Kant and "transcendental idealism"

 Kant and "transcendental idealism"

Kant did not call his philosophy 'transcendental idealism.' Transcendental means ‘from without’ or ‘from above’ - an external imposition. Idealism however had a different meaning than the notion of perfection; idealism for Kant and Hegel meant ‘objective and realistic.’ What is not understood today is that the distinction made by Descartes which eliminated the ancient philosophers was the mind-body distinction. Descartes established that the body, or things, or the physical was unknowable and indeterminate. All that could be known was mind - thinking. Descartes also eliminated the soul as “air” by Plato. Descartes distinguished mind as consciousness and eliminated the notion of soul. 

Although Descartes lived at the same time as Galileo who was confronted by the Church for proclaiming the blow to man’s egocentricity - man is not the center of the universe, Descartes relied on Aquinas’ cohering of God and science. God could not contradict that a triangle has 3 sides!

Others called Kant's philosophy ‘transcendental idealism’ which Kant frequently rejected. Kant called his philosophy 'critical idealism.' So, when referring to Kant, critical philosophy is invoked, and vice versa, the critical philosophy begins with Kant.

However, concerning transcendental ideas and their use, philosophers often confuse transcendental with metaphysics and logic. Metaphysics and logic are similar because they deal with the science of things grasped in thought; logic being the clarification of ideas as sensible or confused.

Transcendental idealism for Kant is really empirical realism because according to Kant inner reality or thought is impossible without external reality. Kant rejects the idealism of Descartes and Berkeley which holds that all cognition through the senses and experience is sheer illusion. 

Kant says, "All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but pure illusion, and only in experience is there truth." Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, 1783.

By idealist Kant means 'originated in the subject' and refers directly to the forms of intuition, space and time, and the categories of the understanding which are representations and not things and which organize experience. He considered those who idealized his philosophy by reducing it to logic as retrograde, e.g. Fichte and Schelling. 

At issue in Kant's philosophy and in the larger world of philosophy is the problem of the connection between inner and outer, between transcendent ideas which are apriori, that is, Reason, and the immanent or immediate experience. The ground of confusion here is that of illusion and fantasy; this is before the recognition of the social context of thinking and the transmission of thoughts, of language, of a social cognition which deepened the problematic of the connection between thought - in the strict Aristotelian and Kantian sense of categorizing concepts and classifying phenomena - and experience.

Questionable Social Differences

 Questionable Social Differences

Three big ideas in history are Democracy, markets, and the unconscious. When ideas are divided or fragmented into various interpretations, distortions can emerge which negate the fertility of relevant interpretations. One way that social critics have addressed this problem is by contrasting the right way to think and live against the wrong way. John Dewey, for example in 1929 ‘The Public and its Problems’ rejected technocracy or rule by experts, elites and professionals, and emphasized the pragmatic benefits of democracy.



Civil society, as distinct from the state, also interacts and does not just react - it becomes a matter of struggle, force, and competition which is manifested by individuals. Interdependent individuals create social relations which are embodied on the basis of ideas but are these ideas practical, legitimate, or ethical? The idea of Democracy, for example, is an ethos that posits fairness, inclusion, truth in speech, rule-following and reason giving, and sincerity which form the legitimate basis for social relations as distinct from relations of domination - the quotidian shunning, harassing, assailing, and abuse. When antagonisms and divisions erupt in the public, the people often look to the state, leadership, for solutions. One issue that arises is whether markets provide or betray solutions to inflation, recession, and violence - the conditions of social relations. The question becomes whether the state destabilizes the public society or whether there are unconscious, invisible forces which cause discontent - the imputed causes to questionable social movements like fascism and communism, neoconservatism and neoliberalism, Republicans and culture warriors.

Eric Voegelin 1952 “The New Science of Politics” said, the problem of the ‘Public' is that the recognition of the structure of reality, the cultivation of the virtues of sophia and prudentia, the discipline of the intellect, and the development of theoretical culture and the life of the spirit are stigmatized in public as "reactionary," while disregard for the structure of reality, ignorance of facts, fallacious misconstruction and falsification of history, irresponsible opining on the basis of sincere conviction, philosophical illiteracy, spiritual dullness, and agnostic sophistication are considered the virtues of man and their possession opens the road to public success. In brief: the public is a problem as long as civilization is reaction, and moral insanity is progress."

Fracturing of the population is multidimensional: occupational categories, race and ethnicity, income levels, party affiliation, regional locus, and gender. There are the higher powers of capitalism: national capitalists, local capitalists: proprietors, partnerships, corporations, foreign capitalists and investors, and international capital. Economic conditions plus the layers of governmental bureaucracy and state institutions have formed the globalized arrangements of neoliberalism. This context then forms the individualized situations of economic and social winners and losers who tend to form groups, relations of domination, often unconsciously, territorially, to protect their perceived self interests. The resulting fear and shame is easily converted into hatred, into communities of hate, where scapegoating, rivalry and hatred is approved. Who are the offenders and who the victims?

Is the public display of hatred and intolerance nothing but the intrapsychic conflicts of distorted world views diffused across entire socio-economic strata, communities and families? Cognitive deficiencies of ideologies make the change from shame to harassment to violence all too easy!

The Relevance of Philosophy

 The Relevance of Philosophy 

Philosophy today is caught between emotivism and moral realism where philosophers who think it is reasonable to seek rational solutions to practical problems are marginalized. It is important to recall the meaning of Reason: to seek the truth and solve problems.

A post-truth attitude has infected philosophy. "We have decided there is no knowledge to be sought so we will seek pleasure rather than happiness." 

Why do "philosophers" or anyone pursue philosophical investigation? For practical reasons? That is, they always have some program, some issue, or problem that they seek clarity, resolution, or simply a deeper understanding. Why is there any quest at all? Perhaps because the notion of Reason, whether innate or learned, motivates some people to seek the truth and solutions to problems.

A student who is concerned about questions of systemic and historic injustice examines their feelings of social estrangement and certain practices in their culture regarding crime rates and the aggressions of social life. In Ethics 101, various normative frameworks such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are presented for discussion. Can a moral judgment be true? In meta-ethics, we wonder whether morality actually exists or is it just emotional expression. Epistemology addresses whether it is possible to find an answer - what can I possibly know, what am I that actually exists? A bit of exploration in the University finds academics ruthlessly debating every issue.

The purpose of philosophical pedagogy should be to make proper judgments through right reason, not to put everything under skepticism and everyone under suspicion. During college education, students tend to develop from subjectivism to realism but many end up uncertain about key issues, e.g. abortion, rape, environmental destruction, war, liability, etc.

Perhaps one way to frame the issue is comparing dogmatism to skepticism to refutation or argument. The common pedagogical practice in philosophy is to question everything. The professor plays devil's advocate defending various alternative viewpoints. A better analogy may be a child repeatedly asking, "But why?" Or, vice versa, the student asks 'why' to an indifferent professor. In certain circumstances, there's an argument and counterargument ad nauseam for literally everything. The student is often left perpetually thinking without a solution to anything. At some point, we must ask the question of whether this skepticism ad infinitum is truly worth anything. Or, whether one viewpoint is really better than another.

There are certain viewpoints or philosophical arguments which should be taken seriously, like normative and applied ethics which are critical, that is, they address all rebuttals - they consider all the data. The transcendence, or imposition, of ethics is not understood dogmatically or as a justification for relations of domination. But, ethics requires the basic agreement that morality is real.

Until we reach a point in philosophy where people can agree that certain things just are true, philosophy cannot contribute to social discussion. There is no common ground upon which to reach moral consensus. If a view like emotivism is true, what good is ethical debate anyway? Social relations turn into open season, cutthroat, and destructive. Regardless of whether you are an Aristotelian or Neo-Platonian, one must recognize why Socrates and Aristotle were the standard teachers all the way up until the modern period. Today, we are aware of the misconceptions and concealments of the ancients. However, the importance of morality - whether one's dispositions, virtues and vices, attitudes, thoughts, decisions or habits impose domination and oppression on others - is the foundation of philosophy.

Neo-Conservatives

 Neo-Conservatives

Conservatism means either fiscally responsible, e.g. balanced budget, low corporate taxes, and social service cuts except for police and judiciary, OR religious and social conservatism: strongly anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex and pro-family. The problem with the former is that wages and income are low for most people, income does not become significant until workers have put in 20+ years at a good job. The problem with social conservatism is that it leads to domination or violence in domestic settings; it is bald patriarchalism with strict gender roles and condemnation for difference. The paradox is that conservative pro-natal, marriage for life and anti-abortion/adoption value commitments are shared between conservatives and their rivals who have secured same-sex marriage rights!

These two strands of conservatism consist of contradictions in terms of rights and individuality, still a tolerated ideology in the context of the entanglement of the 4 norms: couples, marriage, heterosexuality and parenting. Republicans tend to go up and down - backing fiscal conservatism when in the minority but flaunting overspending when in the majority. Individualism is a conservative notion about character, decency, integrity and dignity, and working to become successful. Fiscal economic and libertarian inconsistency is the hallmark of Republican incoherence.

"Anti-Liberal" or neoconservative are more pejorative and diffuse synonyms for conservatives, but a key difference is that liberals rely on the state, e.g. judges protect property rights and individual rights, whereas neoconservatives expect the state to follow their advice concerning handling the poor and working classes, and conservatives generally wish for a smaller, less expensive state, e.g. lower taxes, but taxes never decrease for the people - a tax cut here means a tax increase there! Should states with no income tax receive federal funds that originate from states which do not charge income taxes?

But, the neoconservative Republican inconsidtency is more blatant in the contrast between the def eg Mae budget and the social safety net. The result of this contrast can be seen in the highly effective precision ABM called the Patriot missile and the oppressive totalitarian policy called the Patriot Act.

 

These 2 dominant neoconservative attitudes regarding fiscal budgets and social norms, or defense budgets and policing policies, are not about bargaining or negotiation. They are defensive and entrenched positions against complaints from the state, workers, unions, women, minorities, pressure groups and foreign nations which all push back over issues of inequality, domination, unfairness and poverty, i.e. homelessness and drug abuse.

The catch to this aspect of political philosophy is that the liberalism of Hobbes, Locke, or the founding fathers is conservative. They are exactly the same: the belief in property, that is, happiness, the belief in freedom and equality, and the belief in rights. All of these core values have survived, they are the basis of our customary way of thinking; they are the basis of democracy but they are often violated and have to be enforced. The liberal core value is the state as the enforcer of the laws, not the individual. The state as federal/state/city jurisdictions sets the legal framework and incentivizes or enforces it.

The contest over values, e.g. multiculturalism, culture war, politically correct, free speech, racism and sexism, the reading war, etc., demeans the group that the conservatives call pejoratively "liberal" progressives, dependents of the welfare state, or those called by the "liberals" defiers of our constitutive values. "Conservative," is often a smoke screen or illusion masking of the interests of one group against the other in terms of what they feel or believe is right and wrong about a particular circumstance, situation, or state of affairs. So, each issue and problem has to be elaborated, investigated, evaluated and argued for and about. But, humans are emotional and manipulate each other very subtly, humans try to dominate each other to get their own way, to get their version of the national interest implemented by the power of the state. The income of the people is taxed, the revenue is distributed to the wealthy, and in other cases, the rights of some people are violated favoring the interests of the more dominant. These problems are argued about, which is the normative process, but power, influence, deception even force and fraud, come to play causal roles, often without a critical eye noticing, and sometimes with protest. Political commitments - party ideology and value orientation - determine attitudes and behaviors, and form the divide between the anti-liberals and the liberals.

The difference between these two ideologies or parties are the interests at stake in any dispute, any issue, the respective arguments and tactics on each side, the big picture, the possible results and the unintended consequences. However, both sides feel strongly that the other side is looking down on them, holding them in contempt, disrespectful, mistreated and left out.