We have no idea what an Enlightenment would be for a population I suspect - though we do have many examples of the opposite forms of 'Paradise'. One aspect is less to do with finding some correct way in thought (whatever that is) but to do with what 'evidence' a population can accept as decisive or as yet unresolved. A key feature in science is that we don't know it all - but the tolerance we extend is limited and we really don't want to be forever arguing with people we do see as deluded. On occasion this has extended to scientists who were right - both in terms of the pure science (McClintock is an example here in genetics) or in our beholdeness to money interests (the classic is Silent Spring and Rachel Carson).
We have tended to defend the individual, subjective thinker - that is not socially approved epistemic authority - but this surely stems from the general barking forms of cultural knowledge linked to gods and fairies. I feel this isn't right because one can find a great deal of sense in some forms of spiritual argumentation, as well as utter gawp and violent nonsense. I gave up the lab to try something more directly social. I can't cope really - I think because most social knowledge (other than wonderful skills in hunting, building and craftsmanship) is barking rot like economics and accounting that just disguise power abuse. Xtian Enlightenment Chaz - I hope you have put in some lengthy tirade against the very notion! Don't those barkers need blinding light first? Emotions don't prove subjectivity - questions of how they may guide are probably in order - for me rationality is for fantasists in denial of them - but who wouldn't want to deny them as they arise in genocides? I still have to cope with people who believe positivism was realist and who think it's clever to notice people socially construct worlds without noticing this one is all to cock. On Jun 28, 2:32 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > 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.
