MORE KANT’S DECEIT Since the term enlightened refers throughout its history as t

MORE KANT’S DECEIT

Since the term enlightened refers throughout its history as the loss of ignorance, it is hard to argue that Mysticism is a form of Enlightenment, when in fact, it is a BARRIER to enlightenment, and measurably imposes ignorance wherever it exists – it is hard to argue that authoritarian mysticism(or magianism) is identical to or even similar to kantian justificationary rationalism, except as a means of imposing similar deceptions. To attempt do so is to depends upon circular reasoning.

Again, Kant created a new means of deceit, that was a rationalist reformation of scriptural monotheism, the mystical (magian) deceit. Both were verbalisms that succeeded in deceit by means of analogy, loading, framing, overloading and suggestion – to overwhelm our limited ability to reason in correspondence with reality.

This deceit is still practiced by continental philosophers, but was followed by a superior innovation of the Jewish Enlightenment: they created pseudoscience: Marx, Freud, Cantor and Mises. And was successfully transformed into the mathematical equivalent of pseudoscience by the statisticians, Keynes, and the post-keynesians. And also Into a century of analytic philosophy indistinguishable from psychology. But worse, by relying upon new media of magazines, radio and television, to propagate postmodern propaganda, thereby repeating the technological revolution that the printing press had provided to the enlightenment era thinkers.

Empiricism is a strange term for the art of truth telling – correspondence with reality. But science is the discipline of truth telling. And everything else appears to be the discipline of coercion or deceit.

3 mins · Like

Curt Doolittle The reason we find Kant appealing, is that he tries to find a means by which we can justify our Christian and indo-european ethics, in rational terms.

But it is merely a deceit. An elaborate deceit. Like religion, a comforting deceit. Because truth is not authoritarian or justificationary in origin, but critical.

That said, I am criticizing his method not his conclusions.

His conclusions and his purpose in constructing his authoritarian reasoning, were aristocratic – NOT LIBERAL

(in the contemporary sense of the word)