Metaphysics/according to Kant
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 10th, 2008, 5:23 pm
Metaphysics/according to Kant
[Moderation note: Email address removed.]
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Thanks,
Scott
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 10th, 2008, 5:23 pm
Causal Argument for ...
I wish I could post the paper but even at 20 pages, I think it's a bit too long. So the summary:
Immanuel Kant's first antinomy is as follows (my interpretation):
Thesis: The world is as to time and space, finite,
Antithesis: The world is as to time and space, infinite.
The thesis has it that the universe has not always existed. This coincides with Big Bang cosmology, tracing the universe back to the Planck Time and prior to this a singularity (zero spacetime with infinite density).
The antithesis has it that the universe has always simply existed.
I favour the thesis, as it conincides with what cosmologists have discovered about the past history of the universe. Also Einstein's General Theory of Relativity equations necessitate an expanding universe (Einstein could have predicted the expanding universe by his own theory, but never did, because the idea seem unthinkable to him -he favoured a steadystate -unchanging- universe).
Kant asks his critical reader to lend his first antinomy his cheif attention, because it is the foremost obstacle towards the formulation of what he would call a science of metaphysics (grounded upon judgements of pure reason, alone -a priori, and self evident).
So let's tackle the first antinomy.
Kant also states that one cannot appeal to 'the magic wand of so-called common sense.' It doesn't apply in the formulation of mathematical theories and it doesn't apply here. This is just a caution for anyone who might make such an appeal.
The singularity, as a beginning point, itself defies common sensed thinking. It's what scares off astrophyscisists like Stephen Hawking, who avoids the singularity and begins his theories with some preliminary conditions of space and time and sometimes mass; but let's start with the singularity. Metaphysicians are not restricted in their thinking by numbers or empirical conditions. The singularity is the most logical starting point, but I'll propose the following: The singularity was not the 'ultimate' beginning of all things. It was preceded by a causal series (a series of cause and effect stages) in which space and time and mass as well as mind, emerged from supposedly nothing, to their present level of existence. The singularity with infinite density and zero spacetime, was preceded by this causal series, and it is this causal series alone that can adequately account for this singular condition from which our universe began.
The first state is not defined as nothing. The word 'nothing' has a common sensed dictionary definition, but we cannot think nothing. As soon as we think nothing, we are 'thinking something.'
The simplest state that I can bring myself to understand (negating the existence of the universe and all that is in it)is as follows:
A. The Absolute Voice that predated all things, and that exists as a universal, infinite, unconditional, absolute first state. This state has always existed and will always exist. Whatever comes into existence, is enclosed within this Absolute State.
If we think of this state, we then follow with:
B. The finite idea of A: which exists as a finite, conditional, state, internal to the Absolute (this is given as a zero conditon of spacetime, mass, and mind); or a state that most closely approximates the state of an absolute void.
The argument against this would be: Since we've negated the existence of all things, then we negate also B.
Counterargument: We could call the above relation between these A and B representations, the 'simplest of all possible states.' It is not possible to conveive of a state more simple; hence, all this regressed back in time, are regressed only as far back as this ultimate beginning point. The argument that negating all things to their simplest possible state also negates B, does not follow. If A is given, then B must necessarily be given.
In other words: By virtue of the infinite, unchanging, Absolute state A, B must inevitably follow, however infinitesimally.
B can also be proposed as an effect, and A, the Cause of B. B however, must be defined further. This is but the beginning of the Causal Argument.
I will end this post here; but I can explain a logical causal series that follows from this starting point. The causal series accounts for the origin of spacetime, mass, and mind. Anyone interested in following up please post a comment on the above.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 10th, 2008, 5:23 pm
The point of the Causal Argument is ...
The "Causal Argument" is a system of a priori reasoning, in line with Kant's critical demands for what he calls a science of metaphysics.
There are four principles, which explain how space time mass and mind emerged from the first state defined above: Which is not nothing. Hegel had something to say in this in his 'Science of Logic,' and it agrees with the beginning proposed in the above. The question is: How did space, time, and mass, emerge into existence? There is a logical process that can be explained, by means of pure reason. The solution goes beyond physics -the laws of which break down at the Planck time. The above is the pure philosophical equivalent of a mathematical theory. The question you have to ask yourself is: How do things progress from the beginning proposed above? I can provide the principles. The pure a priori principle that follows from the above I call 'the Causal Principle,' the next is 'the Principle of Divergence' the next, 'the Principle of Equal Relation,' and the last, 'the Principle of Progressive Design.' These principles together constitute what Kant would call 'a synthetic cognition a priori.' Just what Kant claims metaphysicians have never been able to provide or demonstrate -hence, Kant held that metaphysics itself did not exist. The "Causal Argument" that he was looking for, now does exist. I can post the next principle if anyone cares to know what it is. The whole synthetic cognition a priori, is a system of reasoning that explains how a finite universe such as ours, can come into being.
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 10th, 2008, 5:23 pm
More on the a priori principles
It is not a coincidence that Kant wrote about the possibility of such an a priori explanation over two centuries ago. He was this far ahead of his time in his thinking. The Causal Argument I've formulated, could easily be thought out by anyone. It's 'universally and objectively valid,' and as Kant himself demands: It is not determined arbitrarily.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023