XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 8:10 AM, Lee Dillion wrote:
>
>> The danger, of course, that all things may appear to
>> be nails to the hammer of reason.
>
> The danger always exists, of being more Royalist
> than the King.
That's a bit pithy.
> However, I take reason, more
> specifically pure reason, in the strict Kantian sense,
> of being a priori and therefore independent of
> experience.
I think that kind of reason does exist, and is what is reasoned by the true
self within the outer/upper realm of mystery/heaven/origination, the
true-self that wears the face-before-birth, and I think this is what we
begin with as infants, pure reasoning, but I don't know squat about Kant or
what Kant thought about this or that, and I get the impression that the
reasoning I refer to is what one might call purely-intuitive, maybe even
direct-knowing, more grokking than thinking, if that reference applies to
you the reader. But the kind of reasoning that is independent of
experience is imo exactly what we start out with in manifest reality. I'm
not sure what the relationship of that kind of reasoning has to do with
learning, whether it's the same or one is the enabler of the other, I get
the feeling that they aren't too different.
> This is the domain that is largely
> refractory to white scholars in the humanities, and
> many of them have abandoned it for the simpler
> and easier sense of reason in the ordinary,
> non-Kantian sense, namely thinking and behaviour
> not based on faith or superstition.
I thought Kantian reasoning was based on faith and superstition, I'm
confused as usual.
>
> An example amongst many is Robert Audi, The
> Architecture of Reason: The Structure and
> Substance of Rationality, OUP, 2002. The blurb for
> it says: "The literature on theoretical reason has
> been dominated by epistemological concerns,
Then maybe they need to write literature on theatrical reason.
> treatments of practical reason by ethical concerns.
Yeah, always a good idea to let those who are defining the methodologies of
reason get their religious ethics involved in the soup.
> This book overcomes the limitations of dealing with
> each separately. It sets out a comprehensive theory
> of rationality applicable to both practical and
> theoretical reason. In both domains, the book
> explains how experience grounds rationality,
> delineates the structure of central elements, and
> attacks the egocentric conception of rationality. It
> establishes the rationality of altruism and thereby
> supports major moral principles."
>
Not a very good blurb imo.
> The rationale for the book says it all: "In both
> domains, the book explains how experience grounds
> rationality." Right off, Kant is starkly abandoned, as
> the a priori domain, independent of experience, has
> been unceremoniously jettisoned.
And to read what it's been replaced by, is this the one that costs $199.95
plus tax and shipping?
> I haven't seen the
> book, even less read it, and don't know how and why
> the author dumps Kant, but he is in the direction of
> many other white scholars who unload the strict
> Kantian sense of reason as the a priori domain,
> independent of experience.
Pure theory gets better as it becomes refined by its use in actuality.
> I need not mention
> non-white scholars, even those living in the civilised
> West, who have yet to insert themselves into this
> esoteric, arcane discipline.
Which discipline is that, the art of getting books published?
> A few white scholars in
> the French-speaking countries are still fooling around
> with pure reason in the Kantian sense, the a priori
> domain, independent of experience, but they are lost
> in the austere abstraction of it. Hey, Kant, Hegel,
> Husserl and Heidegger are, too, along with the
> lackeys like Cassirer and Michael Friedman.
Lost in the austere abstraction of it? Whazzat?
>
> Returning to your warning, of the danger that all
> things may appear to be nails to the hammer of
> reason, even in the loose, non-Kantian sense of
> thinking and behaviour not based on faith or
> superstition, Jewish mythology is easily eliminated,
> as it is based on faith or superstition.
I don't think so, I think it's based on submission to Authority; Faith and
Superstition are just twice-pipes and four-times-shifter with-dingle-balls
that are bolted on after the fact as justification to prevent recognition
of the idea that Abraham and the rest would have bowed down (and many of
the rest did) to any other god that bothered to scare the crap out of them,
even if it was only a god brought to mind by memories of nightmares.
> As to the strict
> Kantian sense of the a priori domain, independent of
> experience, it can even more easily dismissed, as it
> relies on natural and social associations, like thunders
> and tribal and family relations. Merely the idea of an
> elected people already ejects it from consideration.
What is "an elected people"? Are you still talking about jews? Whites and
non-whites and jews, what is your deal oh Great Moroni, burier of plates in
Ohio? They're probably just what one might call "a control group in the
societal evolution circus", they picked their god and made it God, or was
that Christianity, who can remember this shite.
>
> Even so, in both senses, the temptation to overshoot
> the criteria, as enunciated above, can be
> overwhelming. It has to be checked at all time.
>
> However, the strict Kantian sense has scarcely been
> broached, even by the luminaries, as above, not to
> mention the run-of-the-mill white scholars in the
> humanities who scarcely have any idea about
> applying the critical methods that they preach
> constantly, as they almost entirely treat such methods
> as content and not as forms or structures, except at
> low levels of abstraction. It still is mostly a virgin forest,
> waiting to be explored.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
So go write a book for all the good that'll do ya.
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
