Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Kant vs Metaphysics

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 1:38:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The Fool represents the revolutionary youth, by challenging the ideas of the old, and thus forcing the evolution of ideas, which is the progress of knowledge.

What I noticed is that the styles of most threads and even debates don't really allow for anything conclusive or progressive. So I want to try something new here.
I want to run this thread in a much more organized fashion, and then they have been. And this can only be possible upon Cooperation.

Problems of most
:
"Language games": Probably the largest reason for miscommunication and lack of any effient progress.
-people pop in thread, which have no idea what's going on, because they haven't read any part of the thread, the conversation eventually has not relation and spins off into a life of its.
-I hate to be blunt but some people just have no experience on certain subjects to add really add anything useful to the discussion.

Rules
-Your, claims must have a premise and conclusion (no bold assumptions)
-when you refer to another philosopher you must defend the claim yourself.
-You must have read what is going on.
-Do not, repeat arguments that others have been given or have been logically refuted in this thread already.
-this means you have to be aware of where we are at, and hopefully.
-you can site philosophers but you must give the actual argument

Eligibility to discuss:
-you must have read at least one book on metaphysics or Kant.
-or taken one class on Kant or Metaphysics.
-or be very familiar with either of one of those topics.
-Language games with be deal with as such.
-For let's say we want to talk about metaphysics,

Now I am going to Captain the Thread, one for the purpose of keeping it organized.
-Holding definitions, constant, clear and rational.
-Regulating the definitions, if I see variation.
-everyone and while I will organize a stack of the main powerful argument and conclusions made so far in the discussion.

Remember this is an experiment, and many people will try and ruin what we are doing. If we it can even get started. Every time I attempt something like this there is usually some hostility! But that is the sacrifice we have to give for progress.

So the theme is I will be arguing a Kantian refutation of metaphysics, mostly from a Modernization of the argument of from ‘The critique of pure reason.'

The purpose of the thread is to lead to a conclusion "with in the thread" about any usefulness of or future for the Science of Metaphysics at all.

So to start of I am going to giving an account of metaphysics, and I want to get everybody account on what metaphysics is. So we can be clear we are all on the very same page. With this collection I will ground a clear a complete definition.

Don't appeal to the Dictionary,Just give me what you mean when you use the word metaphysics, And we will workout coherent accepted definition. We want to communicate OUR ideas and make progress to OUR knowledge. So just for the first day wiil be submitting them. I don't think they should very to, much. I will synthisize then into a rational definition with a modern conception of language and we can then accept or attest, to see what it is or not capturing what we mean.

Well Hope it works! Straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 3:42:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Now, based from what I know, its is the study of forms of existence.
Where a modern conception seem to have alot more types of things based on passed philosopher, which werent mention by them. Which I am skeptical of BACK LABLING; that is the tendancy of contemporaries to place concepts in the mouths of past philosophers or history that are inbeded with there bias assumtions of thier ideology/society, or understand. Especially when they themselves don't mention it.

Types of metaphysical claims would be via metaphsyics.
The supernatural: spirits, Gods. etc.
Duelism. Existentiasm.

Its important to note that Kant is an Transendental Idealist. But not to be confused with other germen idealisim nor like Berkly or like contemporary Subjectivism. But only in the sense that all experience is conscsious experience. Where the mind is consciousness.

Now to Kant would argue something like this against metaphysics.

Kant:
1. Now if Natural Science, is the study of sense experiences.
2. and pure reason the a priori [science] of (logical/mathatical/geometrical)
3.For we may add, emotional experiences:Feeling of motivation.
2 and 3 being a modern concpetion of irreducible mind element.

Now what is left for the possibity of the science of metaphysics. It can't be of sense information, for that is of natural science all ready it can't be of Pure Reason alone. because it is only usefull when applied with another form of information. And thus conceptualization, and the concluding concepts(ideas) are formulas (mathmatical/logical structure mixed with sense information.)
Where Imagination is the faculty which we can reorganize non-reducible entities of mind. Into different ideas. (or creative ability)

Now if we are to have a science of metaphysics, what is left for it to be a science of?

His answer is that its impossble because it makes claims that go beyond pure reason and all possible experiences. Remember he is argueing from mind.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL