Kant's philosophy ends in meaninglessness Options

[nightrover]

Kants "critgue of pure reason" is an example of deans claim that all views end in meaninglessness
the CPR is an example of a philosophy ending in in meaninglessness- as deans says all philosophies do
kant said that hume woke him from his dogmatic slumber to write the CPR but kant was asleep all the time he never woke up
his transcendental idealism is refuted both by the fact of the universe is based on non-eclidian gemoetry and not eclidian as kant says his CPR argued
also his categories are not a product of pure reason but are socially constructed
also his whole CPR is

also his CPR is inconsistent and inchoerent thus meaninglessness -as dean says all philosphy is

The central question Kant tries to answer in the 'Critique of Pure Reason' is "How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?" Nowell-Smith argues that the question is "...one of the most important and difficult in philosophy" With the work of W.V.O.Quine namely his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" the distinction between synthetic as analytic knowledge has been thrown into doubt . This doubt, as Nowell-Smith notes, has led to recent discussion on the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge . Norman Kemp-Smith argues that Kant assumed as a presupposition that synthetic a priori knowledge was possible and he sought to show how as a consequence synthetic a priori judgements where possible? As R Walker points out Kant’s solution was two fold [even though Kant didn't see that each solution was a separate attempted proof], namely his transcendental idealism and his transcendental arguments . Now as the presupposition for these proofs is the accepted validity of synthetic a priori knowledge then if this knowledge is proven to be non-existent then these proofs of Kant become redundant.

Strawson investigating Kant’s attempted account of synthetic a priori judgements via his transcendental idealism notes that this transcendental idealism is incoherent and as such "...it must be concluded that Kant really has no clear and general conception of the synthetic a priori at all." This is because Strawson claims that Kant transcendental idealism undermines Kant’s claims that he can have knowledge of reality because transcendental idealism means, according to Strawson, that “ reality is supersensible and that we can have no knowledge of it.�

If we at first focus upon Kant’s classification of propositions without looking at the individual definitions we will see that this classification leads itself to the fact that synthetic a priori propositions are a contradiction in terms. On this point it should be pointed out as Korner notes that the Kantian classification has been criticised by some critics: some seeing in the classification "...a mistake which vitiates the whole critical philosophy. "According to Kant all judgements are either analytic or synthetic and no judgement can be both; this is because these judgement are infact contradictories

According to Kant all judgements are either analytic or synthetic and no judgement can be both; this is because these judgement are infact contradictories . Korner makes the point that all analytic judgments are a priori . Now the question is are all a priori judgements analytic. If they are then in terms of Kant's own definitions a judgment cannot be synthetic a priori as this would mean that it is both synthetic and analytic simultaneously; a situation Kant denies can happen. Now based upon Kant’s explication of these terms the answer must be that all a prioris are anaylitic.. According to Kant judgements which are not a priori are a posteriori and thus synthetic ( non-analytic). Korner likewise notes “...all [judgements] that are a posteriori ( non a priori ) are necessarily synthetic (non analytic).� Thus because a posteriori judgements are synthetic then a priori judgements must be analytic because as Kant notes a judgement can only be one or the other. Consequently a synthetic a priori judgement is really a synthetic analytic judgement a situation as we have said Kant denies can happen

.

kant is still asleep as witgenstien is like his fly still trapped in his bottle

Kant like all philosophers/philosophy ends in meaninglessness as dean points out

[Lindsay]

Nightrover, you comment, "Kant like all philosophers/philosophy ends in meaninglessness as dean points out..."
Before I can say anything--meaningless, or meaningful--I need to know how you define 'meaninglessness', 'meaningfulness' and the like.

How do you...?

I will also need to know: Are you serious? Or are you playing a game?

[Flex]

Care to bullet point this? I am not too fond of lengthy posts (reading on the computer really strains my eyes).

Clearly you have some substantial backround in philosophy. Give us a very clear, point by point explanation of Dean's logical reasoning as to WHY all is meaningless and to the SIGNIFICANCE of this/Dean's solution.

It is easy enough to find a problem--creating a solution is what is tough; please enlighten us.

[nightrover]

I will also need to know: Are you serious? Or are you playing a game?

of course i am serious
meaninglessness = self-contradiction
kants philosophy is contradictory as my post points out-as other have said as well- and is thus ends in meaninglessness
dont just say dean is wrong if your think he is wrong
then point out what is wrong with the analysis of the CPR in ths post and by others
if you cant refute dean and the others
then dean stands vindicated by the god kant himself ending in meaninglessness or self-contradiction

Clearly you have some substantial backround in philosophy. Give us a very clear, point by point explanation of Dean's logical reasoning as to WHY all is meaningless and to the SIGNIFICANCE of this/Dean's solution.

i am not going to go over old ground -if you want to know then read the other threads i have pui up about deans claims

[Flex]

Well that was sort of my point, your other posts never explain anything. Anyone can say everything is meaningless. It is beyond language. How could my life possibly have meaning in a Univers that is so vast. What does Dean contribute to society or the individual? I argue nothing, thus his philosophy is meaningless. I find things to have meaning in as much as they have some practical application; even if the application is meaningless. Love is meaningless, but I still get pleasure from it. Pleasure is meaningless but I still prefer pleasure over pain.

[Ignorance Is Eternal]

Well that was sort of my point, your other posts never explain anything. Anyone can say everything is meaningless. It is beyond language. How could my life possibly have meaning in a Univers that is so vast. What does Dean contribute to society or the individual? I argue nothing, thus his philosophy is meaningless. I find things to have meaning in as much as they have some practical application; even if the application is meaningless. Love is meaningless, but I still get pleasure from it. Pleasure is meaningless but I still prefer pleasure over pain.

Good thinking, Flex. In my opinion, with life comes meaning. Life subjects everything to a judgement of "meaning." Because reality is filtered through the experience of a lifeform, that lifeform can grant anything any level of meaning. From my vantage point, there is no objective meaning.

[nightrover]

Colin leslie dean claims all philosophy ends in meaninglessness i.e self contradiction. As an example of this claim
dean has shown just how wittgenstiens philosophy ends in meaninglessness - and thus is an example of his claim that al philosphy ends in meaninglessness ie self contradiction

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books...entrismbook.pdf

"Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views"

To give two examples, Kripke and Priest point out that Wittgenstein’s argument entails a skepticism about meaning, namely that all language is meaningless. This places Wittgenstein in a self-contradiction. Wittgenstein writes a book, in a language game, in order to convey some meaning. If the meaning is that all language is meaningless, then the meaning has been conveyed. Thus all language is not meaningless in this particular language game. Priest, in his book Beyond the Limits of Thought, has pointed out these self-contradictions in Wittgenstein’s views. As he states “… none the less the point remains, the conclusion that results from the skeptical argument and that Wittgenstein wishes us to grasp, is beyond expression (Transcendence). Yet it is possible to express it; I have just done so and so does Kripke (Closure). Hence we have a contradiction at the limit of expression.� Wittgenstein is still inside the bottle the only way out for the fly is not via logic and language but by their complete demolition.

The Chinese scholar Hsueh-li Cheng, in his book on Madhyamika called Empty Logic, notes the self-contradiction in the notion of meaning as use. As he states:

“From Nagarjuna’s standpoint, the view that “ the meaning of a word is its use in language� really involves a contradiction or absurdity. Wittgenstein’s thesis indicates that the meaning of a word is “fixed� or “determined� by its particular use in the particular situation. This implies that each word has its own or particular use in the language and that that particular use is its meaning. But language, Nagarjuna might point out, is an organised system of signs where words are inter-related and hence are devoid of their own use. So, the thesis that the meaning of a word is its use in language would be to say that a word has its own use in an organised system of signs where every word is devoid of its own use. That is contradictory.�

[nightrover]

Good thinking, Flex. In my opinion, with life comes meaning. Life subjects everything to a judgement of "meaning." Because reality is filtered through the experience of a lifeform, that lifeform can grant anything any level of meaning. From my vantage point, there is no objective meaning.

nevertheless kant-and the rest of philosophy ends in self contradiction or meaninglessness
if you disagree then refute mine and others demonstration that kant ends in meaninglessness ie self contradiction

[nightrover]

Colin leslie dean claims all views end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction

as an example of his claim he shows that even mathematics ends in meaninglessness

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books...rationality.pdf

"Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples"

In the so called most rational of endeavors mathematics, absurdity or paradox and self-contradiction goes right to the heart of it. In 1930 the mathematician Hilbert began a program to prove that mathematics was consistent. With the discovery of such mathematical paradoxes as the Burli-Forti paradox, Russell’s paradox, Cantor’s paradox and Skolem’s paradox by early 1930’s as Bunch notes, Hilbert’s program did not succeed such that “disagreement about how to eliminate contradictions were replaced by discussions of how to live with contradictions in mathematics." Attempts to avoid the paradoxes led to other paradoxical notions but most mathematicians rejected these notions. Thus the present situation is that mathematics cannot be formulated, except in axiomatic theory, without contradictions without the loss of useful results. With regard to axiomatic theory, this cannot be proven to be consistent with the result that paradoxes can occur at any time. As Bunch states:

“None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].�

[nightrover]

Colin leslie dean claims all views end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction

as an example of his claim he shows that even science ends in meaninglessness

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books...rationality.pdf

"Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples"

they collapse into absurdity i.e. are self-contradictory or paradoxical such as those in quantum mechanics- just as there is in mathematics. Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.�

In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical� and “complementarity�, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.�
Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.�

[Flex]

And the significance of Dean's work? I see none. Maybe this is why no one studies Dean It is not to say that Dean is wrong, it is just to say that Dean contributes nothing. Obviously you cannot disprove someone who has said that his own philosophy is meaningless--he already disproved himself...

[trojan_libido]

I've never seen anyone so passionate about a subject which has no meaning. That passion is nightrovers self-contradiction, because its his own subjective meaning that gives his posting meaning, but the posting is about meaningless thought. Is this some kind of long winded super-parody of philosophy or something? Either way, its cool, I've taken deans views on board but dumped the meaning from them and just carressed his usage of the alphabet.

Seriously nightrover, get some professional help on this, you sound like you may be having difficulties assimilating his philosophy.

[Lindsay]

of course i am serious
meaninglessness = self-contradiction

NR, what do you MEAN: Do you mean that Kant contradicts himself? If so, in what way?

kants philosophy is contradictory as my post points out-as other have said as well- and is thus ends in meaninglessness

BTW, I make no claim that I clearly understand Kant's writings.

However, I do like Kant's idea that the starry universe (i.e., the cosmos?) beyond us, and the moral universe within most human beings are self-evident evidence for GØD/God, as I understand the concept. I suspect that Kant was a panentheist/unitheist, long before the words were coined.

NR, are you an atheist? Or agnostic?
If so, how do you deal with self-evident evidence?

Since you offer this quote: "Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples" Sounds absurd to me, but I assume you think of it as meaningful and true, right?

[nightrover]

NR, what do you MEAN: Do you mean that Kant contradicts himself? If so, in what way?

yes kant contradicts himself and thus is meaningless
GEE go read the quotes in the post and you will see mine and horners and others examples

[Ignorance Is Eternal]

NR, what do you MEAN: Do you mean that Kant contradicts himself? If so, in what way?

yes kant contradicts himself and thus is meaningless
GEE go read the quotes in the post and you will see mine and horners and others examples

Night Rover, do you see what you're doing? You are answering questions like "What do you mean?" with divertive deflections. This shows strong evidence that you cannot answer any of these questions without a direct citation of Dean's work. Thus, you do not truly understand why any of the philosophies that you are so vehemently debunking are meaningless. This renders your meaningless spam about meaninglessness absurdly hollow and superficial. Ain't spam against the forum rules?

[nightrover]

Night Rover, do you see what you're doing? You are answering questions like "What do you mean?" with divertive deflections. This shows strong evidence that you cannot answer any of these questions without a direct citation of Dean's work. Thus, you do not truly understand why any of the philosophies that you are so vehemently debunking are meaningless. This renders your meaningless spam about meaninglessness absurdly hollow and superficial. Ain't spam against the forum rules?

hey go read my other threads i am not going to go over old ground each time i givevan example of meaninglessnes
i showed
witt
kant
solipsism
maths
science
end in meaninglessness
and no one has tryed to refute my examples
if you cant refute them
then dont say dean is wrong -and calling spam
by just saying dean is wrong with out any attempt at rebuting his eaxample show that you are coming from ideology and a psychological adversion to his views and not reasoned argument

[Ignorance Is Eternal]

hey go read my other threads i am not going to go over old ground each time i givevan example of meaninglessnes
i showed
witt
kant
solipsism
maths
science
end in meaninglessness
and no one has tryed to refute my examples
if you cant refute them
then dont say dean is wrong

Without using a quote from His Majesty C.L. Dean, clearly and comprehensively tell us why any in particular one of those topics end in meaningless. Since we are under the topic of Kant, critique Kant's philosophy and show his self-contradiction with examples of his own beliefs and why they clash. Then, we might get somewhere.

[nightrover]

Without using a quote from His Majesty C.L. Dean, clearly and comprehensively tell us why any in particular one of those topics end in meaningless. Since we are under the topic of Kant, critique Kant's philosophy and show his self-contradiction with examples of his own beliefs and why they clash. Then, we might get somewhere.

the examples of contradiction are there for you to see in each of my threads
go read them if you want to see them
but i am not going to repost them because you dont want to read the threads -if you have read them but cant see the contradictions then reposting them want help you

[Flex]

Different philosophers views do not express all philosophical possabilities. There are an endless number of philisophical hypotheses, you must prove that ALL hypotheses end in meaninglessness; this cannot be done by refuting one philosopher such as Kant. Math and science are branches of philosophy--by disproving math or science, you still do not disprove all philisophical possabilities.

The only way for you to prove anything is meaningless is to disprove the root of all our reason--logic. Disprove logic, and you have disproved that OUR logical system is flawd, NOT that everything ends in contradiction and always will. If you can disprove our logical system, then you must propose some replacement system which corrects these errors--if not DEAN'S WORKS ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

If you want to find the answer as to how to disprove all philisophical hypotheses, I suggest you take another look at Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.

[nightrover]

The only way for you to prove anything is meaningless is to disprove the root of all our reason--logic. Disprove logic, and you have disproved that OUR logical system is flawd, NOT that everything ends in contradiction and always will. If you can disprove our logical system, then you must propose some replacement system which corrects these errors--if not DEAN'S WORKS ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

i have shown logic has 3 laws
identity
contradiction
the law of identity requires an essence
logic negates this essence but this is the very thing it needs to make the negation
thus logic proves it is illogical and by its own standards cant be an epistemic condition of truth
thus logic is disproved

with the negation of essence the law of contradiction cant operate thus every thing is possible thesis and its contradiction antithesis- therefore every argument will have its contradictory anti argument
with the negation of essence all your logic arguments and language are thus meaningless as with out an essence your logic and language cant operate
i have shown this in other threads and post-i will not go over old ground

[Lindsay]

NR, your recent posts have inspired me to look, elsewhere, for valuable and meaninglful knowledge, and wisdom. Thanks for the inspiration.

I would still like to know:

NR, are you an atheist? Or agnostic?
If so, how do you deal with self-evident evidence?

Since you offer this quote:"Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples" Sounds absurd to me, but I assume you think of it as meaningful and true, right?

[Flex]

How does logic negate the essence?

[lucid_dream]

nightrover, comment on the truth or falsity of the following sentence:
"This sentence is false"

If you say it's a contradiction, it's not. Ever consider that your logic is flawed?

[nightrover]

How does logic negate the essence?

go read some anti-essentialists

[nightrover]

This sentence is false"

tell me what a sentence is first
tel me the difference between a sentence and proposition
tell me what "this" means
tell me does this refer to it self or something else you left out- This sentence is false"
tel me what you mean by truth first
ie coherence
correspondeance
pragmatic
etc

[nightrover]

NR, are you an atheist? Or agnostic?
If so, how do you deal with self-evident evidence?

Since you offer this quote:"Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples" Sounds absurd to me, but I assume you think of it as meaningful and true, right?

this refers to a book- with examples to back up the title

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books...rationality.pdf
Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples"

are you an atheist? Or agnostic?


i will keep by belief to myself- cant be giving out personal info on the net can one

If so, how do you deal with self-evident evidence?

if you want truth -what ever it is
you must question ones axioms and the axioms of soietry

[lucid_dream]

This sentence is false"

tell me what a sentence is first
tel me the difference between a sentence and proposition
tell me what "this" means
tell me does this refer to it self or something else you left out- This sentence is false"
tel me what you mean by truth first
ie coherence
correspondeance
pragmatic
etc

all definitions and meanings have their basis in experience, or to be more precise, consciousness. Above, I was referring to logical truth.

[Joesus]

if you want truth -what ever it is
you must question ones axioms and the axioms of soietry

This would bring up the necessity of relegating anything said about Dean, Kant or anyone to suspicion rather than Truth, until one has through the experience of life awakened to their own supreme being.

i will keep by belief to myself- cant be giving out personal info on the net can one

You've already expressed your beliefs in your claims to Deans profile of universal law.

[lucid_dream]

kant said that hume woke him from his dogmatic slumber to write the CPR but kant was asleep all the time he never woke up
his transcendental idealism is refuted both by the fact of the universe is based on non-eclidian gemoetry and not eclidian as kant says his CPR argued
also his categories are not a product of pure reason but are socially constructed
also his whole CPR is

also his CPR is inconsistent and inchoerent thus meaninglessness

Sorry to break it to you but non-Euclidean geometry does not refute Kant's notion of synthetic a priori, it merely means that he made a mistake in its application, not that the principle itself is refuted. It's more a matter of personal belief. Some people believe in synthetic a priori, others don't because they believe everything is tied to experience (i.e, Hume). I doubt you've ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or else more substantive criticisms would be made instead of the one that almost everybody makes (i.e., non-Euclidean geometry proves Kant's synthetic a priori is wrong), and which is incorrect and which belies a shallow consideration of Kant's thought.

[nightrover]

Sorry to break it to you but non-Euclidean geometry does not refute Kant's notion of synthetic a priori, it merely means that he made a mistake in its application, not that the principle itself is refuted. It's more a matter of personal belief. Some people believe in synthetic a priori, others don't because they believe everything is tied to experience (i.e, Hume). I doubt you've ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or else more substantive criticisms would be made instead of the one that almost everybody makes (i.e., non-Euclidean geometry proves Kant's synthetic a priori is wrong), and which is incorrect and which belies a shallow consideration of Kant's thought.
go read my full post about korners and others clanm that kant is self contradictory- then comment with some reasoned rebuttal rather than just ohh dean is just wrong

he central question Kant tries to answer in the 'Critique of Pure Reason' is "How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?" Nowell-Smith argues that the question is "...one of the most important and difficult in philosophy" With the work of W.V.O.Quine namely his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" the distinction between synthetic as analytic knowledge has been thrown into doubt . This doubt, as Nowell-Smith notes, has led to recent discussion on the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge . Norman Kemp-Smith argues that Kant assumed as a presupposition that synthetic a priori knowledge was possible and he sought to show how as a consequence synthetic a priori judgements where possible? As R Walker points out Kant’s solution was two fold [even though Kant didn't see that each solution was a separate attempted proof], namely his transcendental idealism and his transcendental arguments . Now as the presupposition for these proofs is the accepted validity of synthetic a priori knowledge then if this knowledge is proven to be non-existent then these proofs of Kant become redundant.

Strawson investigating Kant’s attempted account of synthetic a priori judgements via his transcendental idealism notes that this transcendental idealism is incoherent and as such "...it must be concluded that Kant really has no clear and general conception of the synthetic a priori at all." This is because Strawson claims that Kant transcendental idealism undermines Kant’s claims that he can have knowledge of reality because transcendental idealism means, according to Strawson, that “ reality is supersensible and that we can have no knowledge of it.�

If we at first focus upon Kant’s classification of propositions without looking at the individual definitions we will see that this classification leads itself to the fact that synthetic a priori propositions are a contradiction in terms. On this point it should be pointed out as Korner notes that the Kantian classification has been criticised by some critics: some seeing in the classification "...a mistake which vitiates the whole critical philosophy. "According to Kant all judgements are either analytic or synthetic and no judgement can be both; this is because these judgement are infact contradictories

According to Kant all judgements are either analytic or synthetic and no judgement can be both; this is because these judgement are infact contradictories . Korner makes the point that all analytic judgments are a priori . Now the question is are all a priori judgements analytic. If they are then in terms of Kant's own definitions a judgment cannot be synthetic a priori as this would mean that it is both synthetic and analytic simultaneously; a situation Kant denies can happen. Now based upon Kant’s explication of these terms the answer must be that all a prioris are anaylitic.. According to Kant judgements which are not a priori are a posteriori and thus synthetic ( non-analytic). Korner likewise notes “...all [judgements] that are a posteriori ( non a priori ) are necessarily synthetic (non analytic).� Thus because a posteriori judgements are synthetic then a priori judgements must be analytic because as Kant notes a judgement can only be one or the other. Consequently a synthetic a priori judgement is really a synthetic analytic judgement a situation as we have said Kant denies can happen