[lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:11:07 -0230
Kant need not be shunted aside here. He had consistently taught that while
freedom is a transcendental presupposition of rational agency, we cannot prove
that we are free in empirical terms (or metaphysical ones either). The being
who cannot but act on the idea of freedom is for that very reason free for all
practical purposes. Morality for Kant is a practical matter, not a theoretical
one so the fact that our freedom remains metaphysically and empirically
unproved does not mean I will refrain from deciding whether to play table
tennis this afternoon, and simply try to predict what I will do as a result of
the play of external causes and forces determining my decision. Just as the
categorical imperative would not exist without such fallible beings as
Republicans, so would freedom be but a chimera independent of the
self-understanding we have of ourselves as deliberating and judging beings.
On the more general matter of "certainty," I believe Witters got it right. It
ain't an epistemic concept but a practical one. The "riverbed" or "hinge"
propositions making up our certainty are not accepted as "true" on the basis of
any evidence or reasoning. Our system of justification would fall apart if we
doubted in normal circyumstances such things as "This is my hand." Thus W
proclaimed, correctly I believe, that Moore knew nothing when he waved his
hand around in proof of his knowledge of the existence of an external world.
Having finally completed his paper on Kant, 3 days before the deadline date for
submission and is now celebrating accordingly ...
Walter O
MUN
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> Ultimately, we can only attribute free will after the fact and only
> after considering the context. But if I cannot be certain whether
> another person has made their choice according to a free will, without
> reference to a larger context, what makes me certain that I understand
> the choices I am making as I am making them?
>
> As a writer, this strikes me as unfair to the narrative.
>
> Place Kant's "starry heavens above and moral law within" off to the side
> somewhere. Rather than going down the path Phil suggests (Diogenes with
> lamp, this time asking people who he is), address, instead, the question
> of certainty.
>
> How much certainty would be required to understand the choices I or
> another person makes? Do we really need a God's-eye view of certainty?
> Do we need to stand outside the narrative of which we are a part in
> order to makes reasonable judgments and actions?
>
> Modal factionalism could generate unlimited worlds in which our choices
> are mysteries. For example, God could have created the universe five
> minutes ago, complete with our memories of our pasts and our cultural
> heritage, set up to pose choices to us now.
>
> And yet we act. If the past isn't an illusion, we used reason to
> generate an abstract mathematical understanding of the universe that
> took us to the moon and back. We respond to posts as if they had been
> written by entities distinct from us. We seem to have intentions.
>
> In my opinion the universe has enough uncertainty to maintain mystery
> and surprise, but not enough to paralyze us...because that would be
> unfair to the narrative.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2011.php
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
