FROM ELSEWHERE – ON KANT I thought I answered this. sorry. Here: —“Let me ask

FROM ELSEWHERE – ON KANT

I thought I answered this. sorry. Here:

—“Let me ask you this, since you think Kant is Abrahamic heresy,”—

It’s that I know for certain that kant relies on abrahamic and platonic method because of the structure of his arguments, and that he’s attempting to create secular theology with them. This isn’t an opinion. Humans have invented only so many grammars (logical paradigms), and those that attempt to deceive rely on a small set of techniques, teach of which preys upon a frailty in human faculties (action: magic->pseudoscience, emotion: loading->framing, speech: sophistry->idealism, imagination: occult->theology), in that order, since that is the same sequence of distance from our ability to test constant relations. The function of european law, testimony and its extension we call science, is to prohibit the use of claims, and therefor the chain of deceits that follow from them.

We can convert any set of arguments to testifiable(scientific) and in doing so discover the form of deception. Kant was a part of the failed program of set logic culminating in its termination in the middle of the 20th century, with the recognition that all verbal logic is tautological, it is not closed, and can only be brought to closure (decidability sufficient to satisfy demand for infallibility) by conversion to operational logic, and tested against every possible dimension of human perception. (which is what my work in Testimonialism accomplishes, by producing a checklist of criteria that must be satisfied, where that checklist is adjudicable (decidable) in court.

A bit of argumentative forensics explains the survival in both Platonism, Abrahamism and Kantianism, but not in aristotelianism or confucianism, the long history of interpreting oral tradition (western property law, middle eastern religious law), the tradition of mathematics in the middle east as for astrology (occult) and in the west for engineering (real), the culture of empires of heterogenous people and vast power distance vs the culture of city states and homogenous people with narrow short distance, and the collision of these factors in the method of persuasion used by each. Oral Tradition, in serf-farming, Scriptural and Textual interpretation by the poor vs universal militia, metalsmithing, engineering, and property law between peers.

—“are you prepared to give up hypothetical imperatives, if clauses etc? (Which would undermine your ability to reason). “—

There are two questions there,

The first is to define and falsify the hypothetical (theoretical, scientific) and categorical (axiomatic, verbal) dispute.

The second is to question whether it undermines one’s ability to reason, by the presumption of reasoning by set logic rather than operational calculation (in the broadest sense).

Second, As far as I know, all non-tautological thought is theoretic and contingent, and all truth claims must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the question at hand. I know this because that is all that the brain does. We no longer are ignorant of the function of the brain although I assume it will be another decade before it makes it into the common person’s understanding – I mean most people still don’t understand basic evolution, basic economics, or basic contract law.

Perception -> Free (auto) association -> Idea survives intuition -> Hypothesis survives reason -> Theory survives demonstration -> Law survives market application -> Repeat

Third, we can easily convert kant to scientific terms and discover what’s missing:

A Priori: “independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims:

i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

iii) Necessity vs Contingency

Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

(b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

If we prefix with (.) Realism and Naturalism, and add (e) Incentives (rational choice), (f) Reciprocity, (g) full accounting within limits, (h) restitutablity, liability, and warranty, then we have the criteria for testimony across the entire spectrum of human faculties.

Kant’s primary error, that undermined his project, was his failure to distinguish between the actionable ( concrete, intuitive, perceptual knowledge of objects) and the imaginary (abstract, discursive, conceptual, knowledge of thoughts). Whereas in P we not only demarcate between actionable and verbal-imaginary properties, but we further demarcate into each human faculty. And we require operational calculability not philosophical rationalism.

Kant’s second error was that any knowledge exists apriori since we now know for certain how the brain forms, how it learns, and that it starts with a random, disordered set of primitive sensors that self organize by success at predicting coherence. And it is this randomization that causes the only variation from genetic determination (80% heritability, 20% idiosyncratic evolution).

Nothing more to be said. We now have converted Kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonialism and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority.

Kant = Analogies (sets), P-Law = Calculation (operations). And we go down to the neurological level. ‘Nuff Said.

So no, it doesn’t undermine one’s ability to reason. I suspect what most people indoctrinated into philosophical rationalism overlook, is that it impedes deduction and inference, and therefore justificationism, where neither justification nor falsification but the combination in adversarialism produces truth claims. This, I think, is the problem that vacates the philosophical project.

—“Or are you really just saying that some aspects of Kant’s philosophy are Abrahamic? Surely Kant wasn’t incorrect about everything. For example, I think his hypothetical imperatives are inescapable but like Schopenhauer I find his categorical imperatives fallacious”—

I suspect then that we are in agreement.

Every philosopher delivers some insight or other. Kants method was a regression, not an insight. That his efforts produced some insights is not magical. He spent as long on his project as I have on mine.

My purpose is to minimize the entrenched fallacies (idealisms, sophistry) that are endemic in rational philosophy, and convert people to science, law, and economics (realism, naturalism, action).

We would be far better understanding contract law, the history of the common law, incentives and micro economics, than all the works of philosophy other than perhaps Aristotle, and Epicurus who laid the foundations.

It is almost impossible to err in P-Law. But it’s a form of calculating not a form of reasoning, and therein lies the secret to the evolution of thought – and the failure of all but a few to evolve thought.

—“Are you, or are you not a Christian?”—

I observe the christian innovation in cooperation that discovered the via positiva of natural law. I recognize the consequence of christian indoctrination. I recognize that for the common folk it is a successful system of indoctrination. I also recognize that it comes at a cost that is too high to continue to pay as it increasingly diverges from demonstrated reality. But I demonstrate loyalty to the Christian community, and would favor the state religion of orthodoxy for an organized church, or the continuation of the protestant evangelical movement’s progress toward cognitive behavioral therapy in religious form. The catholic church is lost to us because it attempted to integrate reason, and attempted to rule, and failed to reform. The orthodox church is nationalist, traditional, and does not confuse teaching by parable ritual and charity, with argumentative justification.

—“Do you believe that Jesus is God, that he resurrected bodily from the dead 2000 yrs ago? Do you believe in the god of the Bible?”—

Of course I don’t. Gods and demigods and saints exist as information in the minds of the people who observe them – but existing as information is enough. These were not people equal in development to the greeks, romans, Persians or Chinese. They were from “the ghetto of the empires”, these stories were written so that they could ‘feel’ them despite their ignorance superstition, and the frailty of their reason. Compare Christian works to The Epic Cycle, Greek and Roman thought. They are childlike by comparison. but they filled the needs of the bottom of society and like marxism and socialism and postmodernism gave people who would profit from leading the bottom with falsehoods power enough to prohibit the restoration of the aristocracies and the great civilizations of the ancient world.

—“If so, how is that consistent with your statement “like Christianity it is a delusion”?”—

I would need to know the context in which I said that If I did. I suspect what I meant was that whether a theology was secular verbal or supernatural occult, was indifferent, in that both consist of fictionalisms.