As old as blood. The conflict between thinkers.

[John Jones]

I've been around for a long time in the halls of debate, including internet forums. Here's a general observation. There are two types of thinker. * I contend that these types are part of a greater distinction that is as old as blood - subspecies of the human race. One is more numerous than the other, and the other is slain on recognition.

Expressed in the closest terms of philosophy, the two types of thinker are
i) transcendental idealists populated by Kant, Wittgenstein, and, outside of academia, those with an intuitive understanding of the rationale of the ineffable or enabling condition. They can be found throughout human history, sometimes in religious or poetic garb; they are The Bard; they generally have no antipathy for non-ordinary experience. They diminish neither Man, nature, nor the gods of others.

ii) transcendental realists, populated by other philosophers, most scientists, pragmatists, and by those dedicated to the hegemony of facts and the hegemony of the flawed immediately perceivable. Transcendental realists are generally not religious/spiritual but for the most part naturally support animistic assumptions- e.g., the "the brain has functions". Animistic gestures such as this are not made by transcendental idealists. Transcendental realists reduce men and gods to facts. Academicaly, reductionism is a favourite.

A transcendental realist declares:
"The nose and brain allow us to smell!"
A transcendental idealist declares:
"Smelling identifies a nose and a brain!"

"Transcendental" means enabling/identifying conditions. All human knowledge, as an expression, is an expression of either transcendental realism or transcendental idealism. *
For the TR's (transcendental realist's), objects provide their own grounds for existence and identification - e.g. light of 640nm really is red. The TRealist is also a skeptic opining the fact that sensory knowledge is only approximate. Paradoxes are abundant among TR's.
For the TI's (transcendental idealists) objects get their existence and identification from a framework that is independent of them - we identify a wavelength of 640nm by the primary fact of redness or seeing red. There are no skeptics among Tidealist's.

Only occasionally do I see transcendental idealists on forums, and elsewhere. They write with pun, play, and will advance a lie to bring out a truth. They are generally despised, marginalised, eventually slain, banned. The reaction is a natural blood heat between subspecies. My survival rates are low on forums. My lifespan prediction here is three weeks, the average. It does not take long for one subspecies to sniff out the other.

This, this blood conflict, has been going on for a very, very, long time.------------------

*
(For those who want some academic slant or reading on this unrecognised, sharp division between thinkers, try Henry Allison's academic account, Kant's Transcendental Idealism, chapters one and two, Yale University press. It describes how Kant (and Wittgenstein, I must add) is alone among philosphers as the only transcendental idealist, rejected and hated for it ..erroneously classed as a bore rather than as a revolutionary...etc. "all non-critical philosophies [except Kant's] can be regarded as transcendentally realistic" p. 25)

 

[Darken-Sol]

what happens if you smell a brain with your nose?

 

[alt]

what happens if you smell a brain with your nose?

Know one nose !

 

[alt]

I've been around for a long time in the halls of debate, including internet forums. Here's a general observation. There are two types of thinker. * I contend that these types are part of a greater distinction that is as old as blood - subspecies of the human race. One is more numerous than the other, and the other is slain on recognition.

Expressed in the closest terms of philosophy, the two types of thinker are
i) transcendental idealists populated by Kant, Wittgenstein, and, outside of academia, those with an intuitive understanding of the rationale of the ineffable or enabling condition. They can be found throughout human history, sometimes in religious or poetic garb; they are The Bard; they generally have no antipathy for non-ordinary experience. They diminish neither Man, nature, nor the gods of others.

ii) transcendental realists, populated by other philosophers, most scientists, pragmatists, and by those dedicated to the hegemony of facts and the hegemony of the flawed immediately perceivable. Transcendental realists are generally not religious/spiritual but for the most part naturally support animistic assumptions- e.g., the "the brain has functions". Animistic gestures such as this are not made by transcendental idealists. Transcendental realists reduce men and gods to facts. Academicaly, reductionism is a favourite.

A transcendental realist declares:
"The nose and brain allow us to smell!"
A transcendental idealist declares:
"Smelling identifies a nose and a brain!"

"Transcendental" means enabling/identifying conditions. All human knowledge, as an expression, is an expression of either transcendental realism or transcendental idealism. *
For the TR's (transcendental realist's), objects provide their own grounds for existence and identification - e.g. light of 640nm really is red. The TRealist is also a skeptic opining the fact that sensory knowledge is only approximate. Paradoxes are abundant among TR's.
For the TI's (transcendental idealists) objects get their existence and identification from a framework that is independent of them - we identify a wavelength of 640nm by the primary fact of redness or seeing red. There are no skeptics among Tidealist's.

Only occasionally do I see transcendental idealists on forums, and elsewhere. They write with pun, play, and will advance a lie to bring out a truth. They are generally despised, marginalised, eventually slain, banned. The reaction is a natural blood heat between subspecies. My survival rates are low on forums. My lifespan prediction here is three weeks, the average. It does not take long for one subspecies to sniff out the other.

This, this blood conflict, has been going on for a very, very, long time.------------------

*
(For those who want some academic slant or reading on this unrecognised, sharp division between thinkers, try Henry Allison's academic account, Kant's Transcendental Idealism, chapters one and two, Yale University press. It describes how Kant (and Wittgenstein, I must add) is alone among philosphers as the only transcendental idealist, rejected and hated for it ..erroneously classed as a bore rather than as a revolutionary...etc. "all non-critical philosophies [except Kant's] can be regarded as transcendentally realistic" p. 25)

Hi John Jones - and with all that, I'm glad your name isn't Jim Jones, BTW :-)

Seriously though, very interesting stuff. Needs some thought. Some people may well see themselves as a bit of both.

 

[John Jones]

what happens if you smell a brain with your nose?

Your smell identified it. As it did in the first instance when smell identifies a nose and a brain.

 

[disregardthat]

Interesting thread John Jones. Kant and Wittgenstein are by far my favorite philosophers, and I consider them the greatest, so I will definitely check out your reference. I have never realized that Wittgenstein is considered a transcendental idealist, does the book lay grounds for this?

 

[John Jones]

Interesting thread John Jones. Kant and Wittgenstein are by far my favorite philosophers, and I consider them the greatest, so I will definitely check out your reference. I have never realized that Wittgenstein is considered a transcendental idealist, does the book lay grounds for this?

Yes, I forgot to add that realism and idealism are species of transcendental realism.

Witt's transcendental idealism can be found in his idea of the Tractarian ineffable, the picture theory (there is a problem of interpretation there), criteria (the later criteria, and not so much 'rules'), and especially language games. They pretty much have steered his philosophy as enabling conditions. See Hintikka's 'Investigating Wittgenstein' for a good run-down. There are other good books that link Kant and Wittgenstein that I have not looked at. I think Kant was Wittgenstein.