The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 1) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Sep 6, 07 - 12:27 AM |
From Hypothetical-maxims to the Point
Ivo Re: Ivo's Kantian Replies Name: Ivo Date Posted: Aug 29, 07 - 9:14 PM Message: IVO: After a night of sleep, I SEE THE IDEA (Do you? KB.) I have to transmit in words. This is the idea: when white man came to North-America, she bought North-America from the Indians by giving mirrors to the Indians so the Indians could see their eyes. White man very bright! QUESTION: How can one's own eyes be located outside their own head, in the head of an image which is looking back at them? Go look in your own mirror Ivo. Then, however you choose, given one missing appendage, point at your left eye. The man in the mirror will be pointing at his right eye with either his left or right appendage, likewise "mirror-image-reversed". So 2nd question, 2nd QUESTION: How can your left eye, BE the right eye of an image of yourself, if you are actually seeing YOUR OWN eyes? Your LEFT EYE cannot BE and NOT BE your LEFT EYE, except in DIFFERENT RESPECTS --- the two respects being IMAGES and THINGS. IVO ASKS: How about, the categorical imperative which superiors have also to take into account? REPLY: No free-willed being has to take any "rule" or "imperative" into account, which is WHY they are called "free-willed" beings. And, for the umpteenth time, no PRAGMATIST, nor Arisstotelian EMPIRICIST, believes Immanuel Kant's imperatives or his "philosophy". As previously mentioned the architect of modern Germany (Bismarck) ridiculed Kantians to their faces (Politics IS the ART of the POSSIBLE!). Moreover, those who "systematically" attempt to be rid of God as their actual laissez-faire SUPERIOR end up with people like Robespierre or Hitler as their actual "superiors". Incidentally, no constitutional democrat believes that there is anything in a constitutional democracy which is their human "superior", other than the CONSTITUTION or LAW which is no "respecter" of persons. The REASON that I don't really WANT Ivo to answer my questions (previous post) is because your basic "Kantian" does not dare answer questions which he or she does not understand because they are "terrified" to be caught in CONTRADICTING either themselves or Kant --- unlike Bismarck. However to answer the questions "dogmatically":- NO MAN SEES either his EYES or his IDEAS. EXPLANATION: Our eyes are the MEANS BY WHICH we see objects of sight which are NOT our eyes. Our eyes are NOT "that which" we physically see, but "that-by-which" (a means) we see OBJECTS OF SIGHT which are not our own eyes. Similarly "our IDEAS" are not "that which" we see, when we "mentally see" OBJECTS OF THOUGHT. Ideas are, rather, "that-by-which" (a "means") we mentally "see" (understand), OBJECTS OF THOUGHT, as well as OBJECTS OF OUR SENSES. Affirming that we do NOT "see our ideas" (as do the Major Socratics) is the great difference between all the "modern philosophies" and "philosophers", vs. the Major Socratics (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle). Locke, among the British Empiricists and Descartes among the "Continental" philosophers BOTH hold that we can "see" (Descartes) or are "conscious of" (Locke) IDEAS. M.J. Adler argues in 10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES that this (consciousness of our own ideas; seeing our own CLEAR AND DISTINCT "ideas") is the "little error" which CAUSES the entire plethora of "modern philosophies". People who think that they "see" their own IDEAS, Locke themselves up inside their own minds and, then, Des-Kant get out of their own subjective minds. Kevin |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com