What philosophy books are you reading?

[rusmeister]

I am afraid the use of the word "kindergarten" in America has more to do with the adoption of the Prussian school system in the US than with random popular interest in German.

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I am afraid the use of the word "kindergarten" in America has more to do with the adoption of the Prussian school system in the US than with random popular interest in German.

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

But the trick is to understand Kantianism before declaring it true or not true.
Then, in order to prove that Kantianism is not true, you have to take on a whole host of his defenders and their powerful arguments. And in order to take on their arguments, you have to read their books too.

Too bad it's not as simple as declaring "Kant's is not true."

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

[Vraith]

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

You may have to, but you'll have more fun with Nietsche or Heidegger.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

You may have to, but you'll have more fun with Nietsche or Heidegger.

Alright, well, I should have said serious philosophy, not the fun stuff.

Nietzsche was an outright polemicist, and a madman. Explaining away his madness as the effect of syphillis is betrayed by the fact that Nietzsche had no other symptoms of that disease.

And Heidegger couldn't make up his mind what he was.

Then you have a philosopher such as Kierkegaard who contradicts himself within the very same work.



My first direct experience with Kant's first Critique was through the NKS translation which I borrowed from the library. At the time, I didn't understand a word of it, of course (and perhaps I still don't) - however, the words themselves were so serene that I did not have to understand them, simply enjoying the serenity made the reading worthwhile. I don't think NKS truly understand the author he was interpreting, but he did understand how to write for him in his place. Unfortunately, whenever I made an attempt to understand what he was trying to say, the serenity vanished. It's true: analysis kills.

[rusmeister]

I am afraid the use of the word "kindergarten" in America has more to do with the adoption of the Prussian school system in the US than with random popular interest in German.

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

But the trick is to understand Kantianism before declaring it true or not true.
Then, in order to prove that Kantianism is not true, you have to take on a whole host of his defenders and their powerful arguments. And in order to take on their arguments, you have to read their books too.

Too bad it's not as simple as declaring "Kant's is not true."

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

That is not at all true.
To "do" philosophy, one only need have a philosophy, and one can live and philosophize all one's life and nver deal with Kant, although it is likely that problems Kant addresses will crop up at various points. Kant developed his own view. I adopted a view that was not developed by me, but which I have found to be true on all levels, that contradicts Kant. Therefore, Kant's philosophy is not true. Granted that you need more than that.

As to taking on his defenders, fine. Bring them on. You'll find that some of the objections of Christian philosophy are rational and some are dogmatic, but they are all old and well-thought-out, and Kant was never news to them. The basis is generally the authority of individual reason - the use of an often tired and fallible mind vs the corrections of absolute Reason, something no one human has perfect command of. (Except Christ. But there goes dogma and faith again.) Thus, I look to a Church as the authority which corrects my thoughts.

Agreed that it's not simple.

[Vraith]

Wow, Worm!! I've been affected in various ways by various posts on various issues all over the Watch...but you're the first to knock me out of my chair. Reading Kant made you feel serene?!?.
I am in awe. [only slightly joking, and not making fun of you, just so you don't misinterpret the tone of that comment]
Heidegger and Nietsche both have major problems, but also some insights [and different goals than Kant, it seems...not having read all the work of any of them]. The only time I've ever felt anything related to serenity from philosophy was Heidegger on the particular topic of Art.
I've been looking for Kant's other 2 critiques (besides pure reason) for a long time, but every time I find one it's apparent within 2 pages that the translations are not good, so I don't buy it.

[Avatar]

Well, I could see how Kant's methodicism might be lulling. I agree with Rus though that there is no need to deal with Kant...I've certainly tried to avoid it where possible.

--A

[Vader]

Weltenschahung, Dachshund (when I hear them said aloud, both make me say: Gesundheit!)
Weiner
Schmertzgehuven...no wait..that was the song and dance by Swedish supergroup BAAB.

While "Weltenschahung" and "Schmertzgehuven" look German those are no real words. Neither is "Stackenblacken".

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

I sense a bit of self-contradiction in there. Your use of the word "philosophy" implies that there more than just one that could be true. Th way you understand "truth" however allows no plural, otherwise truth would contradict itself.

From the Heglian point of view there is only ONE truth and ONE philosophy, namely the on ethat describes the unfolding of the idea and the subsequent self-awareness of the Spirit. All constucts and sub-philosophies only serve this purpose and help to keep it going by contradicting each other - this is the engine that keeps dialectics moving. From this point of view even religion is "only" a step on this way.

The question if one of these sub-philosphies (like that of Kant) is true doesn't arise here. It cannot, because the only truth is "Geist" (call it "God", nous or Idea). Kant has served his purpose in this dialectic process and this all you can ask from a "phiolosophy".

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I am afraid the use of the word "kindergarten" in America has more to do with the adoption of the Prussian school system in the US than with random popular interest in German.

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

But the trick is to understand Kantianism before declaring it true or not true.
Then, in order to prove that Kantianism is not true, you have to take on a whole host of his defenders and their powerful arguments. And in order to take on their arguments, you have to read their books too.

Too bad it's not as simple as declaring "Kant's is not true."

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

That is not at all true.
To "do" philosophy, one only need have a philosophy, and one can live and philosophize all one's life and nver deal with Kant, although it is likely that problems Kant addresses will crop up at various points. Kant developed his own view. I adopted a view that was not developed by me, but which I have found to be true on all levels, that contradicts Kant. Therefore, Kant's philosophy is not true. Granted that you need more than that.

As to taking on his defenders, fine. Bring them on. You'll find that some of the objections of Christian philosophy are rational and some are dogmatic, but they are all old and well-thought-out, and Kant was never news to them. The basis is generally the authority of individual reason - the use of an often tired and fallible mind vs the corrections of absolute Reason, something no one human has perfect command of. (Except Christ. But there goes dogma and faith again.) Thus, I look to a Church as the authority which corrects my thoughts.

Agreed that it's not simple.

Your explanation sounds almost like Leibniz, but it is definitely not Kant. So that just goes to show, it is first necessary to understand what Kant is saying.

If Kant was never news to Christian scholars then it is because they didn't attempt to understand him, but only interpreted his views by forcing them to fit into older molds: Plato, Platon, Augustine, Thomas. But that is forcing a square peg into a round hole, because none of those doctrines are Critical in their method. A good example of a bland and unoriginal neo-Kantian interpretation is found in the Kant entries at the Catholic NewAdvent.org site.

On the other hand, I take it you're saying that each philosophy is sui generis. In that case, no philosophy can contradict any other. But if I'm taking your conclusion correctly, your philosophy is also false simply from the viewpoint of another. And so each person's philosophy is only true for them.

But then in Kant's famous essay on lying he granted everybody the right to the truth within themselves, at least subjectively. So nobody here is denying you your own subjective truth or that which is true only for you as a sui generis individual.

Of course, when I say that anybody doing philosophy must first contend with Kant, I am referring to scholars. Everything philosophy students learn prior to the senior level of college is only introductory to Kant. The only way to properly appreciate modern philosophy is by going through Kant. Whether someone wants to appreciate it through his or her own particular brand of truth is up to that person. But for some reason, that approach doesn't seem to pass muster even with those church authorities you mentioned in passing.

As for my own particular brand of truth, I find any blind adherence to authority, whether it is church authority or Kantian or some other, to be very puzzling.

[rusmeister]

The ultimate question for a philosophy is not whether it is sufficiently sophisticated (in the popular understanding of the word), but whether it is true. Kant's is not true.

I sense a bit of self-contradiction in there. Your use of the word "philosophy" implies that there more than just one that could be true. Th way you understand "truth" however allows no plural, otherwise truth would contradict itself.

From the Heglian point of view there is only ONE truth and ONE philosophy, namely the on ethat describes the unfolding of the idea and the subsequent self-awareness of the Spirit. All constucts and sub-philosophies only serve this purpose and help to keep it going by contradicting each other - this is the engine that keeps dialectics moving. From this point of view even religion is "only" a step on this way.

The question if one of these sub-philosphies (like that of Kant) is true doesn't arise here. It cannot, because the only truth is "Geist" (call it "God", nous or Idea). Kant has served his purpose in this dialectic process and this all you can ask from a "phiolosophy".

It would seem to be obvious to me, but I guess it is not - by "philosophy I include both true and false - and varying philosophies contain varying degrees of truth. But only one of them is completely true.

I made dogmatic statements to attempt to communicate that the philosophy I hold to - which stems from the Orthodox Christian faith, is not subject to pluralistic ideas of "multiple truths", although again, we readily agree that varying philosophies and religions contain varying degrees of truth.

I can only call an idea "God" if we share a common understanding of what that means.

[Vader]

In classic idealistic philosophy this idea would be "bonum, verum, pulchrum".

[rusmeister]

But the trick is to understand Kantianism before declaring it true or not true.
Then, in order to prove that Kantianism is not true, you have to take on a whole host of his defenders and their powerful arguments. And in order to take on their arguments, you have to read their books too.

Too bad it's not as simple as declaring "Kant's is not true."

But one thing I know is true: in order to do philosophy in this day and age, you first have to contend with Kant.

That is not at all true.
To "do" philosophy, one only need have a philosophy, and one can live and philosophize all one's life and nver deal with Kant, although it is likely that problems Kant addresses will crop up at various points. Kant developed his own view. I adopted a view that was not developed by me, but which I have found to be true on all levels, that contradicts Kant. Therefore, Kant's philosophy is not true. Granted that you need more than that.

As to taking on his defenders, fine. Bring them on. You'll find that some of the objections of Christian philosophy are rational and some are dogmatic, but they are all old and well-thought-out, and Kant was never news to them. The basis is generally the authority of individual reason - the use of an often tired and fallible mind vs the corrections of absolute Reason, something no one human has perfect command of. (Except Christ. But there goes dogma and faith again.) Thus, I look to a Church as the authority which corrects my thoughts.

Agreed that it's not simple.

Your explanation sounds almost like Leibniz, but it is definitely not Kant. So that just goes to show, it is first necessary to understand what Kant is saying.

If Kant was never news to Christian scholars then it is because they didn't attempt to understand him, but only interpreted his views by forcing them to fit into older molds: Plato, Platon, Augustine, Thomas. But that is forcing a square peg into a round hole, because none of those doctrines are Critical in their method. A good example of a bland and unoriginal neo-Kantian interpretation is found in the Kant entries at the Catholic NewAdvent.org site.

On the other hand, I take it you're saying that each philosophy is sui generis. In that case, no philosophy can contradict any other. But if I'm taking your conclusion correctly, your philosophy is also false simply from the viewpoint of another. And so each person's philosophy is only true for them.

But then in Kant's famous essay on lying he granted everybody the right to the truth within themselves, at least subjectively. So nobody here is denying you your own subjective truth or that which is true only for you as a sui generis individual.

Of course, when I say that anybody doing philosophy must first contend with Kant, I am referring to scholars. Everything philosophy students learn prior to the senior level of college is only introductory to Kant. The only way to properly appreciate modern philosophy is by going through Kant. Whether someone wants to appreciate it through his or her own particular brand of truth is up to that person. But for some reason, that approach doesn't seem to pass muster even with those church authorities you mentioned in passing.

As for my own particular brand of truth, I find any blind adherence to authority, whether it is church authority or Kantian or some other, to be very puzzling.

Adherence to authority can be explained, and the idea that it is "blind" is an incorrect assumption (speaking for faith accepted rationally, that is, compatible with reason, but not dominated exclusively by reason). If we see it rather as an acknowledgement of the limitations of our reason, and by faith accepting a divine (as opposed to merely human) Institution that consists of both living people and a permanent Tradition that none can violate or depart from, that is the blueprint for human happiness in the face of our fallen condition - which may not necessarily include what we normally think of as happiness in worldly (materialistic) terms. Here it is a question of what you see to be ultimate authority (self or external authority). On Kant I am open to correction, not having made him a special field of study. As his thought is not Orthodox I necessarily reject all that contradicts Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. THAT is where I will take him on, and am ready to justify it with reason where possible. However, the objections I have seen to Church, hierarchy and doctrine are based primarily on Catholic/Anglican (ie, western) history and experience, which is non-sequitur to a great extent regarding Orthodoxy.

The whole worldview I come from insists that there is objective Truth in the metaphysical as well as physical worlds, so the idea of everyone "having their own truth", while true in that people in general apprehend various truths in the course of their lives, is false in regard to multiple and contradictory worldviews. In short, all are wrong in summa except one, and that we can only know via divine revelation. It is here that Kant is deeply wrong, although again, parts of my responses will point to dogma - but some will point to reason. Kant himself did not understand Orthodoxy; that much is clear from his ideas that the externals interfere with the internal necessity to obey moral law.

You say that Kant's ideas of subjective truth "don't pass muster with Church authorities". Of course not. How could they when the truth being taught and passed on from generation to generation is taught to be objective? Surely that is not puzzling?

If a person's thoughts begin to depart from what is accepted as first principles, then following their thoughts further is useless. The first principles - dogmas or first assumptions must be dealt with first. This ought to be common sense. So it makes no sense at all for traditional Christians to admire Kant for elegant and sophisticated errors. If a professor attempts, say, an Einsteinian formula and makes only one little error early on - one that, nevertheless throws the further reasoning off course, should we take it seriously? of course not. We must go back to the first error and begin reasoning again. I'll put my money on Lewis vs Kant every day of the week. But in the end, faith is not merely a rational proposition. At some point you must make a choice - often in spite of the evidence.

Two last things. One, I have offered Chesterton and Lewis against champions of unbelief here. I offer them again, and am willing, insofar as I am able, to deal with specific offerings of Kant or anyone else. (I can't buy books, online free is my only realistic option; plus, I am cutting back on computer use big time in connection with the start of Great Lent, so heavy duty 'battles' could only take place in late April.)

Secondly, I'd like to offer a link to a non-partisan PBS program pitting Lewis against Freud. (It really fairly discusses belief vs unbelief and doesn't offer one final answer - but I think (my opinion only) its great value is in opening up to unbelievers the awareness that faith and reason really can go hand in hand.)
www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/
(Click on "The program" - great short videos and text from their lives and works.)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Faith, held as compatible with reason in the context of Orthodoxy, means that reason is the handmaiden to faith. And so it really is a blind adherence to authority you're talking about, and throwing the word "reason" in there doesn't help your case. That the Orthodoxy is correct is your own assumption. But you should never assume anything, it only makes an ass out of u and me. You are really accepting your Orthodoxy as common sense, but that is only the sense common to a particular community - which leads to a phenomenon known as "group think."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think

Kant addressed the notion of common sense, reinterpreting it in terms of the more cosmopolitan idea of a sensus communis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_communis
"..we must [here] take sensus communis to mean the idea of a sense shared [by us all], i.e., a power to judge that in reflecting takes account (a priori), in our thought, of everyone else's way of presenting [something], in order as it were to compare our own judgement with human reason in general... Now we do this as follows: we compare our judgement not so much with the actual as rather with the merely possible judgements of others, and [thus] put ourselves in the position of everyone else..."

On its very face, when Kant expresses cosmopolitan ideas it very much flies against any Orthodoxy position.
For example, I find it very difficult to imagine any of your Orthodox elites putting themselves in everybody else's shoes and comparing their judgments with that of human reason in general without first consulting the sacred texts to see if that reasoning in general corresponds to their sacred word. For Kant, in both his politics and religion, the general will comes first, and so it is really a philosophy of the people and not a philosophy of God or any of His elite representatives on Earth.

I do however like C.S. Lewis, and learned quite a bit from reading his essays. I haven't read any Chesterton, but I already disagree with his quote in your sig. It should not be the proper religious stance to praise any creed, even one's own, but only to praise God.

[Vraith]

Weltenschahung, Dachshund (when I hear them said aloud, both make me say: Gesundheit!)
Weiner
Schmertzgehuven...no wait..that was the song and dance by Swedish supergroup BAAB.

While "Weltenschahung" and "Schmertzgehuven" look German those are no real words. Neither is "Stackenblacken".

Weltenschahung is a word, though it may be misspelled. [It came up in discussion with a German friend of mine who was attempting to translate one of his own short-stories into English]
Schmertzgehuven etc. is a joke/reference to a cartoon [am I the only one who sees a connection between a philosphy thread and "Pinky and the Brain?"]
Other stuff:
The problem with common sense is not that it isn't [as someone said] common, but that often it isn't sense. Rus, when you say Orthodoxy and reason are compatible, you have a series problem [philisophically speaking] Your faith is deterministic of the reason you can use. If it doesn't fit the faith, you can't use the reason, which says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the reason, only about your faith. All faith is blind, from a reason-able view. [you have another problem loosely related...divine revelation is at root a strictly individual experience] Faith and reason are necessary for each other in many pragmatic ways, but in metaphysical/ideological ways, they are if not outright enemies, at least on opposite sides of an unbreachable wall.
Most of philosophy, directly or indirectly, is an attempt to deal with this situation. A significant portion of religion of all kinds is making the same attempt. In ordinary, practical life they can be valuable companions, but in matters of "truth" [which I sincerely doubt exists in any absolute sense] the two have 'irreconciliable differences.

[rdhopeca]

Two last things. One, I have offered Chesterton and Lewis against champions of unbelief here. I offer them again, and am willing, insofar as I am able, to deal with specific offerings of Kant or anyone else. (I can't buy books, online free is my only realistic option; plus, I am cutting back on computer use big time in connection with the start of Great Lent, so heavy duty 'battles' could only take place in late April.)

Secondly, I'd like to offer a link to a non-partisan PBS program pitting Lewis against Freud. (It really fairly discusses belief vs unbelief and doesn't offer one final answer - but I think (my opinion only) its great value is in opening up to unbelievers the awareness that faith and reason really can go hand in hand.)
www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/
(Click on "The program" - great short videos and text from their lives and works.)

Please do not label us as "Champions of Unbelief". That's really quite offensive. "Atheist" or "Agnostic" or "Pagan" or whatever works fine.

[Vader]

Weltenschahung is a word, though it may be misspelled.

Now that I'm drunk I recognize it (after 2 bottles of red wine my mind simply works faster :p)

Weltanschauung - world-view/ideology (as a positively connotated term)

At our schools pupils can choose wether to have "religious eduction" (usually Protestant or Catholic) or something else - differing from state to state it is called "practical philosophy", "values and norms or "world-viewing education".

Btw, my final thesis at university was called "World-View And Philosophy in Tolkien's Fantasy Literature".

[Vraith]

Weltenschahung is a word, though it may be misspelled.

Now that I'm drunk I recognize it (after 2 bottles of red wine my mind simply works faster :p)

Weltanschauung - world-view/ideology (as a positively connotated term)

At our schools pupils can choose wether to have "religious eduction" (usually Protestant or Catholic) or something else - differing from state to state it is called "practical philosophy", "values and norms or "world-viewing education".

Btw, my final thesis at university was called "World-View And Philosophy in Tolkien's Fantasy Literature".

That's interesting about the schools. Do the students actually choose? Or the parents?
For my 'Capstone project' [don't call it a thesis at that school anymore because technically it doesn't have to be a paper] was an approach to literary criticism&theory that I invented and used Tolkien, SRD, and Rushdie to demonstrate its use/function/value.

[Vader]

Under 14 the parents decide.

Since we have lots of muslim students over here (mostly from Turkey) practical philosophy classes are usually rather full.

Though it is confessional (usually either Protestant or Catholic) it is non-confessing. You don't actually have to believe. THis is why theoretically non-Christians could attend these lessons a swell.

Religious Education presents the Catholic or Protestant world-view and system of belief, customs and so on. However they have to take a critical approach and also introduce other religious systems (which makes sense, since you cannot understand the OT if you don't know about Judaism).

[rusmeister]

The problem with common sense is not that it isn't [as someone said] common, but that often it isn't sense. Rus, when you say Orthodoxy and reason are compatible, you have a series problem [philisophically speaking] Your faith is deterministic of the reason you can use. If it doesn't fit the faith, you can't use the reason, which says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the reason, only about your faith. All faith is blind, from a reason-able view. [you have another problem loosely related...divine revelation is at root a strictly individual experience] Faith and reason are necessary for each other in many pragmatic ways, but in metaphysical/ideological ways, they are if not outright enemies, at least on opposite sides of an unbreachable wall.
Most of philosophy, directly or indirectly, is an attempt to deal with this situation. A significant portion of religion of all kinds is making the same attempt. In ordinary, practical life they can be valuable companions, but in matters of "truth" [which I sincerely doubt exists in any absolute sense] the two have 'irreconciliable differences.

Since you have reasonable concerns, a reasonable response is warranted. Maybe this will partially touch on WWE's thoughts as well.

If it doesn't fit the faith, you can't use the reason, which says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the reason, only about your faith.

This is almost, but not really true (at least regarding my faith). It's not that I "can't use the reason", it's that I have an essential mistrust of it in the final analysis. In short, I recognize its limitations, and distinguish between absolute Reason, which I believe fully supports my faith, and human thought from the human brain, which gets tired, makes mistakes, fails to see something, doesn't know something, etc.) None of us live long enough to be wise enough to even do something like properly understand, say, Scripture, let alone examine all of the merits and drawbacks of all world religions and philosophies. We die all too soon.

On irreconcilable differences, I think that is probably true. There would be one exception though: if the religion you held really was the true description of the objective nature of the universe.

On divine revelation. True, it is individual. However, I think we can experience our own divine revelation - when something outside of us (or a voice inside of us that is probably inconsistent with our desires (thus eliminating 'wish-fulfillment') tells us something true about life. And that could include the revelation that we cannot really trust ourselves, masses of lusts, desires, and passions that generally work to subvert our reason.

[Vraith]

Rus,
Didn't quote the whole thing to avoid lots of scrolling for a short response.
Much of what you say makes sense, especially given your faith, apparent sincerity, and your general striving for thoughtfulness (demonstrated often in many posts on the Watch). And don't read this as an assault on you, but only exposition on me.
Here is my problem, (and what I believe may be a widespread but unexamined,denied, or hidden [for many reasons] problem for many people:
I have worse than an 'essential mistrust of reason in the final analysis.' (as you said) I have nearly certain knowledge that reason, by its very nature, at every stage, at BEST conceals, at worst blatantly and intentionally lies. And faith is even less trustworthy. In my blackest moods I wish I was capable of faith so I could forget all the rest, or purely rational so I believed truth would be found eventually by someone. I'm not. Seems bleak [and feels that way too, in those moods]. But there are upsides too, which I won't get into because it would be long, off-topic, and it's doubtful anyone cares.