|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2019 2:05:38 GMT -5
And he lists sources.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 17:39:52 GMT -5
Hicks is usually pretty good at listing sources, what he typically has trouble with is citing them correctly in his texts. That's an interesting argument to be fielded by Hicks. Does he apply the same standard to John Locke, who believed that colonization is a moral good, or Ayn Rand, who thought the genocide against Native Americans was justified? Now don't get me wrong here. I agree with him there. Kant really was shockingly racist.
But so was most of the Enlightenment, including many philosophers that I suspect he considers fellow "classical liberals", whatever that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 15:05:10 GMT -5
So? What do you think about this issue, Bob?
You posted this article here, you must have had some thoughts on it.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 24, 2019 19:40:19 GMT -5
Hicks is usually pretty good at listing sources, what he typically has trouble with is citing them correctly in his texts. That's an interesting argument to be fielded by Hicks. Does he apply the same standard to John Locke, who believed that colonization is a moral good, or Ayn Rand, who thought the genocide against Native Americans was justified? Now don't get me wrong here. I agree with him there. Kant really was shockingly racist.
But so was most of the Enlightenment, including many philosophers that I suspect he considers fellow "classical liberals", whatever that means.
Kant is different from Locke.
In spite of all of Locke's faults,he did start religious toleration (even though he only said Protestants should tolerate each other while Catholics, Muslims, and Jews could still discriminated against). That little bit of toleration grew withing 100 years into a major component of the Bill of Rights.
Locke also said people were sometimes justified in getting rid of their government. This was a major influence on the American Revolution.
By contrast, what did Kant do? He got Epistemology going down the wrong road with his mythical "noumenal" world, a world we can never experience. Where did that lead? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 15:12:17 GMT -5
Hicks is usually pretty good at listing sources, what he typically has trouble with is citing them correctly in his texts. That's an interesting argument to be fielded by Hicks. Does he apply the same standard to John Locke, who believed that colonization is a moral good, or Ayn Rand, who thought the genocide against Native Americans was justified? Now don't get me wrong here. I agree with him there. Kant really was shockingly racist.
But so was most of the Enlightenment, including many philosophers that I suspect he considers fellow "classical liberals", whatever that means. Kant is different from Locke. In spite of all of Locke's faults,he did start religious toleration (even though he only said Protestants should tolerate each other while Catholics, Muslims, and Jews could still discriminated against). That little bit of toleration grew withing 100 years into a major component of the Bill of Rights. First of all, this does not in any way refute that Locke was a racist. Second of all, Locke did not invent the idea of religious toleration, and among European intellectuals of the 17th and 18th century, he was not even particularly exceptional in its advocacy. The Union of Utrecht's declaration of religious toleration and freedom of (private) worship predates Locke by almost a century, as do several other legal declarations of toleration in the Christian world. And last time I checked, he did not actually contribute to the Bill of Rights. So did Karl Marx. Once again, you are citing an endeavour Locke did not materially contribute towards. What are you talking about? Kant wrote an entire book where he did nothing but argue that logical reasoning must be grounded in empirical data and that the physical world exists independently of our thoughts. Perhaps you are being confused by Kant's terminology, where he separates knowledge into "a priori" and "a posteriori" knowledge. But this just means that he distinguishes between logical and mathematical axioms on one hand (a priori knowledge) and knowledge derived from experience or sensory data on the other (a posteriori knowledge). And he never said that we cannot experience the world, he simply asserted that a priori knowledge by its very nature does not interact with it (but a posteriori does; Kant's epistemology was an attempt to reconcile these two). To put it in layman's terms, Kant argued that axioms and logical reasoning are not derived from sensory experience of the physical world, but they cannot be wholly separate from it, either, because they are dependent on sensory input to be meaningful. His solution was the argument that they interact with our sensory data of the physical world, which people later mistakenly took to mean that we can never know the physical world. He argued not simply religious tolerance, he argued that religion ought to be subject to rational critique and logical reasoning: Kant's contribution to the world was his advocacy for reason as a tool of education and enlightenment, and his belief in the universality of rights and morals. He is as much a contributor to the idea of human rights as Locke is, if not moreso. Of course, that does not change the fact that he was a total racist, much like the rest of the Enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 25, 2019 20:30:09 GMT -5
Kant is different from Locke. In spite of all of Locke's faults,he did start religious toleration (even though he only said Protestants should tolerate each other while Catholics, Muslims, and Jews could still discriminated against). That little bit of toleration grew withing 100 years into a major component of the Bill of Rights. First of all, this does not in any way refute that Locke was a racist. I never said it did, did I? I didn't know that. Thank you for the clarification. Really? This is what I got when I googled "John Locke and the Bill of Rights": "Based in large part on John Locke's political philosophy, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as the foundations of our entire political system." www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/lawhead/chapter6/locke_bill_of_rights.htmThere were also these: How did John Locke influence the US Bill of Rights - Answers www.answers.com › … › US Constitution John Locke believed that the role of a political society was toprovide for the protection of individual rights. John Locke's Influence on the American and English Bill of ... www.brainia.com/essays/John-Locke's-Influence-On... A. I have chosen John Locke and his influence and contributions to the English and American Bill of Rights as my two subjects. John Locke was born on the 29th of August 1632 in Wrington, Somerset, England. He died on 28 October 1704 in Essex, England. How Did John Locke Influence the Constitution? | Reference.com www.reference.com › The Constitution Locke asserted that people, as rational and emotional beings, have natural rights. People, Locke believed, have rights to life, liberty and property that governments should not deny. The common people, Locke asserted, have the right to overthrow established governments if their basic natural rights do not receive protection. Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet quizlet.com/603100/chapter-6-flash-cards Locke - the power comes from the people, limited power of the government. Montesquieu - seperation of powers (use his qoute). Rousseau - election of the President & Congress. Voltaire - Freedoms found in the Bill of Rights (examples please) Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: John Locke www.shmoop.com › … › Compare and Contrast Locke and the Bill of Rights. Based in large part on John Locke's political philosophy, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as the foundations of our entire political system. John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property ... fee.org/articles/john-locke-natural-rights-to... Locke’s influence was most apparent in the Declaration of Independence, the constitutional separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, Voltaire had promoted Locke’s ideas in France. Ideas about the separation of powers were expanded by Baron de Montesquieu. John Locke and the Constitution | Essay Example blablawriting.com/john-locke-and-the... John Locke and the Constitution Essay Sample. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government has a profound impact and notable contribution to the current constitution of the US. Building the Bill of Rights | National Endowment for the ... www.neh.gov/.../feature/building-the-bill-rights John Locke, an Englishman, had argued that rights carried over from the state of nature, and that citizens formed societies in order to better protect them; therefore, the rights themselves were absolute and inalienable (Locke, Second Treatise on Government). Foundations of American Government [ushistory.org] www.ushistory.org/gov/2.asp John Locke. The single most ... The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, ... The English Bill ... "http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/lawhead/chapter6/locke_bill_of_rights.htm Yes. He got it from Locke! And Locke did not mention a dictatorship of the proletariat after getting rid of the old government. I never claimed Locke DIRECTLY contributed. But that was the eventual effect of his ideas. But you can easily refute my claim here (and the claim of all the people who wrote those links) by googling "How John Locke did NOT contribute to the U.S. Bill of Rights." Please re-read the initial post at the top of this thread. Hicks answers all of the points you raise here. Hicks wrote: "Many subsequent liberal thinkers have been energized by Kant’s formulations of principles of respect for human dignity and treating individuals as ends in themselves. But they have also been shocked by his frequent anti-liberal principles and policies. Were the anti-liberal deviations merely the result of his being a man of his times, as he was born and raised in a strict Pietist Lutheran family in 1700s Prussia, after all? Was he simply inconsistent, since he wrote on thousands of topics across many decades? Is there some complicated philosopher’s way of making his whole corpus more or less consistent that deep scholarship can reveal? I will argue that the anti-liberalism is much deeper in Kant’s philosophy than the liberalism. That means saying something about the ringlingly liberal-sounding principles that are indeed integral to Kant’s philosophy. That something is this: One must always interpret a comprehensive philosopher’s remarks on applied matters in the context of his philosophical system." His arguments are given in the rest of the post. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 5:44:23 GMT -5
Once again, that does not distinguish Kant from Locke.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 26, 2019 15:20:38 GMT -5
Once again, that does not distinguish Kant from Locke.
How did we get on Locke to begin with? Hicks said nothing about Locke.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 12:21:02 GMT -5
Once again, that does not distinguish Kant from Locke. How did we get on Locke to begin with? Hicks said nothing about Locke.
Bob
Hicks does not believe that Kant, an Enlightenment figure, is a liberal, because he is a racist. On the other hand, Hicks does not seem to apply the same standard to John Locke, an apologist for slavery and colonialism. One would think that defending slavery would disqualify a thinker just as badly from liberalism as racism would (or arguably moreso). But apparently not. I could have also put up the known genocide apologist Ayn Rand as an example for what Hicks presumably considers a classical liberal (seeing as he is a self-described libertarian and "objectivist"), but frankly I would rather discuss Locke because his support for slavery and colonization weighs a lot heavier, I feel, given his influence on the European slaver-aristocrats that would become the US Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 28, 2019 14:58:40 GMT -5
How did we get on Locke to begin with? Hicks said nothing about Locke.
Bob
Hicks does not believe that Kant, an Enlightenment figure, is a liberal, because he is a racist. On the other hand, Hicks does not seem to apply the same standard to John Locke, an apologist for slavery and colonialism. One would think that defending slavery would disqualify a thinker just as badly from liberalism as racism would (or arguably moreso). But apparently not. I could have also put up the known genocide apologist Ayn Rand as an example for what Hicks presumably considers a classical liberal (seeing as he is a self-described libertarian and "objectivist"), but frankly I would rather discuss Locke because his support for slavery and colonization weighs a lot heavier, I feel, given his influence on the European slaver-aristocrats that would become the US Founding Fathers.
I agree that you can't hold the charge of racism against Kant since he lived in an age when most people were racist. But that is only one minor point that Hicks made in the entire essay. Hicks' main point was:
"If our case for political liberty ultimately depends on following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm, then we don’t have much of a case.
My recommendation: If we are looking for a principled philosophical justification of liberalism, then bypassing Kant is a good idea."
In other words, Hicks is arguing against the existence of the noumenal realm.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2019 22:22:13 GMT -5
So Hicks is argueing against the existence of logical axioms? Because that's what "the noumenal realm" means.
Is that all "the noumenal realm" means? Do you have a reference for that?
Can't we know what logical axioms are? But Kant says that we can never know the noumenal realm. Could you please explain this apparent contradiction?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 15:28:30 GMT -5
If you're actually interested in learning about this question instead of Hicks' pithy strawman version, here is a relevant article from the Stanford Encyclopedia: plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/Put simply, the exact nature of phenomena, noumena and things-in-themselves, and their status in Kant's philosophy is not clear, partially because these terms occur in chapters of the Critique of Pure Reason that Kant himself heavily revised over time. (There is an A and a B version which differ significantly in how they talk about the distinction between these three terms). Kant is also one philosopher where I feel that Anglo-American translations obscure even more than the German original (and Kant isn't the clearest philosopher to begin with).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2019 14:50:26 GMT -5
If you're actually interested in learning about this question instead of Hicks' pithy strawman version, here is a relevant article from the Stanford Encyclopedia: plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/Put simply, the exact nature of phenomena, noumena and things-in-themselves, and their status in Kant's philosophy is not clear, partially because these terms occur in chapters of the Critique of Pure Reason that Kant himself heavily revised over time. (There is an A and a B version which differ significantly in how they talk about the distinction between these three terms). Kant is also one philosopher where I feel that Anglo-American translations obscure even more than the German original (and Kant isn't the clearest philosopher to begin with).
Wasn't Kant clear though about the noumenal realm being beyond perception?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 0:47:10 GMT -5
There are two versions and they differ in their descriptions of phenomena and noumena.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2019 16:01:50 GMT -5
There are two versions and they differ in their descriptions of phenomena and noumena.
"Two versions?" Couldn't Kant make up his mind?
Did one of the versions say that we can't be aware of the noumena?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 13:32:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2019 19:11:14 GMT -5
Thank you McAnswer for reposting what I originally posted over a decade ago.
You even commented at the time that while you didn't normally agree with the Maverick Philosopher, in this case he was "spot on." For some reason, that phrase that you used, "spot on", stuck in my memory.
I also happened to notice that Maverick Philosopher didn't support his claims by supplying even one direct quote from Kant. Wasn't that one of your main criticisms of Hicks, that he didn't supply enough supporting quotes from the philosophers he was criticizing? (Actually, Hicks did, as I already demonstrated in previous posts; but Maverick doesn't, not even one).
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2019 6:09:33 GMT -5
MP lists several sources in the text. In fact, the quoted text above lists two.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 3, 2019 10:43:31 GMT -5
MP lists several sources in the text. In fact, the quoted text above lists two. Sources yes, but not direct quotes. Do we have to take Maverick's word for it that Kant says what Maverick claims he says?
By contrast, Hicks gave a direct quote from Critique of Judgement and several more direct quotes in Notes 4, 5, 6, and 9.
Direct quotes are important so that we can see that the author is not misquoting. Don't you agree?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 5:54:10 GMT -5
MP lists several sources in the text. In fact, the quoted text above lists two. Sources yes, but not direct quotes. Do we have to take Maverick's word for it that Kant says what Maverick claims he says? He provides a source for that (Critique of Pure Reason Version B, 69-70ff), so yes, we do.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2019 10:24:52 GMT -5
Sources yes, but not direct quotes. Do we have to take Maverick's word for it that Kant says what Maverick claims he says? He provides a source for that (Critique of Pure Reason Version B, 69-70ff), so yes, we do.
But he doesn't provide a direct quote. You made quite an issue of that in other threads in regards to Hicks (even though Hicks did provide direct quotes). Why have you changed your position?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 15:56:47 GMT -5
He provides a source for that (Critique of Pure Reason Version B, 69-70ff), so yes, we do. But he doesn't provide a direct quote. Yes, that's called a paraphrase.
But he doesn't provide a direct quote. You made quite an issue of that in other threads in regards to Hicks (even though Hicks did provide direct quotes). Why have you changed your position? Bob
A paraphrase exists to convey the meaning of a long text more clearly and in fewer words. Maverick Philosopher, for all his faults in other areas, managed to distill Kant's writing (which is very complex and has the reputation of being difficult to read even among academics specializing in interpreting Kantian philosophy) into a series of concise, easy to parse logical arguments.
Hicks shows no ability to do this, and the arguments he presumably gleaned from reading the texts he cites have no relationship to the statements in those texts, to the point where I seriously question whether he has even read them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2019 21:03:32 GMT -5
But he doesn't provide a direct quote. Yes, that's called a paraphrase.
But he doesn't provide a direct quote. You made quite an issue of that in other threads in regards to Hicks (even though Hicks did provide direct quotes). Why have you changed your position? Bob
A paraphrase exists to convey the meaning of a long text more clearly and in fewer words. Maverick Philosopher, for all his faults in other areas, managed to distill Kant's writing (which is very complex and has the reputation of being difficult to read even among academics specializing in interpreting Kantian philosophy) into a series of concise, easy to parse logical arguments.
Hicks shows no ability to do this, and the arguments he presumably gleaned from reading the texts he cites have no relationship to the statements in those texts, to the point where I seriously question whether he has even read them in the first place.
In other words, Maverick said things you like so you make an excuse for the fact that he provided no supporting quotes. Interesting because you criticized Hicks for providing only one supporting quote (when in fact he really provided a lot more).
I showed that Hicks actually provided many supporting quotes. Now you are criticizing Hicks for not paraphrasing!
Shifting the goalposts again McAnswer?
And now you say that Hicks' arguments have no relation to the texts. But guess what? You provide no examples at all! Not even a paraphrase.
Apparently you believe that quoting text and paraphrasing are only for people whom you disagree with.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 10:29:35 GMT -5
In other words, Maverick said things you like so you make an excuse for the fact that he provided no supporting quotes. As usual, you present no evidence for your claims. And as usual, you commit an ad hominem fallacy.
First of all, you have not presented evidence that I ever claimed to like what MP says.
Second of all, my feelings towards Maverick Philosopher are irrelevant to the validity of the claim I made.
Please try to make logical and rational arguments, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 11:26:39 GMT -5
In other words, Maverick said things you like so you make an excuse for the fact that he provided no supporting quotes. As usual, you present no evidence for your claims. And as usual, you commit an ad hominem fallacy.
First of all, you have not presented evidence that I ever claimed to like what MP says.
Second of all, my feelings towards Maverick Philosopher are irrelevant to the validity of the claim I made.
Please try to make logical and rational arguments, Bob.
Thank you for your criticisms.
Maverick said things you think are true (otherwise there would be no reason for you to post them). But Maverick provided no direct quotes to support his claims.
Previously, you criticized Hicks for providing no supporting quotes (even though he did!). Yet here, you think it's perfectly okay for Maverick to provide no supporting quotes.
Please try to avoid having a double standard.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 12:06:41 GMT -5
I think you are under a misconception with regards to my opinion on Hicks' scholarship.
My objection to Hicks is not that he doesn't use direct quotes. My objection is that he fails to accurately represent the ideas he claims to argue against.
He misuses paraphrases and quotes writers out of context to construe a particular position that is not germane to the authors he is argueing against. He is, in short, constructing strawmen instead of attacking their actual arguments.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 14:49:16 GMT -5
I think you are under a misconception with regards to my opinion on Hicks' scholarship. My objection to Hicks is not that he doesn't use direct quotes. My objection is that he fails to accurately represent the ideas he claims to argue against. He misuses paraphrases and quotes writers out of context to construe a particular position that is not germane to the authors he is argueing against. He is, in short, constructing strawmen instead of attacking their actual arguments.
And you have specific examples of this?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 15:17:06 GMT -5
I think you are under a misconception with regards to my opinion on Hicks' scholarship. My objection to Hicks is not that he doesn't use direct quotes. My objection is that he fails to accurately represent the ideas he claims to argue against. He misuses paraphrases and quotes writers out of context to construe a particular position that is not germane to the authors he is argueing against. He is, in short, constructing strawmen instead of attacking their actual arguments. And you have specific examples of this? Bob
One example relevant to this thread is Hicks' insistence that the commonality of all rational beings (what Kant means with Reich der Zwecke) is "a hypothetical voice from another realm", a phrase and concept that simply does not occur either in Critique of Practical Reason nor in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant's major works on ethics and free will. If you don't believe me, you can look for yourself; here are links to free versions of these books: Critique of Practical ReasonFundamental Principles ofthe Metaphysic of Morals
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 6, 2019 18:52:09 GMT -5
And you have specific examples of this? Bob
One example relevant to this thread is Hicks' insistence that the commonality of all rational beings (what Kant means with Reich der Zwecke) is "a hypothetical voice from another realm", a phrase and concept that simply does not occur either in Critique of Practical Reason nor in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant's major works on ethics and free will. If you don't believe me, you can look for yourself; here are links to free versions of these books: Critique of Practical ReasonFundamental Principles ofthe Metaphysic of Morals
This is what I found on "Reich der Zwecke" (emph. added):
"The Kingdom of Ends (German: Reich der Zwecke) is a thought experiment centered on the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Kant introduced the concept in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (4:439)"...
The Kingdom of Ends is a hypothetical state of existence that is derived from Kant's categorical imperative. A Kingdom of Ends is composed entirely of rational beings, whom Kant defines as those capable of moral deliberation (though his definition expands in other areas) who must choose to act by laws that imply an absolute necessity. It is from this point of view that they must judge themselves and their actions...
In his writings on religion, Kant interprets the Kingdom of God as a religious symbol for the moral reality of the Kingdom of Ends. As such, it is the ultimate goal of both religious and political organization of human society.[1]
These quotes don't mention a voice, but they certainly do say that the Reich der Zwecke is hypothetical and that Kant likens it to the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God is another realm.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 12:11:08 GMT -5
And the Kingdom of God is another realm. Actually, in the quote you supplied, it says that the Kingdom of Ends is "a hypothetical state of existence", and the Kingdom of God "is the ultimate goal of both religious and political organization of human society".
|
|