Whatever might be meant by the First Enlightenment, it is highly doubtful that Kant was any kind of foundation for it. Most Intellectual Historians would put its roots back in the 17thC. Jonathan Israel for one, establishes Spinoza and the foundational thinker that set the E going. And he died 50 years before Kant was even born. This illustrates the paucity of relying on such post hoc constructions as "The Enlightenment". Kant himself never used such a phrase, in a way to suggest such banal and ridiculous historicism. Aufklarung was never used with the definite article and he never intended to attribute his own monumental contribution to philosophical thinking to such an unreasonable caricature. No such Geist, as the Enlightenment was envisioned until Hegel applied his mystical lens of Historical Imagination on his recent past. I'm surprise that such an arbitrary hypostatisation is so casually applied in a NG called epistemology , when such a thing has absolutely no epistemological credibility; no member of it ever knew he was a part of such a thing; and it the common practice of Intellectual Historians to cherry pick those they like as members and those they dislike as "Counter Enlightenment". To those of the Establishment - their Cherry picking leads them to pick members who contribute to the status quo of the 19thC, to those who are more critically minded they chose those that remained a continual challenge. This has led , in recent years, to the Enlightenment being colonised by Christians, and some former members such as Diderot, Holbach and La Mettie being marginalised.
In truth the entire period from 1450 - the present can be characterised as Enlightened, and such attempts to place arbitrary divisions as First and Second, or to restrict it to a particular century are anachronistic and misrepresent the past. On Jun 26, 2:56 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There was lately a lot of talk about Kant in google/epistemology. > Let me but in a bit and post an excerpt of myhttp://findgeorges.com/ > Due to the general interest of the issue I post it to several lists. > > ============= > KANT'S FOUNDATIONAL VIEW > > Kant's view may only be understood as foundation of the First > Enlightenment, as ontological support of the First Scientific > Revolution culminating in Newton's Model. We have seen that the > latter led to paradoxes which Newton dodged with his "hypotheses > non fingo" implying that physics does not deal with philosophical > foundations. Kant could of course not follow him there, as his > job consisted precisely in dealing with philosophical foundations. > Consequently, he conceived paradoxical foundations of paradoxical > science. With the advent of our Second Scientific Revolution, > Kant's view lost all avail and keeps for us only historical and > methodological interest. Especially the latter, showing how one > can sincerely derive an ontology rigorously supporting concurrent > science art and know-how. We follow this example endeavoring > to conceive an ontology rigorously underlying Einstein's Second > Scientific Revolution. > > Kant's obsoleteness is the best guarantee of his greatness. > Philosophical views, unlike the scientific, don't follow a progress, > but come and go like waves on a pond, apparently contradicting one > another without these contradictions affecting them in any way, > nor thwarting them from springing in again. > There is little, if any sincere research of truth in established > philosophy. A view ressurrects just because a clever guy picks it up > for his thesis, knowing that it will flatter his supervisor and such > "peers" as he knows will review it. Neo-platonisms, neo-phenomenalisms, > neo-pata-physicalisms follow one another like waves on the ducks > pond ot the Reeking Valley without leaving any traces. > But Kant, leaving for obsoleteness left behind as deep traces as Newton > whom he underlaid. > > KANT's AXIOMATIC > > Discussing Kant may follow one of two ways: > > 1.Learn to use his terminology inside of the Universe of > discourse of his time. Only after having accomplished that > would we be able to talk reasonably about "synthetic > judgements a priori" and their role in "transcendental logic, > or aesthetic". > > 2.Express his Weltanschaung in contemporary terms. > > We shall follow the second approach. > > Any theory is for us, today, axiomatic. What would we see as > axioms and theorems of Kant's Weltanschauung? > > Axiom A1: necessary and universal science exists. > > Axiom A2: Science is created by inductive inference. > > Axiom A3: Only a priori inference is necessary and > universal. > > Axiom A4: Induction a priori requires subjective > representations a priori (categories) encompassing space and > time. > > Axiom A5: Space and time are subjective representations a > priori. (According to Kant we can imagine "empty space" > without any "objects"[3] but we can only represent objects > in space. The same holds for time.) > > Theorem T1, concluded from Axioms: Induction a priori is > possible, necessary and universal. > > COMMENTS > > A1: At Kant's epoch the First Scientific Revolution had > culminated in Newton's Model, whose rules and concepts were > considered as exact, necessary and universal. Even the 19th > century mechanistic Physics claimed those qualities. Only > the Einstanian Second Scientific Revolution turned to consider > science as fuzzy, relative and restricted, making A1 > unacceptable for us. > > A2: We nearly agree with it: for us the inductive inference > "verifies" rather than "creates" science. > > A3,A4,T1: We accept now only induction a posteriori. > > A5: Kant's main objective was to create the > "Transcendental Logic" with induction a priori in its > center. For this purpose A5 was a necessary addition > to A1. Yet, "Empty space" and "objects in space" are > clearly illusions of the "Naive View" (aka "Naive > Realism"). We had to wait for the Extended Relativity > to see the "empty space" abolished and replaced with > P_Equivalence of SPACE and Field. [4] > > Transcendental Logic: Kant tried to create what > appears to us as a "prototype" of Propositional > Calculus. He failed due to missing mathematical and > logical tools, mainly the Boole Algebra. > He considered only statements, or, as we would say > "operands", but neglected the operators. His 'Logic" > was in fact just a classification of statements: > > -Statements analytical a priori which we would call > deductive, > > -Statements synthetical a posteriori which we would > call inductive, > > -Statements synthetical a priori supposed to support > the induction a priori, unacceptable for us. > > [3] The term "object" does not exist in Physics. In the > metalanguage it is multivalued and charged with noxious > metaphysical connotations. We use it here in order not to > diverge too far from Kant's terminology, as synonym > of "event". > > [4] Phenomenal Equivalence (P-Equivalence): > Association of Aspects of a Phenomenon (Field Density > and SPACE curvature are P-Equivalent Aspects of the > Phenomenon "Cosmos"). P-Equivalence is often confused > with Causality. Its customary to say that "Field > curves SPACE", which is false, as they are both > "equally ranked" Aspects of a Phenomenon, coexisting > but not causing one another. > Similarly, continuous Field wave and discrete photons > are P-Equivalent Aspects of the Phenomenon "Light". > > Einstein's lapsus > > Einstein: > Concepts and Conceptual Systems get justified exclusively > by their capacity to coordinate events. They cannot be > justified in any other way. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, > one of the most pernicious acts of Philosophers to have > transferred some conceptual bases of Natural Science from > the controllable domain of empiric adequacy into inaccessible > height of the Necessary Apriori. This applies particularly > to our concepts of time and space, which the Physicists > - forced by the facts - had to descend from the Olympus > of Apriori in order to repair them and make them usable. > > Einstein blamed Kant for having transferred some conceptual > bases of Natural Science (mainly time and space) from the > controllable domain of empiric adequacy into the inaccessible > heights of the Necessary Apriori. > > Tatarkiewicz stood up for Kant who sincerely and rigorously > derived his view from his concurrent physics. > > It's the Galilean Relativity which was based on absolute time > and space, and Einstein should have more justly blamed Galileo > and Newton. But, on the one hand, one does not see Einstein > blaming his masters on whose shoulders he always declared to > stand, and, on the other hand, they could hardly be blamed, > as nothing in their time could possibly call in question the > absolute time and space. > > Newton's and Kant's Paradoxes > > Newton's Paradoxes > > -First Paradox: Gravity attraction intervenes between such > remote bodies as sun and earth which appears as Action at > Distance violating the basic Mechanistic dogma of "billiard > balls" acting locally on one another. > > -Second Paradox: Gravity attraction is determined by space > (distance), but does not affect it in any way, which > violates the Reciprocity Principle (Action / Reaction). > > Newton was perfectly aware of the Paradoxes which clearly > called into question the Noumenalistic dogma of absolute > space and its Mechanistic fabric of "billiard balls". > Questioned about them he refused to be dragged into > metaphysical speculations and answered with his famous > "Hypotheses non fingo", implying that Science coordinates > empiric data into consistent, predictable and verifiable > Models, but refrains from explaining them in terms of > Transcendency. > (Closer to us, Dirac repeated it in similar situation with > coarser terms: "Shut up and compute".) > > The Paradoxes were solved by Einstein's Relativity replacing > Mechanistic dogma with the Phenomenal concept of Field and > its P-Equivalence with SPACE, both expanding at invariant > speed C as a continuous propagation of Local impulses. > Einstein rated the solution of Newton's Paradoxes as his > topmost achievement, because he admired Newton and considered > him as his Master. > > We find it rather diverting that Newton's First Paradox may > be seen in inverted order. His Gravity apparently acting at > distance, in fact anticipated (extended) Locality by the > implication of continuous Field. On the other hand, the > pretended local action of hypothetical "billiard balls" > meant actually Action at Distance, small or rather undefined > distance of "balls" diameter, but distance anyhow. > > Kant's Paradoxes > > Kant has the historical merit of deriving Ontology of the > First Enlightenment from empirically verifiable Science, > rather than founding it, as it was the habit, in arbitrary, > aprioristic speculations. He derived his system from the > summit of his contemporary Science represented by Newton's > Model with additional postulate of Science being exact, > necessary and universal, thus absolute. Now, Newton's Model, > as all Physics of his time was based upon metaphysical dogma > of absolute time/space affine between time and space (lacking > a common measure) and having the fabric of "billiard balls". > These dogmatic foundations were in contradiction with Model's > physical laws. Facing it, Newton dodged the issue with his > famous "Hypotheses non fingo" implying that he restricted > himself to Physics and dismissed Philosophy. > > Kant could of course not follow Newton in dismissing > Philosophy, as it was his essential dedication. Consequently, > and unlike Newton, he did endeavor to "make hypothesis", to > conceive Foundations of Science consistent with Newton's > Model. In doing so he chose the sincere, bona fide attitude > of deriving Ontology from the bedrock premise of empirically > verifiable physical Model. However, no matter how rigorous > the inference, the conclusion is only as good as the > premise: from a paradoxical Model Kant rigorously derived > a paradoxical Ontology. > > 1.Having rightly banned noumena (Dinge an Sich) from human > cognition, he created a Noumenalistic Ontology based on such ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
