Overcoming Kantian Skepticism

This is partly for aiding my thought process in my massive PHIL304 paper, and partly so that I can think about this/apply it directly to my own life. If you’re reading this, let me know if it makes sense (especially if you’ve never learned about this material before), because my paper has to be able to be understood by a random person reading it, without prior knowledge, and if this doesn’t make sense, then my next 10 pages won’t make sense, either. I don't necessarily agree with all these ideas (especially Hegel's input), but it must be inevitably written.

The problem with Kantian dualism:
There are two problems with Kantian dualism, both intertwined. First, Kant’s dualism leaves us with the unknowability of the thing-in-itself. Second, by positing two stems of human cognition, sensibility and understanding, Kant left it unclear how these two faculties, so distinct from one another, could actually interact. Through understanding, objects are thought - this is the region of our spontaneity. Through sensibility, objects are given to us - this is the region of our receptivity, that is, how we are affected by objects different from us.

One problem that many found unacceptable with Kant’s system was the thing-in-itself, which was unknown and unknowable. How do we eliminate the thing-in-itself and its unknowability? Fichte’s move was eliminating the thing-in-itself, the object that was totally distinct from the mind. In order to avoid positing something unknowable that was totally distinct from the mind, Fichte posited that what happens in the act of knowledge is that the mind really knows only itself. There is, therefore, a subject-object identity: all knowledge requires nothing less than an identity of the knower and the known. But in order for the mind to know itself, it must know itself in an object distinct from itself, its object, so the “I that posits itself as an I” must also posit that which is different from itself, the impact (AnstoB), through which the I can determine itself. In other words, if genuine knowledge is to be possible, two conditions must be met. First, there must be an identity of the knower and the known (only like knows like). Second, if a mind is to have knowledge, there must be an object of knowledge that is over against a subject. It therefore follows that the object of knowledge stands over against the subject but is really in some sense identical with the subject. Moreover, if the mind only knows itself in knowledge, then there must be a point in immediate consciousness where subject and object are one (Schelling’s point of indifference) before the subject and object split.

These Fichtean ideas had a fundamental influence on Schelling and Hegel. What is most important about Hegel is that he takes the Fichtean dialectic of the I that posits itself as an I (and which much also posit its object in order to define itself as an I) and sets it up as the fundamental dialectical principle at work in the absolute Mind. What is a mind without objects of knowledge? There can be no mind, no subject that knows without objects that it knows. And so it is with the divine Mind, the absolute. The absolute mind only comes to know itself (and thereby becomes mind) by positing what is other than itself. This “other” is first realized in space as Nature. It is in nature that the absolute receives its first actualization; it in and through nature that the “universal” first particularizes itself, that is, receives concrete determinations and hence actuality. Most importantly, however, it is in nature that rational nature first arises. Nature is in the arena in which spirit is to develop itself and know itself as spirit. The human spirit is necessary for God to actualize God-self. The ultimate goal of human action and knowing is for human beings to recognize themselves as the actualization of the Idea, that is, as the actualization of the absolute. Hence the absolute must develop itself in the space of nature and in the time of history in order to be; this is what Hegel means when he tells us that “being lies in becoming.” Furthermore, God is only fully God when that which is other than God, but which God must posit in order to know himself, comes to know itself as God, and it thereby taken up into the divine life.

. . .

Life's but a walking shadow,
a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

- Macbeth

Skepticism

Learning about Kant, Fichte, and Hegel have really placed things in a new perspective for me, although I am still as confused as ever.

Okay, so Kantian dualism puts forth concepts such as (1) phenomena and noumena (appearances and things-in-themselves) and (2) two faculty psychology (sensation [receptivity] and understanding [spontaneity])... which leads absolutism thought to skepticism.

Both Fichte and Hegel attempt to find a way to overcome that skepticism... Problem: the thing-in-itself is unknown and unknowable, which Hegel does not like, as it is a type of bad infinite. So, in contrast to Kant, Hegel wants to show that everything that exists (everything that is) can be penetrated by reason (known by the mind). Hegel in a nutshell: Everything that is can be known by mind.

Using Spinoza's one substance theory and and Fichte's idea that "The I posits itself as an I" (We can only know ourselves; The self sets itself forth as an I in the activity of constructing/having a world). Hegel suggests: Everything that is, is mind. Spinoza's one substance becomes the mind (Sounds great at first, vs. God, but then Hegel throws a curve ball at me later on). Hegel places Fichte's assumption on a much grander scale, saying that, as minds, when we know everything, we are coming to know ourselves. From this (curve ball I mentioned earlier), he proposes that we have knowledge of the absolute (God, etc... everyone has a different idea in their head) and the unconditional because we ARE manifestations of it (Him, etc............). So basically, we are all just the absolute knowing itself. Tiny little units of the absolute.

Things I'm confused about...

- If the absolute (IF there is one...) one day decides to stop manifesting/thinking about himself, would we (along with the rest of the world, universe, etc.) just POOF! and disappear? Do we just assume that it never will stopping thinking about itself/manifesting?

- Where does the idea of free will or transcendental freedom play into this? In a sense, this seems deterministic, with the "end of the story" already implanted in the beginning. What about "existence precedes essence", which has pretty much been imbedded in my head?

- ajkljdfkl;dajfj;aksjdfjkajdfkj;sajdfij amillionotherquestionsIcan'tevenputintophrasing?!?!??!?!?
In the words of Lil Jon: WHAT?

Secure Website Authentification Questions

What is your mother's maiden name?

What is your older sister's favorite Monopoly game piece?

Who did your paternal grandfather vote for in the 1956 presidential election?

Why did you choose a liberal-arts degree when your entire family urged you to go into finance?

How many weeks away was graduation when you dropped out of college?

Where were you sitting when your girlfriend told you she was pregnant?

Where did you never end up going for your honeymoon?

In what year did you begin working for the post office?

How many hours did it take you to drink that bottle of Jack Daniel's yesterday?

If you could do it all over again, what would you do differently?

Motivation

The life you're used to and the body you control are not the full scope of the organism of which you are a part.

You are 100 trillion cells in each of 6 billion human beings. Your cousins, a thousand times as numerous, are cells comprising the tissues and organs that make ants work. The other 99.9% of you is bacteria, and you've been here for 4 billion years. You are older than the mountains, older than the asteroid belt.

And during these 4 billion years, you have never died. Not all of you. Not once. Some parts of you became damaged and were lost, but you carried on. If your parents hadn't made it, you wouldn't be here right now.

During these 4 billion years we transformed a hostile world into a comfortable one. Or it transformed us. We made the atmosphere breathable and we adapted to breathe it (Yes, in the current state that's debatable). We made fur, and later, we made other parts of us make fur for the human parts. And the human part of you made tools. Rocket tools that will be of use to all of us very soon. With the help of this human organ, your cellular descendants will leap off this mote of dust into the vast sea of resources beyond. A sea that can support us hundreds of trillions of times more richly than our current home. A sea for our home, to make livable or to force us to adapt again, as Earth once did.

Rejoice, human, and keep moving forward! You're on to something very big for all of us, though you may not yet know it. We will all reap the rewards of your efforts, soon.

Puns are great.

C, E-flat, and G go into a bar.
The bartender says, "Sorry, but we don't serve minors."
So E-Flat leaves and C and G have an open 5th between them.

After a few drinks the 5th is diminished and the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation but is not sharp enough. A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying,"Excuse me, I'll just be a second."

An A comes into the bar but the bartender is not convinced this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-Flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims, "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in the bar tonight." The E-Flat is not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender who used to have a nice coporate job until his company downsized, says, "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case as the E-Flat takes off the suit and everything else and stands there au natural.

Eventually C sobers up and realizes in horror he is under a rest. The C is brought to trial, found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrong doing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

Nothingness

A very wise old man was living in a small farming village, and the old man would allow any of the villagers to come and seek his advice and wisdom, so long as they only asked him one question. One question, and one question only; that is all they were allowed. A traveler, passing through the village, heard about the wise old man and his one question limit, and decided to pay him a visit. He entered the old man's hut and asked him, "What is the best possible question I can ask you, and what is its answer?" The old man paused, thought for a second, smiled, and replied, "The best possible question is the one you have just asked, and I have just given you its answer."

Also:

If you understand, things are as they are.
If you do not understand, things are as they are.