26-07-2005 18:51									#1
	Chapter 1: Immanuel Kant Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Okay, this follows on from my "Self Education" Thread ( http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=136680 ).

I will summarize yesterday's lecture... hopefully getting a discussion going, and a few difficult questions that might help me improve my understanding of the material.

The lecturer then introduced us to the concept of Metaphysics ("what appears is not the real, the real is what gives rise to what appears"), and Plato's theory of universal forms

Universal / Particular
Real / Apparent
Eternal / Temporal
Truth / Opinion

Plato's philosophy is (partly) based upon the Greek idealists Pythagoras and Parmenides. Pythagoras argued that mathematics is universal and eternal, and that numbers are ideal forms that have a reality of their own.
Parmenides argued that the apparent world could not be real as it grows, decays and dissolves (whereas Heraclitus (?) argued that these properties constitute reality). Parmenides argued that there must be an eternal and immutable reality independent on the ever changing apparent world, which is an illusion. Plato's philosophy follows on from this argument.

The lecturer then gave us some examples of ideal forms. The term chair can refer to a number of particular (different) objects, but the essential qualities of chair are universal. (I don't think I explained that very well).

The lecturer then discussed Medieval philosophy and the opposition of the nominalists and the realists. The Nominalists argued that Universals are concepts of the mind, whereas the realists argued that Universals were real.

Hume was a nominalist who argued that the self was a fiction, simply a bundle of sensations. "Hume's fork" separates the objects of human reason: relations of ideas (reason) and matters of fact (empiricism).

Basically, Kant was replying to both Christian Woolf (who "systematized" Leibniz), and David Hume. The lecturer didn't go into Woolf and Leibniz's theories in great detail, but he did say that Leibniz had a theory that people were "monads"; self enclosed, "windowless" things. Hume was a sceptic, he challenged the idea that humans could come by knowledge of reality through reason, argued against the reality of causality, and proposed that morality was determined by sentiments, not reason.

Kant agreed with Hume that humans could not know the world as it exists "in itself", but rebelled against the implications of Hume's sceptical philosophy, which he saw as undermining the moral foundations of life. Kant was also an admirer of Newton's physics, but argued that they should not apply to human activity and consciousness, as this would permit a determinism that would undermine morality. Thus Kant was presented with a seemingly paradoxical demand: to refute Hume's scepticism in favour of the causal laws of science, and to limit the pretensions of science to make room for faith and morality.

Kant rejected the separation inherent in Hume's fork; reason and empiricism could not be kept separate.

Reason / Empiricism
A priori / A posteriori
Definitive / (?)
Deductive / Inductive
(?) / Synthetic
Syllogisms / (?)

Kant asked: how can there be "a priori synthetic judgements" (i.e. hybrid propositions that are both necessary (?) and non-trivial (?).. meaning, a unity of reason (a priori) and experience (synthetic).

This led to his "Copernican revolution".

Prior to Kant people believed that thought simply reflected a world independent of us. However, Kant proposed that there are certain (a priori) categories of thought that structure our experience of the world, that structure the way we see and think about the world. They are our "cognitive architecture", the pre-conditions of all experience, that are transcendental (because they are universal).

Kant proposed that the world we see is the "phenomenal" world, a world governed by categories that put into the world with our thought...

However, to avoid the problems he saw inherent in both Humean scepticism and Newtonian causality, he proposed the existence of the "noumenal world", the realm of the thing in-itself, from where concepts that do not conform to the mechanistic laws of Newtonian Science can reside, free of their amoral implications.

From there, the lecturer explained the following split between continental and analytical philosophy.

I have summarised this lecture somewhat, so key information may have been omitted, but hopefully I can reveal how much I understand in reply to the probing questions and challenges I expect from you

	26-07-2005 19:06									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Kant was a lifelong virgin who barely left his own home town and his golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is seriously flawed...

	26-07-2005 19:07									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

How are we supposed to comment on your summarization of your lecturer's interpretation of Kant (and his predecessors)? Aggie might be able to determine whether your are close to what he thinks Kant meant. For me, it's been 15 years since I studied Kant, and all I remember was the Catagoical Imperative, which I think is pretty damn good way to decide if something is moral or not.

	26-07-2005 19:14									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

This appearently wasn't about Kant's ethics, but about his "critic of the pure reason", and from what I know of it this is summarized quite good.


edit:

quote: Kant was a lifelong virgin who barely left his own home town and his golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is seriously flawed..

....not that polytubbies are usually in the position to complain about others in those aspects.....

	26-07-2005 19:17									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

	26-07-2005 19:28									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table!

The idea was that people could not only comment on my summary, but ask me direct questions about Kant (or the other philosophy covered in the post) for me to answer. It would be good if Agathon could act as a sort of tutor... but I'm sure he's too busy to take on something like that. But I would definitely welcome his input.

I don't particularly like Kant's philosophy, it seems a little too synthetic (excuse the pun) and contrived. But what I'm aiming for with this course is not to know what to think... but how people construct arguments, philosophical systems, and critiques. Also, the philosophers that we're learning about (Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger) provide the basis for a number of intellectual traditions in which I am interested.

	26-07-2005 21:28									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Is Chapter 2 going to be "but Genghis Khan"?

	26-07-2005 21:32									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

it would be much funnier if he was a girl

	26-07-2005 21:34									#9
	Tired of ads?

it would have been a perfect name for a porn star
Emanuel Kant.

Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 26-07-2005 at 21:50

	26-07-2005 22:52									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It would have been rather ironic, seeing as (if I remember correctly) Emmanuel not only could, but did.

	26-07-2005 23:06									#11
	Re: Chapter 1: Immanuel Kant Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II Okay, this follows on from my "Self Education" Thread ( http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=136680 ). I will summarize yesterday's lecture... hopefully getting a discussion going, and a few difficult questions that might help me improve my understanding of the material. The lecturer then introduced us to the concept of Metaphysics ("what appears is not the real, the real is what gives rise to what appears"), and Plato's theory of universal forms Universal / Particular Real / Apparent Eternal / Temporal Truth / Opinion

Calling it Metaphysics is anachronistic, since that world was coined by a later editor to characterize those of Aristotle's works that came after his Physics.

quote: Plato's philosophy is (partly) based upon the Greek idealists Pythagoras and Parmenides. Pythagoras argued that mathematics is universal and eternal, and that numbers are ideal forms that have a reality of their own.

Well, it's hard to say what the Pythagoreans thought (they were a sort of religious cult and the opinions they preached were attributed to the founder as a matter of principle), but the Platonist interpretation you cite here is only one of the possibilities. The problem is that our sources are so vague and fragmentary, it is impossible to come to a firm conclusion.

quote: Parmenides argued that the apparent world could not be real as it grows, decays and dissolves

Yes, because he thought these notions were incoherent.

quote: (whereas Heraclitus (?) argued that these properties constitute reality).

On a popular reading, yes.

quote: Parmenides argued that there must be an eternal and immutable reality independent on the ever changing apparent world, which is an illusion. Plato's philosophy follows on from this argument.

Sort of. Plato's Forms are immutable entities like Parmenides' One Being, but they are many, which Parmenides would not have tolerated. Plato's attempt to answer Parmenides in this respect is the eponymous dialogue, which is the most obscure and difficult thing Plato ever wrote.

quote: The lecturer then gave us some examples of ideal forms. The term chair can refer to a number of particular (different) objects, but the essential qualities of chair are universal. (I don't think I explained that very well).

Aristotle believes in universals, but universals are not Forms. A universal is simply that which is said "of many", but a Form has independent existence and causal priority. It's also not clear that Plato believes in Forms of artifacts, and according to Aristotle he believed the Forms are really numbers.

quote: The lecturer then discussed Medieval philosophy and the opposition of the nominalists and the realists. The Nominalists argued that Universals are concepts of the mind, whereas the realists argued that Universals were real.

Yes.

quote: Hume was a nominalist who argued that the self was a fiction, simply a bundle of sensations. "Hume's fork" separates the objects of human reason: relations of ideas (reason) and matters of fact (empiricism).

Yes.

quote: Basically, Kant was replying to both Christian Woolf (who "systematized" Leibniz), and David Hume. The lecturer didn't go into Woolf and Leibniz's theories in great detail, but he did say that Leibniz had a theory that people were "monads"; self enclosed, "windowless" things. Hume was a sceptic, he challenged the idea that humans could come by knowledge of reality through reason, argued against the reality of causality, and proposed that morality was determined by sentiments, not reason. Kant agreed with Hume that humans could not know the world as it exists "in itself", but rebelled against the implications of Hume's sceptical philosophy, which he saw as undermining the moral foundations of life. Kant was also an admirer of Newton's physics, but argued that they should not apply to human activity and consciousness, as this would permit a determinism that would undermine morality. Thus Kant was presented with a seemingly paradoxical demand: to refute Hume's scepticism in favour of the causal laws of science, and to limit the pretensions of science to make room for faith and morality. Kant rejected the separation inherent in Hume's fork; reason and empiricism could not be kept separate. Reason / Empiricism A priori / A posteriori Definitive / (?) Deductive / Inductive (?) / Synthetic Syllogisms / (?) Kant asked: how can there be "a priori synthetic judgements" (i.e. hybrid propositions that are both necessary (?) and non-trivial (?).. meaning, a unity of reason (a priori) and experience (synthetic). This led to his "Copernican revolution". Prior to Kant people believed that thought simply reflected a world independent of us. However, Kant proposed that there are certain (a priori) categories of thought that structure our experience of the world, that structure the way we see and think about the world. They are our "cognitive architecture", the pre-conditions of all experience, that are transcendental (because they are universal). Kant proposed that the world we see is the "phenomenal" world, a world governed by categories that put into the world with our thought...

Yes.

quote: However, to avoid the problems he saw inherent in both Humean scepticism and Newtonian causality, he proposed the existence of the "noumenal world", the realm of the thing in-itself, from where concepts that do not conform to the mechanistic laws of Newtonian Science can reside, free of their amoral implications.

i.e he snuck religion in the back door.

quote: From there, the lecturer explained the following split between continental and analytical philosophy.

You mean the distinction between French jibber-jabbering and philosophy?

	26-07-2005 23:36									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ok, I ask a question: I always thought the categorical imperative is not identical with the golden rule as given by Mobius above?

	26-07-2005 23:57									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

They are slightly different. To act as if your action were a universal maxim, is the best formulation of the imperitive that I have heard. The difference being that sometimes what you like for yourself, may not be the best thing for everyone.