tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post3357203768158151271..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Philosophy after KantKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-83733175050583203272011-10-28T18:38:25.638-04:002011-10-28T18:38:25.638-04:00Anon. said:
“The phenomena/noumenon dichotomy is ...Anon. said:<br /><br />“The phenomena/noumenon dichotomy is a mental conception, not a truth.”<br /><br />Kant’s speculation makes use of this distinction to describe a truth that Aristotelian logic is not equipped to deal with. When I say Aristotelian logic, I mean the logic determined by the Law of Excluded Middle: i.e. something is either (A or not-A). Kant extended the power of Aristotelian logic with his formulation of the analytic-synthetic method, which gave impetus to the development of strains of thought such as Hilbert’s Program, which have a suspicious resemblance to the phenomena/noumena distinction, especially after Godel’s Incompleteness theorem.Mobius Triphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620423740245738406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-56328041169061673892011-10-28T17:56:11.785-04:002011-10-28T17:56:11.785-04:00The phenomena/noumenon dichotomy is a mental conc...The phenomena/noumenon dichotomy is a mental conception, not a truth. Because it cannot be physically demonstrated (does not posess the Aristotelian property of correspondence) , it cannot be treated logically.<br /><br />Logic works only for what is proven true, and all assumptions must conform to Aristotle's five aspects of truth.<br /><br />One classic example is the so-called logical problem of evil. One simply cannot propose mental constructs, and expect to prove them using logical means. Logic simply is not an appropriate instrument for examining what is not previously proven to be true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-67552103368158427042011-10-28T15:12:23.000-04:002011-10-28T15:12:23.000-04:00Mobius, I would have trouble putting these three t...Mobius, I would have trouble putting these three together in that way.<br /><br />Anon, I'm having trouble following you. For example, Hume was prior to Kant, and Nietzsche was far more of a precedent for existentialism than Kant. The lines of influence you propose seem like massive oversimplifications.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-50564870523286273612011-10-28T10:40:12.142-04:002011-10-28T10:40:12.142-04:00Kant's philosophy was deeply flawed when he to...Kant's philosophy was deeply flawed when he took his propsitional mental constructs and proposed them as truths and then inappropriately attempted to subject them to the rigors of logic.<br /><br />Aristotle had 5 precise requirements for what was regarded for an idea to be established as truth. Kant disregarded them, producing a pseudo logic which later deteriorated (via Hume's arrogant idiocy) into existentialism.<br /><br />Kant's proposals lacked correspondents (per Aristotle's 5 elements of truth) so they are not applicable to sylogistic logic. This was ignored until Karl Popper and Kant was responsible for a long chain of philosophic errancy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-54813443575965233302011-10-28T09:30:01.032-04:002011-10-28T09:30:01.032-04:00Is there any interest in an interpretation that re...Is there any interest in an interpretation that relates Kant, Nietzsche and Jesus through the theme of empiricism?Mobius Triphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620423740245738406noreply@blogger.com