Kant and Objectivity

[Johnny]

For me, there's simply no philosopher in the western world who has "wowed" me the way Kant does, especially in how he articulates the possibility of objective knowledge. I've "dropped" his name here a number of times, but I'll start a thread on him to see where it goes and what I can learn from others here.

Bottom line - Kant wants God's existence never to be confounded by scientific pogress, a progress which he embraces with open arms. How does he do this? He argues that there are rules that we live with, rules that are part of who we are as human beings, rules that we inherit. We inherit the rules of cause and effect, time, mathematics, and so on with which to construct the experiences we have of ouselves and the world. Morality and free will are also included, but Kant likes to break things down and eat the elephant one bite at at time, so to speak, and some bites are harder to swallow... Nonetheless, this is the basic structure of his argument as I understand without using outdated philosophical terms.

So what, then, that such rules exist within us from which to launch our human faculties? Well, if they are within us, then we don't have to worry about such things as discovering whether morality and free will exists - we couldn't have it otherwise without denying who we are!

The drawback here is that we must also admit that we are not also objective, because those things within us cannot then be said to exist in the world. Who really knows what's in the world? It simply can't be discussed. So then how can we talk about anything objectively, and if there is a solution, what value does it bring to us? :sombrero:

[Johnny]

O.K., I can't wait to offer my understanding of Kant's answer and already have in other posts. Here it is for this thread:

There's only one way to achieve anything resembling objective knowledge - that is, knowledge of the world that resembles it as-it-is, not as-we-percieve-it-through-our-inherent-faculties. It's akin to public knowledge, knowledge where everybody ends up describing the experience of something exactly the same way. Seems obvious, right?

So, in Kant's philosophy, if there's anything to understand about ourselves that we can rely on at all times, it is those things that we have found to be universal and necessary for us as human beings (time, cause-effect, et al). Everything else is speculation and simply unobtainable, though we can still talk about our experiences and a world that we perceive.

Practically, when we talk about the world and we do so scientifically, where test conditions are established and experiments are conducted until repeatable results are achieved, we are basically "recreating" a world that meets our expectations. This is the Kantian objectivity that I'm revealing as I understand him.

So what? Well, when we look at the world as-it-is, it gets described as "dangerous" and "a jungle". Predators roam, there is no shelter or fire, and so on. But when we look at the world as-we-desire, we see skyscrapers, assembly lines, financial institutions, video games, the internet, suburbs, and so on. See the difference? We are fashioning an environment that is orderly, that displays the patterns we imagine and fashion (even artistically), one that offers the predictability we demand. In part, I see Kant's vision to run close to Socrates' Republic, where everyone is born to their station in society and maximizes their lives by performing the duties they've inherently gained. But Kant goes the extra step by disregarding the world as-it-is altogether in order to fashion such a Republic.

So now, this is the impact of Kant's philosophy as I understand. When I look at it in religious terms, I see Kant to be fashioning a "bargain" with God. What I mean is this: Adam and Eve took the apple of knowledge from the tree and were driven from paradise...but Kant recognizes paradise before such an event, a paradise where the serpent, Adam, and Eve lived together. It wasn't until Eve was seduced by the serpent, seduced into receiving knowledge as sustenance, that paradise was lost. In other words, if we claim that knowledge, even scientific knowledge, can never usurp God's station from the very beginning, then we remove the mystical powers that apple possesses as advertised by the serpent. I like to call this "Kant's bargain with God". It is a rational philosophy, one that Kierkegaard rails against with all his passion (and habit) for human suffering and trembling.

It is a powerful philosophy nonetheless. As an American, when I hear the words of our President, "We are offering Democracy to the Iraqi People", I reflect on Kant's notion of objective knowledge. In the Middle East, I wonder if the people there are interested in such a bargain, to give us their oil for our air conditioning technology and satellite TV...and not wonder whether we truly believe that God is still living? :sombrero:

[s]

Even if I find some flaws in his theory, your assessment is quite interesting and brilliant.

Thanks for the thought provoking topic and I look forward to reading more about Kant. I'll try to get back to you on this relatively soon.

[Hypnos]

Kant's work has some serious flaws:

* The reality of the senses supersedes the "rules within ourselves" when we allow them, such that objectivity is possible by the individual through inference on sense data

* Concerning free will and morality: how do we know what we are?

* How can we know that God exists or not if we cannot make contact with his work? Agreeing with Kierkegaard, self-delusion is only the most trite happiness.

I could go on with Kant's issues, but would go beyond the scope of what you have presented ...

[Johnny]

Kant's work has some serious flaws:

* The reality of the senses supersedes the "rules within ourselves" when we allow them, such that objectivity is possible by the individual through inference on sense data

* Concerning free will and morality: how do we know what we are?

* How can we know that God exists or not if we cannot make contact with his work? Agreeing with Kierkegaard, self-delusion is only the most trite happiness.

I could go on with Kant's issues, but would go beyond the scope of what you have presented ...

Yes, Kant doesn't live in the modern world and it shows. Here are my responses:

*As you may already know, Kant argues that we possess synthetic a priori mechanisms for which we reconstruct the world, and there is no such thing as a world that we are able to know without these synthetic a priori. Perhaps Kant can claim that the world exists, but that's as far as his claim can go. Nothing intelligible about the world can be articulated that doesn't include us in some measure with that experience.

*Kant ends up running into major problems with free will and morality, and fights real hard to avoid vicious circles. But the structure of his argument is the same as it is for time, cause/effect, and so on - these are the mechanisms that exist within us regardless.

*We can know as much about God as we can know about the world - nothing but that God and the world exist as sources for our experience.


Hypnos, I beg you to indulge me. Please issue your onslaught against Kant and offer no mercy. Rip apart Kant's merging effort of Hume's fork if you wish. I'm not pro-Kant, I just like his work very much and the manner of his thinking. Still, keep in mind this: no matter what evidence Kant provided for his synthetic a priori in his time - his rational argument for a soul in man - I think that he would grant you anything science has achieved since his death except that you and I can know the world for what it is without us and our meddling, and through this that we will never be able to crowd God out of the world we have necessarily reconstructed in our own minds.

[Hypnos]

*As you may already know, Kant argues that we possess synthetic a priori mechanisms for which we reconstruct the world, and there is no such thing as a world that we are able to know without these synthetic a priori. Perhaps Kant can claim that the world exists, but that's as far as his claim can go. Nothing intelligible about the world can be articulated that doesn't include us in some measure with that experience.
He is wrong (or at least, not parsimonious), because then the only way anyone can agree on anything is by magic (his "noumena") -- there must be an objective reality, a "there" there.

Science is an invention to deal with the epistemological problem of measuring objective reality, not a subjective projection that we all just happen to agree upon.

Kant's metaphysics suffer from implausibility: objective reality is easier to swallow than a universality of experiential faculties.


*Kant ends up running into major problems with free will and morality, and fights real hard to avoid vicious circles. But the structure of his argument is the same as it is for time, cause/effect, and so on - these are the mechanisms that exist within us regardless.
Again, he posits universal laws, which if you believe his metaphysics, are magically programmed inside all of us and are uniform (deontological, above and beyond the individual subjective preferences which, for some reason, must defer to the universal programming). Again, implausible/inelegant.

And it is the intellectual forefather to the scourge upon the Earth known as humanism ;)


*We can know as much about God as we can know about the world - nothing but that God and the world exist as sources for our experience.
Can you differentiate God from the world, if our reality is entirely our experience?


Hypnos, I beg you to indulge me. Please issue your onslaught against Kant and offer no mercy. Rip apart Kant's merging effort of Hume's fork if you wish.

How am I doing?

[Johnny]

How am I doing?

:lol: You're doing just fine, Hypnos.

Kant doesn't deny objective reality, but it is, however, very a special reality. It's a public reality. In his way of thinking, the kind of reality we normally think of as being objective - one where when the tree falls and no one is there to hear it, it makes the crashing noise regardless - is not possible to verify. Not exactly because we aren't there to hear it, but because we possess those pesky synthetic a priori.

If I understand the arguments from the more hardcore philosophical circles, the attack against Kant is that he wants it both ways - he wants to say that our experiences verify at least some things that are necessary and absolute (e.g., mathematics) - but Hume would argue that such a thing isn't possible. Things are either derived from experience (synthetic and changing, including what conclusions we draw from it), or they are derived analytically (derived from thought and permanent, including the conclusions), and there's no way to bridge the gap between such things. Kant does want it both ways (a merging of Hume's analytical/synthetic "fork"), and he claims we can not only have it both ways for a few special things, but that those few special things are so powerful as to rule how we experience anything, making us both subjective and the world in itself unknowable. (If you haven't been exposed to Hume, you might like his work quite a bit...Wikipedia will get your feet wet...)

I'm still learning about Kant, and so I'm not ready to pee all over his arguments until I see where the conclusions of his work takes me...and so far, it's fascinating. For example, look at the Stock Market, world governments, civilizations...and then the uncaring, uncontrolled (by us, that is) world itself.

[Johnny]

Can you differentiate God from the world, if our reality is entirely our experience?

I've got more time now. For Kant, his vision of morality is about the duty to do the right thing, while free will exists within us to turn away from that duty and sin. But remember, Kant is arguing for these things to be necessary for experience...meaning, experience is a vital component.

For example, we already assume there are cause/effect relationships that bring out tornadoes, so we search out experiences that help us come as close as possible to what they are. But Kant would argue here that the only tornado we experience is that which we have reconstructed to meet the expectations of cause/effect already. To me, this is the key to his argument, and if there are any lingering doubts about our ability to predict and/or mitigate tornadoes, to know everything, then Kant's argument remains interesting to me.

But to address your question now, is there a moral issue with respect to the experience of a tornado? If yes, then our "sense" of morality and sin come to assist in reconstructing that experience also. If no, well, they don't come into play.

For Kant, God is the source of morality just as the world is the source of our experiences. There's not much of an issue in telling God apart from the world, only that we acknowledge that there are sources for our scientific pursuits and moral dilemmas that are not of our own making but that we face regardless... :sombrero:

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I read Ayn Rand's book about philosophy and she ripped Kant and I tended to agree with her. But I'm very ignorant on the subject.

[Johnny]

I've only read one Ayn Rand book - The Fountainhead - when I was very young. I lost interest before I reached the end. So you can fairly say I'm ignorant of Ayn Rand's work and don't know what her ripping noises would offer here...

Your thoughts are welcome GM as any ignorance on your part is removed. :sombrero:

[Hypnos]

If I understand the arguments from the more hardcore philosophical circles, the attack against Kant is that he wants it both ways - he wants to say that our experiences verify at least some things that are necessary and absolute (e.g., mathematics) - but Hume would argue that such a thing isn't possible. Things are either derived from experience (synthetic and changing, including what conclusions we draw from it), or they are derived analytically (derived from thought and permanent, including the conclusions), and there's no way to bridge the gap between such things.
Yes, this is my point: in order for us all to subjectively to arrive to the same absolute, there must be some metaphysical source (God or objective reality).

(If you're really hardcore, you can claim that there is no law of identity so we don't know if we all agree on "absolutes", but then our conversation here has no substance :blink:)


Kant does want it both ways (a merging of Hume's analytical/synthetic "fork"), and he claims we can not only have it both ways for a few special things, but that those few special things are so powerful as to rule how we experience anything, making us both subjective and the world in itself unknowable.
Like what?



[...] For example, look at the Stock Market, world governments, civilizations...and then the uncaring, uncontrolled (by us, that is) world itself.
It is subjectivity not in the world, but in our desires, that shapes our existence.


I've got more time now. For Kant, his vision of morality is about the duty to do the right thing, while free will exists within us to turn away from that duty and sin. But remember, Kant is arguing for these things to be necessary for experience...meaning, experience is a vital component.
How do we know this duty? Is it that God plants this in our heads, divine and apart from our worldly experiences?

[Hypnos]

I've only read one Ayn Rand book - The Fountainhead - when I was very young. I lost interest before I reached the end. So you can fairly say I'm ignorant of Ayn Rand's work and don't know what her ripping noises would offer here...
That's too bad -- _Fountainhead_ was her only good work of fiction!

Rand blasts Kant with the same ammo I am hurling here. Where she goes wrong is with her teleological metaphysics in support of moral selfishness. The reality is that each individual human/animal has a variety of subjective core values/drives and capacities -- my ethics is that of _political_ selfishness, i.e. laissez-faire or anarcho-capitalism.

[Johnny]

Yes, this is my point: in order for us all to subjectively to arrive to the same absolute, there must be some metaphysical source (God or objective reality).

(If you're really hardcore, you can claim that there is no law of identity so we don't know if we all agree on "absolutes", but then our conversation here has no substance :blink:)


...those few special things are so powerful as to rule how we experience anything, making us both subjective and the world in itself unknowable.
Like what?

It is subjectivity not in the world, but in our desires, that shapes our existence.

How do we know this [moral] duty? Is it that God plants this in our heads, divine and apart from our worldly experiences?

To my understanding of Kant on your first point, there's not much worry that objects and God exist...it's rather that you can't then articulate anything about them that isn't subjectively derived. I'm not sure what point you were making there...

For Kant, one of those "special" synthetic a priori is Time. Yes, yes, I know that time now gets to be placed in some 4th dimensional space and is not supposed to be a mental disease or whatever, but I wanted to use this particular one to make the point that it really doesn't matter. It's the concept here that interests me. Jung uses Instinct as a means to articulate his psychological theory, and this is used in much the same way that Time was used by Kant. Like I said, it's the thought that counts for me.

And yes, according to my understanding of Kant, the rules of morality are within us thanks to God. But dig, we are subjective, and so I want to imagine our experiences and moral dilemmas to be personally shaped as I understand Kant to argue...we see a personal God and wrestle with our personal demons... :sombrero:

[Hypnos]

To my understanding of Kant on your first point, there's not much worry that objects and God exist...it's rather that you can't then articulate anything about them that isn't subjectively derived. I'm not sure what point you were making there...
Ok, so for example, then we all know that tables exist, but then there is no such thing as a "table" since the properties of these objects are all subjectively derived.

In other words, are logical constructs metaphysical or conventional? Are not all "things" that we can ponder (i.e, concepts) logical constructs?

If they are merely conventional, we still manage to produce technology, physical entities which operate in a predictable manner in the context of nature. Therefore, the interplay of various conventions must still form a metaphysical entity.


For Kant, one of those "special" synthetic a priori is Time. Yes, yes, I know that time now gets to be placed in some 4th dimensional space and is not supposed to be a mental disease or whatever, but I wanted to use this particular one to make the point that it really doesn't matter. It's the concept here that interests me. Jung uses Instinct as a means to articulate his psychological theory, and this is used in much the same way that Time was used by Kant. Like I said, it's the thought that counts for me.
Ah, that there are synthetic a priori which we implicate in our work? This is definitely a problem in physics, except that it's all tested experimentally so at least there's a basis in syllogism.


And yes, according to my understanding of Kant, the rules of morality are within us thanks to God. But dig, we are subjective, and so I want to imagine our experiences and moral dilemmas to be personally shaped as I understand Kant to argue...we see a personal God and wrestle with our personal demons... :sombrero:
That's a really spiritual take on the simple fact that we are primates, with different drives which have utility in different circumstances, and a brain to figure out which would be most satisfying to fulfill where.

[Johnny]

Ok, so for example, then we all know that tables exist, but then there is no such thing as a "table" since the properties of these objects are all subjectively derived.

In other words, are logical constructs metaphysical or conventional? Are not all "things" that we can ponder (i.e, concepts) logical constructs?

If they are merely conventional, we still manage to produce technology, physical entities which operate in a predictable manner in the context of nature. Therefore, the interplay of various conventions must still form a metaphysical entity.

...we are primates, with different drives which have utility in different circumstances, and a brain to figure out which would be most satisfying to fulfill where.

See, this is where I like to play with the results of Kant's thoughts. Again, our subjectivity doesn't force us to abandon discussion regarding that "table"...it only forces us to abandon the idea that the "table" we discuss is anything more than the "table" we discuss, rather than the table.

Sure, technology is here and we created it, but it is only the fashioning of that which we understand things to be at a given time. For example, bicycles are really nice, but just because they work and get us from point A to point B faster than walking (under most circumstances, such as along roads that we built), this doesn't really say anything absolute or final about the world itself. Practically, Kant's synthetic a priori neither diminishes the value of technology nor the scientific pursuits from which it is born. Best of all, it allows the world to be an infinitely exciting thing to explore. But technology does not need confirm any particular property of the world existing outside of our experience, and according to Kant it would not do so regardless. See, Kant isn't arguing that the world doesn't exist and that we are only bumping into our own individually composed echoes, he's only saying that it will never be something that we can know outside of our experiences. The difference is that the world and God get to remain mysteries, because we can only be rulemakers and game players...not earthshakers!

If you take human knowledge of the world to be the world itself Hypnos, rather than our image of the world, then Kant isn't for you. He is going to argue for a "soul", you will demand evidence of a "soul" in the world, and Kant will tell you that such a thing is required for you to know anything about your experiences of the world at all. And that pretty much wipes out further discussion on the matter without at least one round of fist-waving and head-dodging... :lol:

But dig, when you think about Kant and his notion of objective (which in Kant's case is public) knowledge, you might occasionally imagine a world like I do where everyone is connected together with their thoughts, imagination, work, and output...an ideal world where things happen according to plan and without surprises...and then get bored and be thankful there's a real world to mix things up in a little more, or perhaps the discovery that all is not what it seemed only moments ago.

Maybe the primates have the edge here?... :sombrero:

[Hypnos]

See, this is where I like to play with the results of Kant's thoughts. Again, our subjectivity doesn't force us to abandon discussion regarding that "table"...it only forces us to abandon the idea that the "table" we discuss is anything more than the "table" we discuss, rather than the table.
That's one way around the Problem of Universals (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/). :P


Sure, technology is here and we created it, but it is only the fashioning of that which we understand things to be at a given time. For example, bicycles are really nice, but just because they work and get us from point A to point B faster than walking (under most circumstances, such as along roads that we built), this doesn't really say anything absolute or final about the world itself.
Sure it does, in the proper context, not necessarily one's own. For example, the mechanical truths you employ in the design of your bicycle are the same as those of the bicycle created by the dude in China, independent of you.


[...] See, Kant isn't arguing that the world doesn't exist and that we are only bumping into our own individually composed echoes, he's only saying that it will never be something that we can know outside of our experiences. The difference is that the world and God get to remain mysteries, because we can only be rulemakers and game players...not earthshakers!
Define experiences: if you mean measurables, then that is false given the predictive power of scientific knowledge. If you mean just any old aspect of reality, then take the above example and exchange "bicycle" for any mathematical theorem.


If you take human knowledge of the world to be the world itself Hypnos, rather than our image of the world, then Kant isn't for you. He is going to argue for a "soul", you will demand evidence of a "soul" in the world, and Kant will tell you that such a thing is required for you to know anything about your experiences of the world at all. And that pretty much wipes out further discussion on the matter without at least one round of fist-waving and head-dodging... :lol:
Kant is wrong because he cannot justify the necessity of a soul within his own framework. If we are going to throw out logical consistency, then there can be no such thing as a framework.


But dig, when you think about Kant and his notion of objective (which in Kant's case is public) knowledge, you might occasionally imagine a world like I do where everyone is connected together with their thoughts, imagination, work, and output...an ideal world where things happen according to plan and without surprises...and then get bored and be thankful there's a real world to mix things up in a little more, or perhaps the discovery that all is not what it seemed only moments ago.
We don't need Kant to tell us that our knowledge of the world is incomplete. I am more comfortable with the fact that the world is there for us to explore and to make discoveries independent from the vagaries of human politic.


Maybe the primates have the edge here?... :sombrero:
Hardly -- I have too much pride and curiosity to return our pre-Eden selves.

[Johnny]

Kant is wrong because he cannot justify the necessity of a soul within his own framework.

Well, I would normally agree with you without reservation, but please permit me to continue and see if I can't offer an alternative viewpoint:


the mechanical truths you employ in the design of your bicycle are the same as those of the bicycle created by the dude in China, independent of you.

This is exactly the kind of thing Kant would use to argue for a "soul", synthetic a priori...whatever label you want to give it, but I like "soul" better, because that's his true intentions...the mechanisms within us that are necessary, precede our experiences, and shape them to see, know, and control these kinds of things (up to a point, that is...we're still not earthshakers, though we have the capacity to leverage the mechanical truths which we then shape the understood world).

Experience, if I understand Kant correctly, is the input we receive from the world (and God?). Remember the fine line, however - what comes out of that input gets manipulated by the synthetic a priori within us. We can claim that the world and God exist to offer us experience, but nothing more can be claimed that isn't of our devising.

We may not need Kant to tell us that our knowledge of the world is incomplete, but we do need him to offer that we can never have complete knowledge. Actually, Kant's point is that we can never have knowledge of anything about the world that exists beyond our experience but that it exists (it is noumena). Our world, the one both you and I are discussing with bicycles and tables, is phenomena and will always be this, though without the noumenal world our world would not exist to be experienced. It's a dual world and weakness in his philosophy.

Like I said, Kant isn't for everyone. Some people are repulsed by (or afraid of?) the notion of a soul and his pursuit of moral duty. I don't mind such things and am willing to entertain myself to his work and the works and thoughts that leap off his philosophical "diving board".

Kant's not arguing to return to our pre-Eden selves, he's offering a bargain with God to return in reconciliation... :sombrero:

[Hypnos]

the mechanical truths you employ in the design of your bicycle are the same as those of the bicycle created by the dude in China, independent of you.

This is exactly the kind of thing Kant would use to argue for a "soul", synthetic a priori...whatever label you want to give it, but I like "soul" better, because that's his true intentions...the mechanisms within us that are necessary, precede our experiences, and shape them to see, know, and control these kinds of things (up to a point, that is...we're still not earthshakers, though we have the capacity to leverage the mechanical truths which we then shape the understood world).
If the mechanical truths are synthetic, why do both bicycles work? Are all of our synthesizers the same?

In other words, Kant claims that the laws of causality, identity, etc. that we take for granted in science (i.e., cannot be tested), are not metaphysical, but psychological. If so, why do we have predictive power in the real world, i.e. why can we engineer?


We may not need Kant to tell us that our knowledge of the world is incomplete, but we do need him to offer that we can never have complete knowledge. Actually, Kant's point is that we can never have knowledge of anything about the world that exists beyond our experience but that it exists (it is noumena). Our world, the one both you and I are discussing with bicycles and tables, is phenomena and will always be this, though without the noumenal world our world would not exist to be experienced. It's a dual world and weakness in his philosophy.
The analytic requires context, so an infinite universe is all that is required, not a dual one.


Like I said, Kant isn't for everyone. Some people are repulsed by (or afraid of?) the notion of a soul and his pursuit of moral duty. I don't mind such things and am willing to entertain myself to his work and the works and thoughts that leap off his philosophical "diving board".
I dunno, Kant is easy to blow up because he argues, yet denies the very foundations of logic.


Kant's not arguing to return to our pre-Eden selves, he's offering a bargain with God to return in reconciliation... :sombrero:
Bah, God can suck on it. :devil:

[Johnny]

The analytic requires context, so an infinite universe is all that is required, not a dual one.
Perhaps. It is just one of the nasty sticking points in Kant's work that I don't particularly like either and wanted to throw it for whatever fun might be had...

But right now, this is part is more interesting:


If the mechanical truths are synthetic, why do both bicycles work? Are all of our synthesizers the same?

In other words, Kant claims that the laws of causality, identity, etc. that we take for granted in science (i.e., cannot be tested), are not metaphysical, but psychological. If so, why do we have predictive power in the real world, i.e. why can we engineer?

...Kant is easy to blow up because he argues, yet denies the very foundations of logic.

Well, I'm not clear on your success in blowing up Kant yet. I agree that there is a more psychological flavor to the things we take for granted in science rather than metaphysical, but I'm not really getting the conflict to which you are pointing. Kant isn't denying logic at all...to the contrary, you'd likely find any scientific achievement or logical proof ever made to be lauded by him. But at the same time, Kant will say that the world we experience can be understood by us in no other way (this is the difference); and he does want to claim that the synthetic a priori are the same for everyone, that they are universal to all people.

We engineer that which we understand, but we are still not offering anything substantive about a world that exists independently of us. The bicycle works in the world of our understanding to be sure, but the chain breaks, the tires deflate, the frame cracks, the rotating gears freeze, or something unexplainable and illogical happens to ruin our ride...but the bicycle that we conceive is perfect, flawless, unbreakable, rigorously tested and approved by #13 with a 6 mo. warranty... Yes, it's that nasty dual world consequence poking out again...but it isn't really any less crazy than an infinite world...so choose your medicine. :devil:

[Hypnos]

and he does want to claim that the synthetic a priori are the same for everyone, that they are universal to all people.
This is the core of my issue with Kant -- he wants the universality to exist in the mind, rather than in the world, which is far less elegant.

I guess if you believe in God ....

[Johnny]

As far as the universality part goes, I'm not too concerned with that as a deal-breaker. Like I said earlier, I'm fascinated with the results and not yet motivated to search what epistemological support exists for the premises or undermine the validity of a particular intermediate logical step. For me so far, such universality is really a nod to Kant's immense respect for Hume's skepticism, and Hume certainly deserves the honor in my book! Hume's questions are universal, and so Kant is very much compelled to attempt a blitzkrieg of rational arguments to twist the ends of Hume's fork together and take as few chances as possible.

I think the argument is brilliant, despite Kant's low level of success in grounding moral duty within us. But I'm not much of an art critic. :lol:

[Hypnos]

Aaah, a theorist -- I sympathize ;)

[xaockhaos]

1

[xaockhaos]

232