AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:56 pm
I have faith that the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Steiner, Gebser, Barfields of the world are going to prove the most influential and pivotal in the long run. I think we see signs of that already happening with renewed interest in all of them, but certainly Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. also have renewed interest and not in a good way.
Yes there does seem to be a fundamental divide happening, with all the new “studies” subjects being firmly grounded in the latter camp. I think this gives them the higher profile and the bigger presence in academia, with only maths and the hard sciences being tricky areas for them to ‘consume’.
Still I’d like to think you’re right in the long term. The thing about extreme relativism is that it’s by definition extremely fissile over time.
Ideas are certain original forms of things, their archetypes, permanent and incommunicable, which are contained in the Divine intelligence. And though they neither begin to be nor cease, yet upon them are patterned the manifold things of the world that come into being and pass away.
St Augustine
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:56 pm
I have faith that the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Steiner, Gebser, Barfields of the world are going to prove the most influential and pivotal in the long run. I think we see signs of that already happening with renewed interest in all of them, but certainly Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. also have renewed interest and not in a good way.
Yes there does seem to be a fundamental divide happening, with all the new “studies” subjects being firmly grounded in the latter camp. I think this gives them the higher profile and the bigger presence in academia, with only maths and the hard sciences being tricky areas for them to ‘consume’.
Still I’d like to think you’re right in the long term. The thing about extreme relativism is that it’s by definition extremely fissile over time.
Right, the relativistic philosophies seem very prone to self-limiting and self-defeating manifestations. The other thing about all those named in the last post is they envisioned a clear telos in human history and ongoing evolutionary process through which it is manifested, and if we take that seriously, it means the entire philosophical progression you outlined reveals something critical about human conscious activity and where it is headed.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Shaibei wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:14 pm
It's all thanks to Kant. Even Schopenhauer, as far as I know, argued that there might be something else, a thing in itself, beyond the will. (Just recalled the infinite in my new profile image)
I think the thing-in-itself was Kant’s invention, his description of the noumenal we can’t know versus the phenomenal we can. A Buddhist would probably turn that on it’s head, which seems to be more the direction Schopenhauer took. Kant and the other ‘german idealists’ are often very different to each other and I know I shouldn’t lump them all together, but from the broad brush summary approach they do also seem to have a lot in common..
They're equal in that they all assume a relation of the I to world. In what is the nature of this relation and what is the nature of M@L they are quite different, to my understanding.
Schopenhauer vs maimon - intellect vs will, space and time categories of mind or M@L
maimon vs hegel - Moderate monism of reason versus radical one
Schopenhauer vsHegel - no secert Schopenhauer loathed Hegel
And there's Kant, Fichte, Schelling ,some would argue Spinoza, These various outlooks adds more speculation than validity to at least some aspects of idealism.
"And a mute thought sails,
like a swift cloud on high.
Were I to ask, here below,
Amongst the gates of desolation:
Where goes
this captive of the heavens?
There is no one who can reveal to me the book,
or explain to me the chapters."
Simon Adams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:34 pm
I’m surprised as Whitehead seems to me to have roots in idealism - although it’s not idealism it’s certainly anti-materialism, and anti-cartesian. Whereas Russell seems to me to be a materialist, with the positivists that followed being extreme materialists. I guess you could say that Russell is a development of Hume, and so both are continuing different strands and taking them in different directions, but it seems to me that modern philosophy has been more influenced by Russell than Whitehead?
Maybe our disconnect is that I'm focusing on the philosophy of mind, which is more oriented to idealism, and to me, Whitehead belongs in that camp. Also, on inspection, I am reminded of my bias against and neglect of analytical philosophy. Especially British empiricism. So there's that.
Last edited by dkpstarkey on Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon Adams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:32 pm
Yes fair point, and there are definitely philosophers like these that are more of a development of what went before, and that definitely includes the likes of Heidegger, Jung, Barfield, Steiner etc.
I guess I’m curious whether this is a valid way of seeing the way the mainstream of philosophy has moved. All of the individual’s are completely unique and so trying to smooth it out into a single story is always going to be a slightly absurd venture. Someone like Nietzsche is always going to be a bump that sticks out on any line like that
I originally thought it was the Foucault, Derrida, Sartre etc who has fundamentally changed what philosophy is trying to do, and of course they were at least partially influenced by Marx who I missed out completely, and is definitely a big part of the story of philosophy changing it’s own telos. But I’m curious whether Russell is this big turning point as he seems to me. I guess in some ways his approach is like a reinvention of skepticism, but he seems to have caused a big change in direction from my simplistic outside view?
I have faith that the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Steiner, Gebser, Barfields of the world are going to prove the most influential and pivotal in the long run. I think we see signs of that already happening with renewed interest in all of them, but certainly Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. also have renewed interest and not in a good way.
Isn't Nietzsche (with An idealist named kant) reponsible for the relativism you revolt against?
"And a mute thought sails,
like a swift cloud on high.
Were I to ask, here below,
Amongst the gates of desolation:
Where goes
this captive of the heavens?
There is no one who can reveal to me the book,
or explain to me the chapters."
Simon Adams wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:32 pm
Yes fair point, and there are definitely philosophers like these that are more of a development of what went before, and that definitely includes the likes of Heidegger, Jung, Barfield, Steiner etc.
I guess I’m curious whether this is a valid way of seeing the way the mainstream of philosophy has moved. All of the individual’s are completely unique and so trying to smooth it out into a single story is always going to be a slightly absurd venture. Someone like Nietzsche is always going to be a bump that sticks out on any line like that
I originally thought it was the Foucault, Derrida, Sartre etc who has fundamentally changed what philosophy is trying to do, and of course they were at least partially influenced by Marx who I missed out completely, and is definitely a big part of the story of philosophy changing it’s own telos. But I’m curious whether Russell is this big turning point as he seems to me. I guess in some ways his approach is like a reinvention of skepticism, but he seems to have caused a big change in direction from my simplistic outside view?
I have faith that the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Steiner, Gebser, Barfields of the world are going to prove the most influential and pivotal in the long run. I think we see signs of that already happening with renewed interest in all of them, but certainly Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. also have renewed interest and not in a good way.
Isn't Nietzsche (with An idealist named kant) reponsible for the relativism you revolt against?
Not according to Heidegger. The latter's interpretation of the former is similar to what BK has now done with Jung - reveal in a compelling manner that Jung's metaphysics is not at all what the mainstream (including foremost 'experts' on Jungian psychology) imagines it to be. They either dump him in some category of dualism or pretend he doesn't even have a metaphysical position. I see the same thing going on with Nietzsche, who was probably the biggest philosophical influence on Jung along with Kant.
Nietzsche had a clear position that humanity was headed in a certain direction, from the 'last man' to the 'superman', the former acting as a bridge from 'animal consciousness' to meta-meta-cognition. In some sense it was similar to the dialectical progression of Hegel-Marx, except Marx envisioned a materialist process while Hegel and Nietzsche did not. The 'will-to-power' concept is also clearly derived in large part from Schopenhauer's Will, except more specified and carrying teleological connotations, which he attempted to prophesy in advance and did a damn good job as far I can tell.
So for those reasons I would say Nietzsche is pretty far from relativism. I am also not sure why you are identifying Kant as a relativist? He is certainly responsible for philosophical traditions which claim the noumenal is absolutely outside of experience, but at the same time he necessarily admits that an objective noumenal realm exists, independent of any personal experience and cognition, and must influence humanity in some ineffable, undetectable way.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Shaibei wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:02 pm
They're equal in that they all assume a relation of the I to world. In what is the nature of this relation and what is the nature of M@L they are quite different, to my understanding.
Schopenhauer vs maimon - intellect vs will, space and time categories of mind or M@L
maimon vs hegel - Moderate monism of reason versus radical one
Schopenhauer vsHegel - no secert Schopenhauer loathed Hegel
And there's Kant, Fichte, Schelling ,some would argue Spinoza, These various outlooks adds more speculation than validity to at least some aspects of idealism.
Yes and I guess maybe that explains the eventual rejection of speculation for empiricism. The boat tacks to catch the wind from the other side... and the baby is swept off the deck with the seawater...
Ideas are certain original forms of things, their archetypes, permanent and incommunicable, which are contained in the Divine intelligence. And though they neither begin to be nor cease, yet upon them are patterned the manifold things of the world that come into being and pass away.
St Augustine
dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:28 pm
Maybe our disconnect is that I'm focusing on the philosophy of mind, which is more oriented to idealism, and to me, Whitehead belongs in that camp. Also, on inspection, I am reminded of my bias against and neglect of analytical philosophy. Especially British empiricism. So there's that.
I wouldn’t call it diligence on my part - I’m just trying to get an idea of the outline. I agree it’s not tempting to invest a huge amount of effort into this area. Seems to me like the philosophy of cutting the golden goose open to find out where the golden eggs are coming from, only to find that it’s just a goose.
Ideas are certain original forms of things, their archetypes, permanent and incommunicable, which are contained in the Divine intelligence. And though they neither begin to be nor cease, yet upon them are patterned the manifold things of the world that come into being and pass away.
St Augustine
I have faith that the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Steiner, Gebser, Barfields of the world are going to prove the most influential and pivotal in the long run. I think we see signs of that already happening with renewed interest in all of them, but certainly Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. also have renewed interest and not in a good way.
Isn't Nietzsche (with An idealist named kant) reponsible for the relativism you revolt against?
Not according to Heidegger. The latter's interpretation of the former is similar to what BK has now done with Jung - reveal in a compelling manner that Jung's metaphysics is not at all what the mainstream (including foremost 'experts' on Jungian psychology) imagines it to be. They either dump him in some category of dualism or pretend he doesn't even have a metaphysical position. I see the same thing going on with Nietzsche, who was probably the biggest philosophical influence on Jung along with Kant.
Nietzsche had a clear position that humanity was headed in a certain direction, from the 'last man' to the 'superman', the former acting as a bridge from 'animal consciousness' to meta-meta-cognition. In some sense it was similar to the dialectical progression of Hegel-Marx, except Marx envisioned a materialist process while Hegel and Nietzsche did not. The 'will-to-power' concept is also clearly derived in large part from Schopenhauer's Will, except more specified and carrying teleological connotations, which he attempted to prophesy in advance and did a damn good job as far I can tell.
So for those reasons I would say Nietzsche is pretty far from relativism. I am also not sure why you are identifying Kant as a relativist? He is certainly responsible for philosophical traditions which claim the noumenal is absolutely outside of experience, but at the same time he necessarily admits that an objective noumenal realm exists, independent of any personal experience and cognition, and must influence humanity in some ineffable, undetectable way.
Nietzsche has aphorisms about the relativity of science, and his superman creates values, as there are really no inter-subjective values, so it is no wonder that some see him as the first postmodernist.
As for Kant, he caused the Copernican revolution, didn't he? We are the ones who shape reality. If we compare him with his critic Maimon, then the latter argued that in order to justify the objectivity of science one must assume that the categories of mind correspond to the categories of M@L.
At the end of his book Miamon also writes about the development of consciousness, but while he remains skeptical Hegel takes this idea further. The way in which Maimon tries to justify science will also explain the difference between Nietzsche's superman to, for example, the Kabbalists' perception of Primordial man. For the Kabbalists Primordial man is the ideal of values to which humanity approaches. In other words, God gives objectivity to morality. I do not know Steiner in depth, but I suppose that in some way he also treats values as truly exist
"And a mute thought sails,
like a swift cloud on high.
Were I to ask, here below,
Amongst the gates of desolation:
Where goes
this captive of the heavens?
There is no one who can reveal to me the book,
or explain to me the chapters."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:46 pm
So for those reasons I would say Nietzsche is pretty far from relativism. I am also not sure why you are identifying Kant as a relativist? He is certainly responsible for philosophical traditions which claim the noumenal is absolutely outside of experience, but at the same time he necessarily admits that an objective noumenal realm exists, independent of any personal experience and cognition, and must influence humanity in some ineffable, undetectable way.
Isn’t there a sense in which relativism means different things depending on your ontology. Take special relativity for example, which states that, say, time and length are relative to the velocity of the observer. You could say this shows that everything is relative. However the way in which they are relative can be shown and predicted very accurately by laws that remain constant for all observers. Okay this example breaks down for very small observers, those visiting black holes etc, but there is a perspective where everything is not relative. If you take the physical world as reality, it’s relative. If you take ideas as being real, it’s not.
I think this is what confuses the way the label is used?
Ideas are certain original forms of things, their archetypes, permanent and incommunicable, which are contained in the Divine intelligence. And though they neither begin to be nor cease, yet upon them are patterned the manifold things of the world that come into being and pass away.
St Augustine
