RoR: Forum

"He infused the intellectual atmosphere with skepticism, undermining the Aristotelian foundation of the enlightenment, so it was possible for anybody to step in with any non-Aristotelian ideas."

As far as hard core skeptics go, I always found his immediate predecessor in this matter, Hume, to be much more powerful. It's certainly more far reaching: The phenomena/noumena distinction doesn't necessarily have to destroy the possibility of knowledge, depending on how you play with it (though I will not deny that Kant's particular treatment of it was of a very heavy sort). With Hume's argument however, once you accept it, there basically is no inductive knowledge of the outside world. none. In Kant you can at least get distorted knowledge of the outside world's representations, which are connected by some means to the outside world itself.

Post 21

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:24am

Of course I love Hegel -- no surprise there. Here is a little of what he has to say about Aristotle. All quotations are from Hegel's HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL II, Haldane and Simpson, trans.

"Here we leave Plato, and we do so with regret. But seeing that we pass to his disciple, Aristotle, we fear that is behoves us to enter even more into detail, since he was one of the richest and deepest of all the scientific geniuses that have as yet appeared--a man whose like no later age has ever yet produced." (117)

"Aristotle exceeds Plato in speculative depth." (119)

"But if we would be serious with Philosophy, nothing would be more desirable than to lecture upon Aristotle, for he is of all the ancients the most deserving of study." (134)

On Aristotle's Logic: "The best of what is stated respecting forms of judgment, conclusion, etc. in ordinary logic, is taken from the works of Aristotle; as far as details are concerned, much has be spun out and added to it, but the truth is to be found in Aristotle." (220)

"Against no philosophy have modern times sinned so much as against [Aristotle]; and none of the ancient philosophers have so much need of being defended as Aristotle." (214)

Fred

Post 22

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:33am

Robert,

" With Hume's argument however, once you accept it, there basically is no inductive knowledge of the outside world. none."

If this is true, why do you suppose Hume wrote rules of induction on p. 174 of his TREATISE ON HUMAN NATURE. In my book (p. 54), I do a side by side comparison of Hume with Kelley's logic text. Hume gives us the method of agreement, difference and concomitant variations, and this long before Mill did it in his Logic, although we call these rules, Mill's Methods. Isn't it time to give credit where credit is due.

Fred

Post 23

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 6:36am

Fred --

If Hume, Kant and Hegel are all pro-enlightenment Aristotelians - how did we get to the sorry state of postmodern philosophy? (Or perhaps postmodern philosophers are also pro-enlightenment Aristotelians in disguise?)

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 10/21, 6:38am)

Post 24

Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 6:50am

In Kant you can at least get distorted knowledge of the outside world's representations, which are connected by some means to the outside world itself.

That's correct. Kant only inflicted some doubt on the reliability of knowledge acquired by the process of perception and conceptualization. As Rand said, he opened the door to the undermining of reason, but hesitated and did not go through.

Post 25

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - 11:17am

Michelle,
Let me give a short answer that may not satisfy. Can't we account for a lot of bad stuff in our modern age by pointing out that many people turn away from philosophy. But if we must find a philosopher at the bottom of badness, what about Rousseau and/or Kierkegaard? Rousseau rejects Athens for Sparta and prays god to "deliver us from the Enlightenment." and to "give back to us ignorance, innocence, and poverty." Or goofy old Kierkegaard who reveals in the mathematical (the infinite becoming finite) and the biological (the dead coming back to life) contradictions of Christianity. Or how about the romantic movement of the 19th century? Or the return to various kinds of fundamentalism. If I were a devote believer, I would hate Kant's guts. Ditto for Hegel, the sneaky atheist. Or poor Hume. He is just too nice and too honest to be the fountainhead of evil. Besides what are we to do about he defence of capitalism--Hayek loved him for that.

Fred

Post 26

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - 12:28pm

Fred --

The fact that devout believers hated Kant does not make him a good guy. Not believing in God is a negative, not a positive. A non-believer may well be a nihilist or just plain irrational. Also, Kant did not deny the existence of God, only said it was a subjective belief, which cannot count as knowledge.

As I recall, Rand wrote that parents who tell their kids that there is a God are better than parents who tell their kids that "there may or may not be a God, some people belive there is, some people don't." The latter approach is worse because it undermines the very possibility of knowledge.

Post 27

Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 10:26am

Michelle,

"The fact that devout believers hated Kant does not make him a good guy"

I agree, I was only saying that if I were a believer, I would regard Kant as my enemy. Not that that make him a good guy from an Objectivist point of view. If one regards God as a regulative, not a constitutive, concept, then one really doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense. I think Kant stand somewhere between atheism (unless he is one) and deism. In other words, I find deism further away from the Objectivist position (atheist) than Kant's position.

"there may or may not be a God, some people belive there is, some people don't." The latter approach is worse because it�undermines the very possibility of knowledge. "

Maybe I' m missing the point but doesn't disagreement presuppose the truth and hence knowledge. Unless Mommy holds the position that disagreement shows there is no truth. But that would require a long argument.

Fred

Post 28

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 8:58pm

I think Deism is closer to Objectivism than Skepticism because Deism assumes that there is an absolute truth whereas Skepticism assumes there is not. Kant was a skeptic because he announced that reason could not prove the existence of God or the afterlife.

Telling a kid that "there may or may not be a god, some people believe and some people don't" is not the same as telling him that currently there is a disagreement about it but people are working on establishing the truth...

Post 29

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 4:48am

Michelle,

"Kant was a skeptic because he announced that reason could not prove�the existence of God or the afterlife."

Are you implying that reason can prove the existence of God???

Fred

Post 30

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 12:17pm

(Duplicate deleted.)
(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 12/10, 12:26pm)

Post 31

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 12:24pm

No. See the hyperlink under "announced." Kant announced that since reason could not prove the existence of God, we must rely on the "subjective grounds of the moral sentiment." He faulted reason for being unable to prove the existence of God and the afterlife. This is worse than claiming that reason could prove the existence of God. (And this is the last time I explain it.)

Post 32

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:44pm

Michelle,

"no."

Then you agree with Kant!! Reason cannot prove that God exists.
Thank You.

Fred

Post 33

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:35am

Fred,

No, I do not agree with Kant that reason is limited, hence we must resort to subjective sentiments to prove that God exists. The issue here is that Kant was determined to preserve the belief in God and the after life at any cost. Just like you are determined to convince Objectivists that Kant was their ally.

Excerpting the "no" from my response out of context is bad scholarship on your part. Since you are trying to distort my posts, I do not wish to engage in a discussion with you any more. My subsequent silence should not be taken as an agreement.

Michelle

Post 34

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:28pm

Michelle,
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Which is what have promised. See if you keep your word.

I don't think the No was taken out of context. It was your direct answer to my question.

" I do not agree with Kant that reason is limited,"

Then if to be is to be limited, something Objectivism's claims, then are you claiming reason has no being and hence no identity?? Hm.
Fred

Post 35

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:04am

"I don't think the No was taken out of context."

It was. You know it. And this, apparently, is another example of your scholarship.

And you say you do this for a living ... ?

Post 36

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:20pm