XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   On 29-6-2014 19:59, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:42:09 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >> > out of curiosity>   
   >> Well, I actually agree with that.   
   > It's been a while since I read Kant, but do you /really/ believe that   
   > Space is a pre-existing concept that we use to organize the things we   
   > see (sense) spacially, so that we can distinguish between, say, two   
   > otherwise-identical chairs, while time is a pre-existing concept we   
   > use to organize things temporally in order to determine causation   
   > (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)? I thought that, since Einstein, "space"   
   > and "time" were regarded differently.   
      
   Uh. Not sure? It sounds reasonable (I know that means nothing). I know   
   we regard time and space differently now but that doesn't matter.   
      
   Okay, I'm way out of my depth when it comes to philosophy so I'll put it   
   in terms I understand. Knowledge, human knowledge, is a function of the   
   brain. It doesn't exist outside of us and so it is shaped by the way we   
   think which, of course, is shaped by the billions of years of evolution   
   that is our history. For instance, we see patterns everywhere. That   
   doesn't mean there are patterns everywhere. There isn't really a face on   
   Mars. We only see that because we see human faces everywhere.   
      
   This is why I don't like philosophy, why I don't like "Reinen Vernunft";   
   it suggests that by thinking we can reach valid conclusions. But you   
   can't see a rainbow if you're looking through yellow glasses. We need to   
   use our thinking to work around our limitations.   
      
   And so time and space isn't what we thought, but we still see two   
   different chairs, no?   
      
    > Still, he does limit the ability   
    > of human reason to discover anything about God, which I am sure you do   
    > agree with -- along with Aquinas and many other theologians.   
      
   Oh, I disagree. If there was a God I'm sure we'd have noticed. Let me   
   put it this way. If God exists and suddenly stops existing, what would   
   change? In what way would the world be different?   
      
   > The Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft),   
   > that really shows what is up: morality is based on the "categorical   
   > imperative": "that is moral which can be willed of all". Thus, he   
   > argues, even a thief recognizes that theft is wrong, because he cannot   
   > will that all men be thieves.   
   >   
   > Put that way, it sounds reasonable. But suppose I were a   
   > violin-player: certainly I could will that all who wanted to be   
   > violin-player's were allowed to study the violin, but would I have to   
   > will that /everyone else/ become a violin-player? I think not, which   
   > means that a thief could will that everyone who wanted to be a thief   
   > were allowed to be one, but not that everyone had to be a thief, and   
   > so conclude that theft was moral.   
   >   
   > The other problem is that it must be a /thief/ who decides if theft is   
   > moral or not. Of course someone who isn't a thief is not going to   
   > consider theft moral. Restricting this choice to non-thieves would be   
   > like allowing a flute-player to decide, not if playing the flute, but   
   > rather playing the tuba was moral or not.   
   >   
   > In the Critique of Judgement (Kritik der Urteilskraft), the results   
   > are plainly admitted to be subjective, which makes sense, since the   
   > topic aesthetics. But when I read that, it became clear to me that the   
   > Critique of Practical Reason was also subjective -- that is, that what   
   > the categorical imperative /really/ means is that what /Kant/ would be   
   > willing to see everyone do is moral.   
      
   Read and understood, thanks.   
      
   >> Tell me about Hegel's view on Egypt.   
   > The interesting part I was referring to is that he regards the   
   > Egyptian gods as men. That they have the heads of Jackals and other   
   > beasts does not change this. That they worshipped animals does not   
   > change this, although it may explain it. One gets the distinct   
   > impression that it /must/ be so for his philosophy to work properly.   
      
   An easy mistake to make, not only in philosophy. Although, of course,   
   philosophy is particularly vulnerable to that weakness.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)