Kant's Critique of Pure Reason....

[Suki]

There are some Kantian concepts mentioned in his work and in your great excerpt on him that popped out at me....

between things-in-themselves and things-as-they-appear.

Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy (Eng. trans., 1911), he argued that some physical relations, such as causality, cannot be reduced to logical relations, and in Enquiry into the Proofs for the Existence of God

What are we the sums of our experiences, Eddie? But that which that small patch of our brain processes. What are cognitive abilities allow and how all that data is interpreted through our 'filters' linguistic, cognitive, and experiential.

Yet what we choose to do with that 'knowledge' gleaned from experience is what I am thinking dialectical materialism might fit in to this philosophical stream.

Yes, some eternal human questions can't be answered. As you have stated many times. We are limited and we err, so trying to prove that which is not based on anything within human capacity to experience would logically fall into metaphysical, esoteric and that is all open to speculation and not scientific. But science progresses so do we....and yes, technology (including computers are our tools to progress and to making new findings and building on older knowledge). Yet I hope we don't lose that which is most important. The source of all our wealth. Material and human labor resides in human beings. And making human beings be able to be the best they are capable of being (realizing our potential as a species), is the duty of us all.

I am thinking appearance of something does not make it what it is. Yet what is society, but an agreed upon construction of reality within a social concept? What is society but a series of ideas and principles based on not only practical material needs of human beings, but on their mental and subjective concepts of what life is about filtered through the small patch of each individual members brain? And the sum of their experiences. Both as a group and as individual members of that group with their own cultural shared values.

What is a critique of judgement? It is ultimately our ability to interpret our world and all its tools and resources, and the sum of our experiences in all its truth and making decisions based on that. Hopefully to serve the greater good. For all we are is one small part of the whole. And the whole is only good if most of its parts are acting thinking of the whole.

How does one separate what one knows and perceives as truthful from what might be 'wishful thinking' or seeing things through a slightly modified way? I am thinking that is what you said Eddie, about humans not really being 100% confident that what they have experienced with some distance and time involved it might not be all certain. What is certain is that which gives consistent results. Based on study, reflection, and observation. And with logic based on that judgement of group acquired thought and dedication. Science makes the attempt. And modifies as it goes along. Trial and error. Always retaining that which is predictable and consistent and discarding that which is difficult to initially prove, until the technology eventually exists to test the theories and advance the theory. Constant revisions. Adaptation. To it all. Our ability to learn and acquire knowledge through real mistakes, might be our greatest weapon against stagnation. The err part might the reason for the successes. It sounds very philosophical doesn't it? Lol.

I will be back with more detailed questions on Kant. Please forgive all the time I spent on other themes in this thread. Thanks for being patient with me.

Suki.

[Suki]

Hey I am not as inept as I thought. I bypassed the restriction. Jaja. I feel like I won the lottery. Now I know what to do.

Eddie let us keep going with Kant. I truly and sincerely want to do a good job here. And after Kant Shakespeare too? I want to explore themes of interest with you. I truly do.

Here is a general philosophical question for you....Can one truly be free in one's mind? No matter in which physical environment one is in? I think RepublicadePR posted an independentista who went to jail for the Wells Fargo thing back in 1980's and he stated that he learned to look for freedom in his mind. Mandela mentioned something similar in his experiences on Robin's Island in South Africa. I remember you mentioning what you felt the meaning of life was....way back in 2001 August...right here. When I first decided to take the plunge and attempt to get on this medium. You said "freedom" was the most important thing. The bliss of freedom. How we love as human beings to create our own prisons don't we? With enchained minds, thoughts, and limitations? With being bounders and roller coaster people, and wanting unreasonable things. Yet is it all because we desperately want that which is of the essence? FREEDOM---and most of our errors of judgement and thought---is our quest for freedom of all sorts.

Freedom of the mind---maybe it is found in disciplining it, and sacrificing for those things you mention like duty and responsibility. A man of conscience does not respond to reward or punishment. But to duty. And acts accordingly. I learn from you all the time something new. Never do you disappoint. Good Night. I hope you reply soon. But if you don't. May you keep your freedom.....compa....forever.

Suki.

I guess I am not as bad at compu tech stuff as I thought. Good. I am adapting. BTW, where may I dialog with all these brilliant communists Eddier1? Where is the forum they are at so I can join and learn more? Thank you.

[Eddier1]

"What are we the sums of our experiences, Eddie? But that which that small patch of our brain processes. What are cognitive abilities allow and how all that data is interpreted through our 'filters' linguistic, cognitive, and experiential.

Yet what we choose to do with that 'knowledge' gleaned from experience is what I am thinking dialectical materialism might fit in to this philosophical stream."

[/b][/quote]

Not simply the sums of our experiences, because the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. And that patch of our brains through which we perceive the external world is not as small or insignificant as it might seem to be. Of course, according the the physiologists who dissected the brain and added this scientific knowledge, what they discovered was not available to Kant in his day. But he did get it right when he stated that the sense data received by our optic nerves is shaped by the categories of reason, the patterns of thought in terms of quantity, quality, time, and modality.

His philosophy leaned more to the empirio-criticism as having the real encounter, and his critique of pure reason demonstrated how the patterns of thought are 'contentless' until they receive the sense data effects garnered through the knowledge we obtain of the empirical world through 'acquaintance with it'.

For Kant this knowledge gives us reality, for him the rational is not the real, and the real is not the rational. This is the crux and powerful key to his philosophy. And it is what made the CRITIQUE so necessary and meaningful for the development of philosophy. Up to this time, the rational in terms of archetypes, or the categories and/or the patterns (or the templates as we now say) had content and was real content. That is, content that was universal and necessary truths.

But later on came the critical realist movement, which having the advantage of knowing the findings of the modern physiologists, argued that the world of sense data from the external or empirical realm is no more a real encounter than the experience we have of the 'contentless patterns of thought'. They, therefore, proved the unreliablity of sense data by critical analysis of the perspective, temporal and spacial illusions, and a plethora of other errors that sense data transmission is heir-to.

The best of these critical realists, therefore, opted to accept only the patterns of thought as the real encounter, whether contentless or filled with unreliable sense data, whose decriptions gives us a knowledge by description. This knowledge by description through the categories of reason, the patterns or templates, is the only knowledge which they asseverate as universal and necessary truth.

This isn't really much different from Plato's realism based on the archetypes. But since the critical analysis of the empirical as opposed to the rational was extensively carried out by them, and their works can be found in the modern libraries to attest to their work, they were justified in calling themselves not Realists in the Platonic sense (classical) but realists in the critical sense. Hence, they are known as Critical Realists as opposed to Kantians and/or neo-Kantians.

Later, perhaps, I will get the time to show how dialectical materialism uses the dialectical method to make an antithesis in its unity, or a synthesis of reality, out of the synthetic apriori real encounter of Kant, and the sense data analyses of the critical realism of the Critical Realist's Movement.

[Eddier1]

Where is the forum they are at so I can join and learn more? Thank you.


[/b][/quote]

Loathe to say it, but if you ask the Maitreya Stanley, he can give you the URL in HTML format, which will enable you to click on it and go directly to the website. As you know, I have been restricted by this forum from using HTML formatting and image downloads, from day one, even though I asked for these applications when I joined. Ahahaha...they must have had some former alert on who they were allowing into the forum, and handicapped me from day one. LOL!!!

BTW, he Stan continues to lie through his teeth. He calls us commies 'gentilhommes'; what a joke about what might have been had we not been communists. But hey, if you get enrolled at the website, you can do a search of what he has written and the replies by others, many of which consider him a spaced out dreamer, a utopian without direction. And some have even cursed him out; one even told him to "f.uck-off" when Stanley kept up with his empollon ways of calling the communists 'zoo keepers of people' who deny them their freedom

Speaking of freedom again, let me say quickly that there is such a thing as an 'unenchained mind'. And that 'freedom' which ought to be our purpose in life, and the meaning of it, is often ignored by many people, who seem to have an instinct not for achieving freedom, but for conquering their fear of the unknown. Such fear is the main obstacle to achieving freedom, and is oft ensnared by religionism and utopian ideologies that are sheer pap. But religionism is the most as the problem, as the fantasies which are created are simply that "fantasies" to cope with the world which is too much for most people. However, the real culprit is the realigionist organizations, which impose their faiths mostly by force as history has shown. And these religionists organizations are something that we commies have to deal with, and not ignore. They have to be dealt with. But more later when I have more time to discuss the positive values of FREEDOM!

[Suki]

I found these three paragraphs in your post very, very interesting Eddie (I hope you elaborate):

His philosophy leaned more to the empirio-criticism as having the real encounter, and his critique of pure reason demonstrated how the patterns of thought are 'contentless' until they receive the sense data effects garnered through the knowledge we obtain of the empirical world through 'acquaintance with it'.

For Kant this knowledge gives us reality, for him the rational is not the real, and the real is not the rational. This is the crux and powerful key to his philosophy. And it is what made the CRITIQUE so necessary and meaningful for the development of philosophy

The best of these critical realists, therefore, opted to accept only the patterns of thought as the real encounter, whether contentless or filled with unreliable sense data, whose decriptions gives us a knowledge by description. This knowledge by description through the categories of reason, the patterns or templates, is the only knowledge which they asseverate as universal and necessary truth.

____________________________________________________

Suki: The last paragraph....in which patterns of thought and description of knowledge. That sounds so similar to what is used in cultural anthropology of thick description. You try to find patterns that are consistent and serve some function of real utility to a culture's value system. Interesting.

Many things have logical explanations. Others take a while to try to see why it is done the way it is done.

Remember my sentence about the Church becoming this monster with a need to perpetuate itself....and the state as well? And the opiate of the people. And how hard it is to eradicate the opiates without the society being in agreement with its destruction. May I ask Eddie do you see organized religions as impediments to true freedom? I think you do. But so is an ex-alchoholic Eddie. They use alcohol to numb the pain. And many religious thoughts have so many cultural values ingrained in them. As a pattern religion is there.....with consistency in human culture. If it is, what is its function. I know for the communists the purpose of the church is to keep people from liberation. To use its emotionally based influences to keep them from looking at things with realism and struggle and then seeking to transform society. It is a social control. And quite an effective one. But how does one see spirituality as something good, and not as an oppressive institution? If religion serves a political/economic/social control purpose, it is a political institution and if you want to to eradicate it---how? With force? I think that is ineffective. I truly do. For once violence is the only recourse to change in society.....You open up Pandora's box for sure. Cortar cabeza porque alguien cree en Jesus o en Mohammad. No van ha ser socialmente responsables con eso tampoco. Igual que una ley prohibiendo bebidas alcoholicas. Solo van a seguir...pero a la escondida.

Quoting from your Post Eddier1:

For Kant this knowledge gives us reality, for him the rational is not the real, and the real is not the rational. This is the crux and powerful key to his philosophy. And it is what made the CRITIQUE so necessary and meaningful for the development of philosophy

___________________________________

Suki:So what is reality? Critical realism? To err until development emerges....from the errors....filtered through and separated from the schaff of reckless emotional and sense data experiences. Optic distortions. You have made me think so much about so many things.....Eddie.


I am in such a hurry here. But please continue with the positives of freedom. And the synthesis in its unity. Those three very concise, and so filled with possibilities paragraphs among others.....it is SO ABSORBING. Please keep it coming along. I will do my best to think it over. Oh, the mundane calls once again.....don't stop. Please.

Suki.

[Eddier1]

"And many religious thoughts have so many cultural values ingrained in them. As a pattern religion is there.....with consistency in human culture. If it is, what is its function. I know for the communists the purpose of the church is to keep people from liberation. To use its emotionally based influences to keep them from looking at things with realism and struggle and then seeking to transform society. It is a social control. And quite an effective one. But how does one see spirituality as something good, and not as an oppressive institution? If religion serves a political/economic/social control purpose, it is a political institution and if you want to to eradicate it---how? With force?"
***********************************

Aha...you in a sense answered your own question about religion. First you fell into the age-old error of the vaunted cultural values, such as can be readily seen in the paintings, architecture, music, of the great artists who sold their talents to the church, because it was the "only game in town" in their time. This great talent, the genuises of sculpture and art, and master building etc., all created the aura of "spirituality" that the basic foundations of religionism does not have! The Bible is one of the most contradictory and scandalous books ever written; it is downright indecent in many of the things said, and above all it glorifies war, genocide, and mayhem. Even the "gentle" Jesus lauded Jeremiah the Prophet who called for the genocide of the gentiles (like you and me, etc.) by giving us the cup of fury. So much for institutionalized cultural values, that without great artists and master builders would have been defunct long before now.

What, therefore, is to be done? And note that again you commit the usual error on that "spirituality" by going immediately to the dark side of the issue, and not the light of education first and foremost. Such darkness is endemic and universal to all religions in the world. You as an anthropologist must know that if you dig deep enough, you will always find it out, like heinous murder will always out.

Now, I said that education is the first choice of us communists, but we will defend ourselves against physical violence if we are attacked, and we expect that we will be attacked and are prepared to fight if necessary. We offer peaceful coexistence and education above all, but history has shown time and again that the so-called "spiritual leaders" conspire and plot to destroy communism, just like the present Pope in Rome did with Reagan who with the might of the American military forced the shut-down of the Soviet Union. We, therefore, are committed to not have a new DARK AGES, with us as the fodder for murder, torture, and/or any other kind of inhuman abuse.

Sounds like the religionists are political, eh; of course they are! Church politics is not spirituality, but I have addressed what that spirituality is in the lines above. They are political alright, and vicious and dangerous proved by history both in the past and recent. But we without hypocrisy are political too, and our power can come out of a 'gun' too if necessary. So my point is that we will and are duty-bound to 'Put Politics in Command', so that the proletarian revolution can continue, and the building of a communist society on a socialist world-wide scale can take place accordingly.

Enough for the nonce; I will take up your selected paragraphs that I wrote on Kant later when I have more time to devote to them.

BTW, if you get the URL from Stanley, make sure that in place of the .com you substitute .org, or he will send you on to a fixed location from which you cannot access the menu nor register. It will be a single webpage but it will be 'read only', and you know what that hack means already. LOL! You ought to get a gander how Jaakko has demolished the best of what the Maitreya Stanley has had to offer. You will learn lots and I think enjoy yourself to boot also.

[Suki]

Thanks for the advice Eddier1 about the forum....but Rust put the website in his post and I got it from him. So I am going to be reading their posts. Jaako who is listed as being in Finland? Is extremely eloquent and informed. I know one should not have favorites in this forum or anywhere....but I have grown used to you. Lol. Oh, Eddie I will miss you. I will always check on you and Letty somehow.

Well, enough of that. Can you elaborate on what is real freedom? In the best sense. And how one strikes a balance between the many duties one must act on to have a life of productivity and service? From what I can gather from your last post, it is conquering fear...and not relying on myth and fantasy. I also think you appreciate art....but free of religious manipulation. Just for itself and nothing more? I think I am right about that statement. Do you think art has a purpose at all? Or is it just there because it is another form of human expression? And important one? I must say some of the most incredibly creative artists whose art is of the best quality have been communists and atheists. No doubt about it. But so have religious believers. Some of the art they have done is really lovely.

Do you think that patch of our brains that process the sense data and give us an 'acquaintance' with knowledge, is powerful? More powerful than many other abilities and capacities and when applied and given over to the entire collective society in sincere service.....it is the progressive and transformative force in society. Eddie, that is what true humanism and progress is. I am so excited again. Please don't stop posting your ideas about this. And please don't forget to mention the synthesis in its unity. How have you coped with contradiction and other problems in life? How has philosophy brought you that sol de la mente...we all seek?

Suki

PS. I have always known organized religions are political institutions. And why human beings if truly religious in an institutionalized way can become fanatical and intolerant. That is no surprise. You are right about my knowing that. I am not blind to any of the dark parts of religion. One can't be if one loves studying the past...whether Ancient Aztec priests doing mass human sacrifices, or hipocritical and power hungry Popes using their political power for personal gains......