vs synthetic”), serving to further confuse the average person and the weaker philosophers who only wanted to follow in his footsteps due to his fame and popularity.

Why is it a lie? Does calling it a lie suggest a truth?

You haven’t understood me.

However thanks for offering my position some consideration.

if you disagree, feel free to demonstrate why your interpretation of kant is superior to my own. or demonstrate your position as opposed to mine, as i have laid out mine here, and you have not laid out yours.

i cant see the reason for starting a thread in which you arent willing to define, elaborate on or even argue the positions you assert or the counter positions of others that post here… if you just want to make undefended assertions with no evidence or argumentation, please post these sorts of things in the rant house or the mundane babble forums…

=P~

Lakierski Materialski

…i see that you are unable to offer an explanation or defense for your thread here, which i guess is to be expected from you, as thats your M.O. wherever you go here on ILP. empty assertions, the inability to argue or debate at all. well, good luck with that.

mods can probably move this to Rant now that we know what your true purpose here is.