The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[George H. Smith]

As I understood Kant, he indeed was saying that knowledge of ultimate reality -- real reality -- is forever impossible, that the only way we can have confidence in what we know is because our minds impose it on real reality.

I am saying, then, that the intuition of external objects and the self-intuition of the mind both present these objects and the mind, in space and in time, as they affect our senses, i.e., as they appear. But I do not mean by this that these objects are a mere illusion. For when we deal with appearance, the objects, and indeed even the properties that we ascribe to them, are always regarded as something actually given—except that insofar as the object’s character depends only on the subject’s way of intuiting this given object in its relation to him, we do also distinguish this object as appearance from the same object as object in itself. Thus when I posit both bodies and my soul as being in accordance with the quality of space and time, as condition of their existence, I do indeed assert that this quality lies in my way of intuiting and not in those objects in themselves. But in asserting this I am not saying that the bodies merely seem to be outside me, or that my soul only seems to be given in self-consciousness. It would be my own fault if I turned into mere illusion what I ought to class with appearance.* (B69–70)

* The predicates of the appearance can be ascribed to the object itself in relation to our sense: e.g., to the rose, the red color or the scent. But what is mere illusion can never be ascribed as predicate to an object, precisely because illusion ascribes to the object taken by itself what belongs to it only in relation to the senses or in general to the subject—an example being the two handles initially ascribed to Saturn. If something is not to be met with at all in the object in itself, but is always to be met with in the object’s relation to the subject and is inseparable from the presentation of the object, then it is appearance. And thus the predicates of space and time are rightly ascribed to objects of the senses, as such; and in this there is no illusion. Illusion first arises if, by contrast, I ascribe the redness of the rose in itself, or the handles of Saturn, or extension to all external objects in themselves, without taking account of—and limiting my judgment to—a determinate relation of these objects to the subject.

Critique of Pure Reason – Werner Pluhar, translator

This passage is part of Kant’s effort in the second edition to set straight the error, by readers of the first edition, of taking his idealism to be like Berkeley’s. Kant does not see appearance, in his usage of the term, to be in any sort of conflict with things in themselves....

Thanks for the quotation and explanation.

A clear explanation of this point is provided by Roger Scruton in Kant (Oxford, 1982). Scruton (pp. 17-18) writes:

Neither reason nor experience alone are able to provide knowledge. The first provides content without form, the second form without content. Only in their synthesis is knowledge possible; hence there is no knowledge that does not bear the marks of reason and experience together. Such knowledge is, however, genuine and objective. It transcends the point of view of the man who possesses it, and makes legitimate claims about an independent world. Nevertheless, it is impossible to know the world "as it is in itself," independent of all perspective. Such an absolute conception of the object of knowledge is senseless, Kant argues, since it can be given only by employing concepts from which every element of meaning has been refined away. While I can know the world independently of my point of view on it, what I know (the world of "appearance") bears the indelible marks of that point of view. Objects do not depend for their existence upon my perceiving them, but their nature is determined by the fact that they can be perceived. Objects are not Leibnizian monads, knowable only to the perspectiveless stance of "pure reason"; nor are they Humean "impressions," features of my own experience. They are objective, but their character is given by the point of view through which they can be known. This is the point of view of "possible experience." Kant tries to show that, properly understood, the idea of "experience" already carries the objective reference which Hume denied. Experience contains within itself the features of space, time and causality. Hence in describing my experience I am referring to an ordered perspective on an independent world.

I will have more to say about the rest of your post later.

Ghs

[Xray]

After quoting Emerson incorrectly, she called him "a very little mind",

Can't resist putting one of my favorite poems here, written by the one whom Rand called a "very little mind":

HAMATREYA

Bulkeley, Hunt, Willard, Hosmer, Meriam, Flint,

Possessed the land which rendered to their toil

Hay, corn, roots, hemp, flax, apples, wool and wood.

Each of these landlords walked amidst his farm,

Saying, "'Tis mine, my children's and my name's.

How sweet the west wind sounds in my own trees!

How graceful climb those shadows on my hill!

I fancy these pure waters and the flags

Know me, as does my dog: we sympathize;

And, I affirm, my actions smack of the soil.'

Where are these men? Asleep beneath their grounds:

And strangers, fond as they, their furrows plough.

Earth laughs in flowers, to see her boastful boys

Earth-proud, proud of the earth which is not theirs;

Who steer the plough, but cannot steer their feet

Clear of the grave.

They added ridge to valley, brook to pond,

And sighed for all that bounded their domain;

'This suits me for a pasture; that's my park;

We must have clay, lime, gravel, granite-ledge,

And misty lowland, where to go for peat.

The land is well,--lies fairly to the south.

'Tis good, when you have crossed the sea and back,

To find the sitfast acres where you left them.'

Ah! the hot owner sees not Death, who adds

Him to his land, a lump of mould the more.

Hear what the Earth says:--

Earth-Song

'Mine and yours;

Mine, not yours, Earth endures;

Stars abide--

Shine down in the old sea;

Old are the shores;

But where are old men?

I who have seen much,

Such have I never seen.

'The lawyer's deed

Ran sure,

In tail,

To them, and to their heirs

Who shall succeed,

Without fail,

Forevermore.

'Here is the land,

Shaggy with wood,

With its old valley,

Mound and flood.

"But the heritors?--

Fled like the flood's foam.

The lawyer, and the laws,

And the kingdom,

Clean swept herefrom.

'They called me theirs,

Who so controlled me;

Yet every one

Wished to stay, and is gone,

How am I theirs,

If they cannot hold me,

But I hold them?'

When I heard the Earth-song,

I was no longer brave;

My avarice cooled

Like lust in the chill of the grave.

1846

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/poems/hamatreya.html

The philosopical position reflected in this poem certainly clashes with Rand's individual hierarchy of values. Maybe that's why she called Emerson "a very little mind"?

As for the scientific theory of entropy finally leading to "everything growing cold" (Dagny in AS about the fate awaiting the universe), this seemed to have upset Rand so much that she had her heroine dismiss it as a mere "story".

Ideologists from the other end of the spectrum grapple with the entropy issue as well.

In a philosophical lexicon (Klaus/Buhr, Philosophisches Wörterbuch, published in 1964 in Socialist East Germany), the authors claim that to conclude the universe will one day reach the stage of entropy is "philosophically false". (!)

Would be interesting to have ideologists (from whatever provenience) describe how a "philosophically correct" science is to look like ...

That is also why Feynman said that nobody understands quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean that nobody could understand the technical details, but that the world they reveal is not well conceivable to us.

Could one say that the human brain, due to our living in a macroscopic world, is 'insufficiently equipped' to understand quantum mechanics?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Xray

[Newberry]

Ghs:

I am not saying that Kant was insincere when he wrote about making room for faith, but such remarks need to be carefully considered in the broader context of other things that Kant wrote, as well as in the context of contemporary political conditions.

This idea is interesting, and reminded me of Michael Wood's documentary on Shakespeare, he suggested that Shakespeare was Catholic and had to be very careful in how wrote what characters did and said.

My perspective of context of Rand's statement about Kant's evil is this: first, she didn't explain it, but referred to his Critique of Judgement, which deals with the nature of art; she believes that to counter bad ideas you offer positive alternatives; she wrote the Romantic Manifesto, (and many passages about aesthetics in her novels) which reads like a reply to CofJ to me; it is not unrealistic, after thorough research, to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism; notably Rand had the view that art can project a human idea, like no other field including philosophy. Kant's and Rand's aesthetics head off on opposite paths of art and what is good for humanity.

Each of these elements are extremely complex, and demand a great deal, and consistency from the observer about human nature, about art, philosophy, and experience.

For one, I am glad she at least mentioned Critique of Judgement, its great to use for comparison.

MSK, I took you comment above to heart, the one about the same old stuff; and I tried to add a little nuance to the same ol' stuff.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Newberry

[Neil Parille]

Merlin:

Stephen Hicks. It was obvious from post #128 by the link.

Thanks. Actually the thinker I had in mind is John Hick (no s). Interestingly he uses the Kantian distinction between a thing-in-itself and a thing perceived by us to argue for religious pluralism.

There is an interesting discussion of Kant and theology in Joseph Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance.

The relativism of Hick . . . is ultimately based on a rationalism that holds that reason is incapable of any metaphysical knowledge . . . .

Stephen:

I don't get your point. The article about Kant is on the website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America which is a theologically leftist organization (unlike the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod).

-Neil Parille

Edited July 17, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Jonathan]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK, I took you comment above to heart, the one about the same old stuff; and I tried to add a little nuance to the same ol' stuff.

Michael,

I'm glad to see a forum of ideas being treated as such.

Thank you.

To me, the important thing is for the readers to have correct information about important views so they can use their own minds instead of being intimidated (or tricked) into adopting the dogmas of preachers. I trust the independent mind of good will engaged in its best thinking, even when I disagree with it. And I value such minds.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research.

Jonathan,

How do you know that?

Michael

[CNA]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

My two cents real quick and observations of what's going on here and not directed at anyone in particular. Just found this particular statement of interest. I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said. But I do have to say I live my life according to what has made me the happiest and it is primarily based on my own firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding of what happened to me so long ago and not from what I've read in a book. I do read in the areas of my passion as well as looking at the evidence as it is presented to me, amongst other things that I take into consideration. I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I haven't kept track of everything that has been said on this thread and don't have much of an interest to continue to do so. My interest only started when I saw lastnight so many people gathering around it so obviously this is a very hot topic for everyone and it sparked my curiousity as to why. In fact, in what I have read thus far from so many on this thread, I find it interesting that there are so many different versions of understanding of what everyone thinks was said by Kant, Rand, and so forth and how each should live their life or what have you. In my observations and experiences over my lifetime even up until most recently, people have a tendency - for their own reasons as to why - to focus on what they are most interested in or sticks out to them the most at that time when reading what they've chosen to read while overlooking other important aspects and/or taking things out of context that they think should be part of it and their not looking at the circumstances in detail of each subject that is presented and/or missing a very important sentence and what is being presented thus resulting in a misunderstanding and confusion. It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

Anyway, just an observation of mine and wanted to throw out my two cents if you will. Let your guy's debate continue.

Angie

(post) I did edit this to make sure there is no confusion on what I am trying to say.

Edited July 17, 2010 by CNA

[Jonathan]

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research.

Jonathan,

How do you know that?

Michael

I know it from our recent discussion on Kant's notion of the Sublime. See this post of mine, and Newberry's reply, as well as the rest of that thread. For years Newberry has been asserting that Kant changed the meaning of the Sublime to its opposite. When confonted with evidence to the contrary, it turned out that Newberry hadn't even bothered to discover what the established meaning of the Sublime was or what previous thinkers had thought on the subject. He apparently began his "research" by chosing a modern layman's definition of "sublime" that he liked and which he felt reflected a proper Objectivist sense of life, arbitrarily (and falsely) decided that it had always been the "correct" definition, and then got upset with Kant for having "changed" the definition. When I've pointed out repeatedly that Kant didn't invent the concept of the Sublime as "delightful horror" and "vast magnitude," it has had no effect on Newberry's judgment that Kant's "polluting" of the definition of the Sublime is the "foundation" of modern and postmodern art. In other words, even the most basic research doesn't get through to Newberry, to say nothing of "thorough research."

Newberry also insists on repeating other falsehoods, such as that Kant "liked war" and was in favor of "conquest," despite the "thorough research" that I've presented to the contrary. Newberry's "thoroughness" is such that he apparently can't be bothered to read about Kant's strong opposition to war, and specifically to conquest.

And all of this is nothing new. I've had years of discussions with Newberry, and his "thorough research" is usually little more than vague, prejudiced intuitions. Probably the ultimate classic example was his "review" of the 5-part film project The Cremaster Cycle after having seen only one fifth of it, Cremaster 3, and a display of some of the props used in its filming (and I have reason to believe, based on comments in his "review" and what is missing from it, that he may not have even seen Cremaster 3 in its entirety). I've confronted Newberry several times about the shoddiness of reviewing a work of art after having seen only a portion of it, especially without disclosing that information to readers of his review, and he has shown no hint of recognizing that it was unfair and anything but "thorough research" of him to do so. In fact, he sometimes tries to imply that I'm somehow being mean and unfair in questioning him about the unfairness of his "review" of The Cremaster Cycle.

J

Edited July 17, 2010 by Jonathan

[CNA]

Repeated post.

Edited July 17, 2010 by CNA

[Jonathan]

I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said.

I don't think that anyone would frown upon your not having read Kant. That is, unless you've been going around making harsh judgments of Kant.

It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

In my experience, a high degree of repetition is often needed to get through to people, as well as slightly rephrasing your arguments, especially when arguing with people who are clinging to beliefs that they're emotionally invested in, or about which they'd be embarrassed to admit that they were in error. And the style -- the civility and respect or lack thereof -- with which you approach someone is, I think, something that you have to play by ear. Kindness and patience work sometimes, but they're also often taken advantage of, so a little sarcasm or ridicule can also be effective.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

My two cents real quick and observations of what's going on here and not directed at anyone in particular. Just found this particular statement of interest. I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said. But I do have to say I live my life according to what has made me the happiest and it is primarily based on my own firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding of what happened to me so long ago and not from what I've read in a book. I do read in the areas of my passion as well as looking at the evidence as it is presented to me, amongst other things that I take into consideration. I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I haven't kept track of everything that has been said on this thread and don't have much of an interest to continue to do so. My interest only started when I saw lastnight so many people gathering around it so obviously this is a very hot topic for everyone and it sparked my curiousity as to why. In fact, in what I have read thus far from so many on this thread, I find it interesting that there are so many different versions of understanding of what everyone thinks was said by Kant, Rand, and so forth and how each should live their life or what have you. In my observations and experiences over my lifetime even up until most recently, people have a tendency - for their own reasons as to why - to focus on what they are most interested in or sticks out to them the most at that time when reading what they've chosen to read while overlooking other important aspects and/or taking things out of context that they think should be part of it and their not looking at the circumstances in detail of each subject that is presented and/or missing a very important sentence and what is being presented thus resulting in a misunderstanding and confusion. It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

Anyway, just an observation of mine and wanted to throw out my two cents if you will. Let your guy's debate continue.

Angie

(post) I did edit this to make sure there is no confusion on what I am trying to say.

Angie,

Your perspective is just fine and most everyone is glad you're here. Nobody wants to crowd you out or make you feel cognitive dissonance because there is a popular topic that doesn't appeal to you.

Jim

[CNA]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

My two cents real quick and observations of what's going on here and not directed at anyone in particular. Just found this particular statement of interest. I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said. But I do have to say I live my life according to what has made me the happiest and it is primarily based on my own firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding of what happened to me so long ago and not from what I've read in a book. I do read in the areas of my passion as well as looking at the evidence as it is presented to me, amongst other things that I take into consideration. I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I haven't kept track of everything that has been said on this thread and don't have much of an interest to continue to do so. My interest only started when I saw lastnight so many people gathering around it so obviously this is a very hot topic for everyone and it sparked my curiousity as to why. In fact, in what I have read thus far from so many on this thread, I find it interesting that there are so many different versions of understanding of what everyone thinks was said by Kant, Rand, and so forth and how each should live their life or what have you. In my observations and experiences over my lifetime even up until most recently, people have a tendency - for their own reasons as to why - to focus on what they are most interested in or sticks out to them the most at that time when reading what they've chosen to read while overlooking other important aspects and/or taking things out of context that they think should be part of it and their not looking at the circumstances in detail of each subject that is presented and/or missing a very important sentence and what is being presented thus resulting in a misunderstanding and confusion. It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

Anyway, just an observation of mine and wanted to throw out my two cents if you will. Let your guy's debate continue.

Angie

(post) I did edit this to make sure there is no confusion on what I am trying to say.

Angie,

Your perspective is just fine and most everyone is glad you're here. Nobody wants to crowd you out or make you feel cognitive dissonance because there is a popular topic that doesn't appeal to you.

Jim

Jim,

Oh, no. I'm not worried about my perspective and how others will take it. Over the years with OL and other O'ist sites too and seeing the same things over and over and over, it really just loses a lot of appeal. My tolerance level dwindles rather quickly for bullshit, disrespect, and the issues that I noted above and then my deciding whether or not to continue exposing myself to it. That's all. I'm not saying what you guys are discussing is bullshit because it's not. I found one statement in particular of interest and how I've observed many many people to be. It is what it is and whether or not I continue to associate with areas, people or sites, that ulitmately have a snowball effect and this irritation it can evoke, not only in me, but others I have known who have also decided to stay away from online sites for stretches at a time. It gets old real quick. Whatever floats ya boat, to each their own.

Angie

Edited July 17, 2010 by CNA

[James Heaps-Nelson]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

My two cents real quick and observations of what's going on here and not directed at anyone in particular. Just found this particular statement of interest. I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said. But I do have to say I live my life according to what has made me the happiest and it is primarily based on my own firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding of what happened to me so long ago and not from what I've read in a book. I do read in the areas of my passion as well as looking at the evidence as it is presented to me, amongst other things that I take into consideration. I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I haven't kept track of everything that has been said on this thread and don't have much of an interest to continue to do so. My interest only started when I saw lastnight so many people gathering around it so obviously this is a very hot topic for everyone and it sparked my curiousity as to why. In fact, in what I have read thus far from so many on this thread, I find it interesting that there are so many different versions of understanding of what everyone thinks was said by Kant, Rand, and so forth and how each should live their life or what have you. In my observations and experiences over my lifetime even up until most recently, people have a tendency - for their own reasons as to why - to focus on what they are most interested in or sticks out to them the most at that time when reading what they've chosen to read while overlooking other important aspects and/or taking things out of context that they think should be part of it and their not looking at the circumstances in detail of each subject that is presented and/or missing a very important sentence and what is being presented thus resulting in a misunderstanding and confusion. It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

Anyway, just an observation of mine and wanted to throw out my two cents if you will. Let your guy's debate continue.

Angie

(post) I did edit this to make sure there is no confusion on what I am trying to say.

Angie,

Your perspective is just fine and most everyone is glad you're here. Nobody wants to crowd you out or make you feel cognitive dissonance because there is a popular topic that doesn't appeal to you.

Jim

Jim,

Oh, no. I'm not worried about my perspective and how others will take it. Over the years with OL and other O'ist sites too and seeing the same things over and over and over, it really just loses a lot of appeal. My tolerance level dwindles rather quickly for bullshit, disrespect, and the issues that I noted above and then my deciding whether or not to continue exposing myself to it. That's all. I'm not saying what you guys are discussing is bullshit because it's not. I found one statement in particular of interest and how I've observed many many people to be. It is what it is and whether or not I continue to associate with areas, people or sites, that ulitmately have a snowball effect and this irritation it can evoke, not only in me, but others I have known who have also decided to stay away from online sites for stretches at a time. It gets old real quick. Whatever floats ya boat, to each their own.

Angie

Angie,

It's true that online forums have limitations, but they also have strengths. I've tried many different routes with Objectivism: college classroom, college campus club, public lectures (Reisman), summer seminars, taped lectures, adult discussion groups, bringing up Objectivist topics at libertarian discussion groups, etc. Each has its advantages and I would say the advantage of online forums is frequency and reach. I feel lucky to have a couple of terrific local clubs in Arizona. I even think that taking breaks from formal Objectivism is healthy to clear certain persistent thought patterns. I think online anything has to be balanced with lots of real life.

Jim

[Guyau]

The article about Kant is on the website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America which is a theologically leftist organization (unlike the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod).

Beware the conflation of theological conservatism and political conservatism packaged into phrases like “theologically leftist organization” when characterizing a denomination. That one denomination accepts the virgin birth of Jesus and the other does not, or that one accepts the eventual resurrection of each person’s body and the other does not, or that one accepts the six-day creation of the world and the other does not are not the same as political differences. As a matter of fact, I read through what this theologically liberal (relatively liberal, within the Lutheran spectrum in America) denomination had to say about the moral and legal issue of abortion at their site while I was there, and I can’t imagine how the Missouri Synod of my childhood would have said anything different, notwithstanding it being theologically more conservative.

Here is one glimpse into German history of Kant and Lutheranism. (I had this one already for a study I’m preparing for another site; I’ll let you know more about what I learn of the Lutheran reception of Kant as I go along; that Herder would oppose Kant is, of course, part of that story, but not all.) In Germany and the Next War (1911), Friedrich von Bernhardi wrote:

Two great movements were born from the German intellectual life, on which, henceforth, all the intellectual and moral progress of man must rest: the Reformation and the critical philosophy. The Reformation, which broke the intellectual yoke, imposed by the Church, which checked all free progress; and the Critique of Pure Reason, which put a stop to the caprice of philosophic speculation by defining for the human mind the limitations of its capacity for knowledge, and at the same time pointed out in what way knowledge is really possible.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[CNA]

...it is not unrealistic, after thorough research to see how Kant's concepts of the Sublime is the antithesis of classical western art forms and Rand's Romantic Realism...

You haven't done "thorough research." You haven't done any research. You haven't even yet grasped the meaning of the Sublime that Kant, Burke, Shaftesbury, Longinus and all other philosophers were dealing with, or what role it played in the development of Romanticism, or the similarities that it has to Rand's concept of Romantic Realism. You're too busy looking at everything with the purpose of trying to validate Rand's silly, uninformed judgment of Kant's aesthetics rather than actually trying to understand the ideas that he and other philosophers were addressing.

J

My two cents real quick and observations of what's going on here and not directed at anyone in particular. Just found this particular statement of interest. I'm not familiar with Kant's work, let alone do I have a desire to read any of his work as well as some other writers. I'm sure this will be frowned upon by so many here and what I've said. But I do have to say I live my life according to what has made me the happiest and it is primarily based on my own firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding of what happened to me so long ago and not from what I've read in a book. I do read in the areas of my passion as well as looking at the evidence as it is presented to me, amongst other things that I take into consideration. I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I haven't kept track of everything that has been said on this thread and don't have much of an interest to continue to do so. My interest only started when I saw lastnight so many people gathering around it so obviously this is a very hot topic for everyone and it sparked my curiousity as to why. In fact, in what I have read thus far from so many on this thread, I find it interesting that there are so many different versions of understanding of what everyone thinks was said by Kant, Rand, and so forth and how each should live their life or what have you. In my observations and experiences over my lifetime even up until most recently, people have a tendency - for their own reasons as to why - to focus on what they are most interested in or sticks out to them the most at that time when reading what they've chosen to read while overlooking other important aspects and/or taking things out of context that they think should be part of it and their not looking at the circumstances in detail of each subject that is presented and/or missing a very important sentence and what is being presented thus resulting in a misunderstanding and confusion. It's good rather than read something once or twice but to read it many times over as objectively and impartially as you can and analyzing each paragraph and sentence if necessary in an attempt to ensure that the person understands what the writer is trying to convey and get across. One of the downfalls and such the nature of online forums that can be quite grating sometimes and a major turn off.

Anyway, just an observation of mine and wanted to throw out my two cents if you will. Let your guy's debate continue.

Angie

(post) I did edit this to make sure there is no confusion on what I am trying to say.

Angie,

Your perspective is just fine and most everyone is glad you're here. Nobody wants to crowd you out or make you feel cognitive dissonance because there is a popular topic that doesn't appeal to you.

Jim

Jim,

Oh, no. I'm not worried about my perspective and how others will take it. Over the years with OL and other O'ist sites too and seeing the same things over and over and over, it really just loses a lot of appeal. My tolerance level dwindles rather quickly for bullshit, disrespect, and the issues that I noted above and then my deciding whether or not to continue exposing myself to it. That's all. I'm not saying what you guys are discussing is bullshit because it's not. I found one statement in particular of interest and how I've observed many many people to be. It is what it is and whether or not I continue to associate with areas, people or sites, that ulitmately have a snowball effect and this irritation it can evoke, not only in me, but others I have known who have also decided to stay away from online sites for stretches at a time. It gets old real quick. Whatever floats ya boat, to each their own.

Angie

Angie,

It's true that online forums have limitations, but they also have strengths. I've tried many different routes with Objectivism: college classroom, college campus club, public lectures (Reisman), summer seminars, taped lectures, adult discussion groups, bringing up Objectivist topics at libertarian discussion groups, etc. Each has its advantages and I would say the advantage of online forums is frequency and reach. I feel lucky to have a couple of terrific local clubs in Arizona. I even think that taking breaks from formal Objectivism is healthy to clear certain persistent thought patterns. I think online anything has to be balanced with lots of real life.

Jim

Yes, it does have its advantages and outreach more quickly. But also do the same things with friends that I have met here through OL and other places in email and phone conversations which is very nice to have. I do intend here very soon though to start attending meet up groups down here where I live. But I'm hesitant to go to ARI which is very close to me for obvious reasons; I'm really not interested in the whole ortho deal and would like to find a group smaller, more intimate if you will. I'm not much for crowds at all. But anyway, no disrespect please, Jim or anyone else, I would prefer not to talk about this too much further for various reasons. It was not my intention to hijack the thread. Jonathon made an observation that I found of interest and wanted to comment on and my observations over the years as to how people can be. That's all.

Angie

[Daniel Barnes]

As I say, I haven't yet got "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics".

However, a correspondent informs me that the Harriman/Peikoff (and by no doubt by implication Rand) argument can be summarised as the following:

First, assume induction!

Like: WOAH!! How totally AWESOME is that!?

And this amazing Objectivist breakthrough comes only 300-ish years after David Hume himself proposed the same solution. And it's only the exact same defense offered by most every defender of induction ever since!

These New Intellectuals sure are revolutionising lots of philosophy and science and stuff.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Newberry]

Lol, Jonathan. I have noticed that over the years you have thought a lot, researched, and quoted sources on your aesthetic issues. You also have strong views. Though once past our general connection to art, we part ways in fundamental ways.

[Jonathan]

Lol, Jonathan. I have noticed that over the years you have thought a lot, researched, and quoted sources on your aesthetic issues. You also have strong views. Though once past our general connection to art, we part ways in fundamental ways.

Would you mind being specific? Upon which fundamentals do you think that we disagree or are different?

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

How did Kant sing and say goodbye at the same time? By performing a Kantata :-).

[George H. Smith]

How did Kant sing and say goodbye at the same time? By performing a Kantata :-).

From the Wiki article on "Joke":

Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Judgement (1790) states that "Laughter is an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing." Here is Kant's 220-year old joke and his analysis:

"An Englishman at an Indian's table in Surat saw a bottle of ale being opened, and all the beer, turned to froth, rushed out. The Indian, by repeated exclamations, showed his great amazement. - Well, what's so amazing in that? asked the Englishman. - Oh, but I'm not amazed at its coming out, replied the Indian, but how you managed to get it all in. - This makes us laugh, and it gives us a hearty pleasure. This is not because, say, we think we are smarter than this ignorant man, nor are we laughing at anything else here that it is our liking and that we noticed through our understanding. It is rather that we had a tense expectation that suddenly vanished..."

Ghs

[Newberry]

To me, the important thing is for the readers to have correct information about important views so they can use their own minds instead of being intimidated (or tricked) into adopting the dogmas of preachers. I trust the independent mind of good will engaged in its best thinking, even when I disagree with it. And I value such minds.

Michael

I am a little embarrassed that I contributed to the thread getting so far off track. But the fault clearly rests with Kant for being wicked, and for Rand littering the place with cans of worms.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Newberry

[Newberry]

Angie:

I do have to say philosophy is a passion of mine but it's not from what I've read in a book and ultimately what I've read in that book and applying it to my life. It's based on what happened to me so when it comes to my philosophy and what I have built, my ideas, they truly are my own and what has brought me happiness, a lot that does line up with Rand's but some that do not.

I think it is natural for people to pride themselves on thinking for themselves, but there is the whole realm of learning from others that have gone before, and if it is relevant to one's life it has profound influence--I like celebrating that.

[Newberry]

Jonathan:

I know it from our recent discussion on Kant's notion of the Sublime. See this post of mine, and Newberry's reply, as well as the rest of that thread. For years Newberry has been asserting that Kant changed the meaning of the Sublime to its opposite. When confonted with evidence to the contrary, it turned out that Newberry hadn't even bothered to discover what the established meaning of the Sublime was or what previous thinkers had thought on the subject. He apparently began his "research" by chosing a modern layman's definition of "sublime" that he liked and which he felt reflected a proper Objectivist sense of life, arbitrarily (and falsely) decided that it had always been the "correct" definition, and then got upset with Kant for having "changed" the definition. When I've pointed out repeatedly that Kant didn't invent the concept of the Sublime as "delightful horror" and "vast magnitude," it has had no effect on Newberry's judgment that Kant's "polluting" of the definition of the Sublime is the "foundation" of modern and postmodern art. In other words, even the most basic research doesn't get through to Newberry, to say nothing of "thorough research."

Newberry also insists on repeating other falsehoods, such as that Kant "liked war" and was in favor of "conquest," despite the "thorough research" that I've presented to the contrary. Newberry's "thoroughness" is such that he apparently can't be bothered to read about Kant's strong opposition to war, and specifically to conquest.

And all of this is nothing new. I've had years of discussions with Newberry, and his "thorough research" is usually little more than vague, prejudiced intuitions. Probably the ultimate classic example was his "review" of the 5-part film project The Cremaster Cycle after having seen only one fifth of it, Cremaster 3, and a display of some of the props used in its filming (and I have reason to believe, based on comments in his "review" and what is missing from it, that he may not have even seen Cremaster 3 in its entirety). I've confronted Newberry several times about the shoddiness of reviewing a work of art after having seen only a portion of it, especially without disclosing that information to readers of his review, and he has shown no hint of recognizing that it was unfair and anything but "thorough research" of him to do so. In fact, he sometimes tries to imply that I'm somehow being mean and unfair in questioning him about the unfairness of his "review" of The Cremaster Cycle.

I guess it is kind of an honor that you care so much about my views.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Newberry

[Newberry]

Jim:

How did Kant sing and say goodbye at the same time? By performing a Kantata :-).

George:

Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Judgement (1790) states that "Laughter is an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing." Here is Kant's 220-year old joke and his analysis:

lol,