I am almost through the introduction. Post coming, but not in the next two weeks, because I have a conference.
Thank you, British Academy
4 weeks ago
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The trouble
It is easy to see the trouble one has reading Kant for the first time when the following passage is regarded as constituting an introduction,
"Kant holds that we do not know our noumenal selves by any act of rational intuition (light of nature). For Kant, pure apperception is an act of spontaneity and as such is different from sensibility, which is a passive receptivity for sensible intuitions. The self for Kant becomes aware of itself and gains knowledge of itself only by bringing to self-consciousness (through a transcendental act of synthesis) the manifold intuitions provided by sensibility. Accordingly, the self knows itself only as an appearance (phenomenon)."
This is an introduction to the Prolegomena, which makes it an introduction to an introduction, and yet the writer still seems unaware that he is using at least nine words in one paragraph in a specialized manner.
"Kant holds that we do not know our noumenal selves by any act of rational intuition (light of nature). For Kant, pure apperception is an act of spontaneity and as such is different from sensibility, which is a passive receptivity for sensible intuitions. The self for Kant becomes aware of itself and gains knowledge of itself only by bringing to self-consciousness (through a transcendental act of synthesis) the manifold intuitions provided by sensibility. Accordingly, the self knows itself only as an appearance (phenomenon)."
This is an introduction to the Prolegomena, which makes it an introduction to an introduction, and yet the writer still seems unaware that he is using at least nine words in one paragraph in a specialized manner.
Monday, June 25, 2012
A critical journey
Now for my New Year's resolution: I am going to read the Critique of Pure Reason.
(Which translation? A Kant scholar told me, "Kemp Smith all the way.")
For help I have enlisted Gardner's Routledge guide.
I will post once per chapter.
(Which translation? A Kant scholar told me, "Kemp Smith all the way.")
For help I have enlisted Gardner's Routledge guide.
I will post once per chapter.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Notice: the following text and associated context are approximations
Reader,
The following blog entry is notice that the blog you are reading is at best an approximation to the truth.
Therefore the conditions of this blog impose on readers the usual antideconstructivist responsibilities.
The Wartburg Convention Protocols for the Reception of Persuasive Text is binding on readers within this jurisdiction. It requires that any reader aware that he is receiving an approximation to the truth in textual format participate in the construction of the blog's thought in the three aspects:
The following blog entry is notice that the blog you are reading is at best an approximation to the truth.
Therefore the conditions of this blog impose on readers the usual antideconstructivist responsibilities.
The Wartburg Convention Protocols for the Reception of Persuasive Text is binding on readers within this jurisdiction. It requires that any reader aware that he is receiving an approximation to the truth in textual format participate in the construction of the blog's thought in the three aspects:
- ACCURACY. When reading, keep in mind this blog's limiting nature as an approximation. Should you encounter a word that is a shade of meaning off, please replace the word mentally with one that is more accurate, and continue reading. The mental replacement will enhance your ability to learn.
- SPIRIT. Read the blog for its spirit and not for its literal meaning. If a blog entry contains a statement that seems out of spirit with the rest of the text, assume the author is of one mind and mentally modify the color of the statement to fit. Statements that are unnecessary or peripheral to the blog's spirit should be regarded as not having been written.
- SUFFICIENT REASON. Moreover, should the blog in the course of its reasoning use an assumption that is insufficient to the conclusion, replace the assumption with the weakest common refinement assumption (the "meet" assumption) that is still sufficient to the conclusion. The reader is responsible for assuming the text is essentially correct. Again, exercise of the antideconstructivist responsibilities will maximize the profit that can be gained from a text.
The Wartburg protocols can in certain cases result in much or even all of the blog's verbiage being replaced in the mind with different language in order to preserve its self-consistency or to preserve the assumption that the author is of one integrated mind and personality. It is a heavy cost to pay, but failure to apply the Wartburg protocols results in literalism, deconstruction and hence a loss of meaning.
As should be apparent, the reader must identify the meaning and spirit of the blog's conclusions before performing any of the necessary mental replacements. Otherwise the reader cannot identify which replacements to make. The Wartburg conventions acknowledge that any persuasive text underdetermines which conclusion it advocates in the universe of conclusions, so context must be used to narrow down the list of possible conclusions that the blog might be advocating.
However, no amount of context is sufficient to identify the meaning of any text. Lacking other tools the reader must make recourse to what he already knows to be true to the text in order to correct errors it makes due to its nature as an approximation.
Because the reader must participate in the construction of both text and context, before reading anything the reader must first choose what every text concludes.
As should be apparent, the reader must identify the meaning and spirit of the blog's conclusions before performing any of the necessary mental replacements. Otherwise the reader cannot identify which replacements to make. The Wartburg conventions acknowledge that any persuasive text underdetermines which conclusion it advocates in the universe of conclusions, so context must be used to narrow down the list of possible conclusions that the blog might be advocating.
However, no amount of context is sufficient to identify the meaning of any text. Lacking other tools the reader must make recourse to what he already knows to be true to the text in order to correct errors it makes due to its nature as an approximation.
Because the reader must participate in the construction of both text and context, before reading anything the reader must first choose what every text concludes.
No reader may lawfully receive a persuasive text in this jurisdiction until he has chosen what he desires to be true and to be advocated by the text.
(While this blog is in general an approximation to the truth, this blog entry is not to be regarded as an approximation and may safely be taken literally.)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A reflection on Tertullian
So many people have learned so much from Tertullian, even despite his eventual capitulation to an early heresy. So many people also regard him as the foremost representative of the irrational and the fideist in Christianity. It is easy to see him in bad light, but suppose we give him the benefit of the doubt, just for a moment.
When a great writer such as Tertullian writes something patently absurd, I can think of just two explanations:
1: The "great" thinker is not so great.
2: The great thinker is exploiting paradox or hyperbole for rhetorical purposes.
Consider that Tertullian may be doing something profound with language.
We can certainly say he did not try to preserve an absolute philosophic consistency, sentence by sentence, as if he were practicing mathematics. Suppose furthermore that Tertullian wrote as he pleased, always in the moment, trading away a literal consistency with his past words for something he valued more: the dramatic potential of exaggeration. Nietzsche would agree. And as Adam Smith wrote, if a bow is bent one way it is necessary to bend it too much in the opposite way in order to make it straight. Could this be what Tertullian is doing?
The allegation that he is a fideist originates in two things. First, there is Tertullian's tendency to speak against the pretensions of the philosophers. For example, he excoriates Greek philosophy. Yet he quotes Aristotle often and relies on Aristotelian distinctions. Tertullian was well-read and uses rational argumentation despite his stated disavowal of Greek rationalism. What is going on here? Perhaps it is that someone who understands Greek philosophy very deeply can also understand its limitations. Or, if you are not willing to give up philosophy, consider this: Even if the flight of the intellect is unlimited, as Platonists believe, one may still excoriate Greek philosophy for how commonly it is abused. Greek philosophers were fond of proposing grand and rather silly systems—all is earth, all is water, all is change, etc. Given how well read and how indebted to philosophy Tertullian was, he was aware of these abuses.
Second the claim he is a fideist also originates from his quotation that Christianity "is to be believed because it is absurd." I find the phrase interesting to contemplate because of how absurd it is itself! It proposes we are to believe things that are absurd, that is, unbelievable. This phrase is itself absurd. So there is no contradiction in taking its advice! But due to its self-consistency, could it also be reasonable? Take as an assumption... this is a big one. But take as an assumption that a mind left to its own devices, without the light of the divine Logos, will fall inevitably into despair and madness. Perhaps it is a big assumption but it has precedence, for it is what Nietzsche predicts. Since the mind left by itself will ultimately produce nothing good, in order to identify what is good we ought therefore to believe the opposite of what it thinks of—namely what is absurd! I think Tertullian is providing us a more interesting "food for thought" than some of our contemporary theologians. If you read him thusly, namely if you see him as someone who was well-educated in philosophy, but someone who has lost faith in it and therefore tests its limits at the margins of language, you might see him here not as claiming we should believe what is absurd but rather trying to awaken us from our dogmatic rational slumber through irony and overstatement.
When a great writer such as Tertullian writes something patently absurd, I can think of just two explanations:
1: The "great" thinker is not so great.
2: The great thinker is exploiting paradox or hyperbole for rhetorical purposes.
Consider that Tertullian may be doing something profound with language.
We can certainly say he did not try to preserve an absolute philosophic consistency, sentence by sentence, as if he were practicing mathematics. Suppose furthermore that Tertullian wrote as he pleased, always in the moment, trading away a literal consistency with his past words for something he valued more: the dramatic potential of exaggeration. Nietzsche would agree. And as Adam Smith wrote, if a bow is bent one way it is necessary to bend it too much in the opposite way in order to make it straight. Could this be what Tertullian is doing?
The allegation that he is a fideist originates in two things. First, there is Tertullian's tendency to speak against the pretensions of the philosophers. For example, he excoriates Greek philosophy. Yet he quotes Aristotle often and relies on Aristotelian distinctions. Tertullian was well-read and uses rational argumentation despite his stated disavowal of Greek rationalism. What is going on here? Perhaps it is that someone who understands Greek philosophy very deeply can also understand its limitations. Or, if you are not willing to give up philosophy, consider this: Even if the flight of the intellect is unlimited, as Platonists believe, one may still excoriate Greek philosophy for how commonly it is abused. Greek philosophers were fond of proposing grand and rather silly systems—all is earth, all is water, all is change, etc. Given how well read and how indebted to philosophy Tertullian was, he was aware of these abuses.
Second the claim he is a fideist also originates from his quotation that Christianity "is to be believed because it is absurd." I find the phrase interesting to contemplate because of how absurd it is itself! It proposes we are to believe things that are absurd, that is, unbelievable. This phrase is itself absurd. So there is no contradiction in taking its advice! But due to its self-consistency, could it also be reasonable? Take as an assumption... this is a big one. But take as an assumption that a mind left to its own devices, without the light of the divine Logos, will fall inevitably into despair and madness. Perhaps it is a big assumption but it has precedence, for it is what Nietzsche predicts. Since the mind left by itself will ultimately produce nothing good, in order to identify what is good we ought therefore to believe the opposite of what it thinks of—namely what is absurd! I think Tertullian is providing us a more interesting "food for thought" than some of our contemporary theologians. If you read him thusly, namely if you see him as someone who was well-educated in philosophy, but someone who has lost faith in it and therefore tests its limits at the margins of language, you might see him here not as claiming we should believe what is absurd but rather trying to awaken us from our dogmatic rational slumber through irony and overstatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
