Kant and group subjectivity

[brian0918]

As I asked you in my last post and will now answer: Kant asks you to accept without explanation that:

1) communication between individuals is possible, despite us all being trapped in our heads

2) there is some objective truth there, which he then proceed to explain, yet we must accept that we can't know it or explain it

3) the very words in his argument are objective, despite supposedly being disconnected from reality

A lot of philosophers play this game - "just accept that nothing is knowable, words have no connection to reality, and communication should be impossible, but then forget about all that, and accept that I have special objective knowledge of reality, which I will now communicate to you."

Edited February 4, 2010 by brian0918

[A is A]

I am asserting efficacy of free will. One can always say No to any idea or argument. Actions are the responsibility of the individual who takes them. No one who lived after Kant's death had to take a word he wrote seriously. For example me. I rejected Kant's epistemology and metaphysics from the git-go. I rejected the apodictic synthetic apriori. That was my free will in action. If I had bought Kant's bogosity, then shame on me, not on Kant.

Bob Kolker

My point does not deny free will. One can always say "no" but until one does, one's actions are controlled by one's actual ideas and values. No one had to accept Kant, but when they do, it is his responsibility for the creation of the idea in the first place. And he bears responsibility for the logical consequences that flow from his ideas when people accept his ideas. After all, he did not have to take pen to paper. He could have kept everything in his head. Do you not agree that the function of an idea is to guide action? Do you hold that Henry Ford has no responsibility for the way production in this country is organized along the lines of a division of labor? Does Edison or Westinghouse have no responsibility for electric light today? Are they just dead memories with no influence on our actions? Does not history cause the present trends? None of these issues denies free will on the part of the individual accepting the idea. And none denies the responsibility of the originator and the effects he produces beyond his own life.

Edited February 5, 2010 by A is A

[Grames]

I see you enjoy being an unsociable asshole. Nice to know!

And now you also have insight into why the best men of Athens, conservative 'pillar of the community' types, voted that Socrates must die.

[softwareNerd]

And now you also have insight into why the best men of Athens, conservative 'pillar of the community' types, voted that Socrates must die.

That's a good one! (Though, after NickO's latest post, I feel safer. )

[Nicko0301]

That's a good one! (Though, after NickO's latest post, I feel safer. )

I would never vote in favor of your execution, SoftwareNerd. I value the knowledge I can gather from you far too much.