The denigration of reason went into high gear with the notions that anything which was not in or was contradictory to the Bible was wrong, and that anything which was also in the Bible was redundant and therefore unnecessary, thus leading to the doctrine that all that was needed was the Bible, and so attempting to learn outside of simply reading the Bible was wrong. This predates Kant by more than a millennia.
Quibble: "The Yellow Wallpaper" is not about the oppression of women, no matter how much feminists say so. It's a critique of how physicians were treating borderline-neurotic cases at the time, written by a woman who was darn near driven crazy by them. And it's a wonderfully creepy story, to boot. I refuse to allow the feminists to co-opt it.
Well, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance.
Let us assume I have not read either of those books. What about them is anti-reason?
From a personal philosophy point of view, something that really shouldn't be touched upon before the mid-teenage years, Kant is perfectly fine. However the idiot who decided to try and apply it's maxims to structured learning should have been shot before they did so. While individuals can function under a Kantian philosophy, society cannot.
Kant in essence said that if a thing cannot be proved or disproved absolutely then one could in essentially take any given position without appeal to reason and logic.
I'm more of a fan of John Locke and his theory of the rights of man, with governments deriving their powers through the consent of the governed, and property rights being central to civilization.
Kant was one of my favorite philosophers while I was in high school. The notion of moral relativism is a good match for a high school intellect. Too bad too many people never grow beyond an immature sense of right and wrong.
The denigration of reason went into high gear with the notions that anything which was not in or was contradictory to the Bible was wrong...
No doubt some people followed this doctrine, but I don't think you can make the case that this was widespread. Popes from centuries ago are on record saying that where the Bible clashes with well-established fact, it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault. Then you have the legacy of biblical ideas spread through Christianity, which led to such rational endeavors as the development of modern science, not to mention that most of the greatest scientists were devoted Christians.
--
The only thing I remember about Kant was that line from the Philosopher's Song: "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable..."
"moral relativism is a good match for a high school intellect" -- precisely because it justifies and buttresses the tenuous, foundering, social position of that same high-school intellect.
"No doubt some people followed this doctrine, but I don't think you can make the case that this was widespread."
This notion has been widespread for centures, and is so even today, although, and fortunately, it is not spread thickly. You can make the case that it never was spread thickly, but I can make the case that it was spread effectively. What made it effective was not how many people followed it, but who followed it and what power they had to enforce it on others. As I've related elsewhen, Sarah, the attempts by others to convince me to accept this doctrine is what opened my mind, at a young age, to the silliness of religion.
I would argue that attempting to discover the origin of attacks on reason is like attempting to discover the origin of murder or theft. Reason exchanges intellectual and emotional comfort for hard work and cold truths: its only attraction is that it's correct.
As for blaming women, after I finish rolling my eyes I have to point out that it IS partly true, but not because there's anything uniquely feminine about emotionalism over reason. (Last I checked, the Romantics were all men.) When the suffragettes and women in general got the vote and began to gain respect enough to gain admission into academic circles, that generation of higher-class women had been educated along the lines of sharp Victorian separation of the sexes- in other words, UTTERLY differently from men of their generation, along Victorian ideals of what is pleasingly feminine... which did not include logic or any of the "masculine" virtues of sacrifice and honor. We know what happens to male children that don't have this careful socialization and education- why should we have expected differently of the girls? (Because we had convinced ourselves that women are NATURALLY gentle, delicate, and stupid, of course- which was why they had no rights.)
A generation of half the human race that had never been given any of the education or values-drilling needed for life outside the home then proceeded to penetrate and then dominate teaching as a profession...
I have a behemoth of an essay rattling around in my brain about all this. However, I can't seem to finish sewing it together so I can animate it. I call it "Frankenstein". *sigh*
Oh, speaking of those Romantic bastards, check out Rousseau's thoughts on the education of women. That was one of his ideas that was very much in keeping with his time. Ask yourself what effect that kind of education and socialization would have on a mind...
The assault on reason is simply a tool, no more, no less.
It serves those who champion ideas that reason would weigh and find wanting.
And besides, it's just not ~fair~ that weaker ideas should be eliminated from further consideration. Weak ideas have a right to compete with strong ideas on equal terms. ;)
Kevin: Sadly, don't hold your breath. Frankenstein's been taking up space in the lab for months, a collection of ideas that I know are connected but refuse to cheerfully knit themselves together the way they usually do.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table...
I am away from my library, which contains what materials I have pertaining to the philosophy-of-science wars of the late 20th Century. At the risk of oversimplifying, the constructivists and relativists trace back to Kant and Hegel. Me? I'm a scientific realist, tracing to Locke.
"masculine goal-oriented thinking that in a rapacious manner eliminates weaker ideas" - Yay! Go TEAM! Blam! Blam! Blam! *Rat-tat-Tattat!!*
If weaker ideas can survive a life lived entirely on intellectually vegetative support, then let them - they are the successful Breatharians.
There's always a couple of weirdo go-nowhere mutations spazzing out in some shallow and tepid end of the Gene-pool, with gooey tendrils probing and testing outside the pool-walls to see if it's at all habitable. Sometimes they get eaten by wild animals - or harvested for biofuel.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/07/weaker-ideas.html (26 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The denigration of reason went into high gear with the notions that anything which was not in or was contradictory to the Bible was wrong, and that anything which was also in the Bible was redundant and therefore unnecessary, thus leading to the doctrine that all that was needed was the Bible, and so attempting to learn outside of simply reading the Bible was wrong. This predates Kant by more than a millennia.
Yes, but I believe we're discussing post-renaissance philosophy, and Kant is the most influential of that period.
How was Kant anti-reason?
"Yes, but I believe we're discussing post-renaissance philosophy, ..."
I wasn't, as reason itself began long before then. But, your point is well taken.
"... and Kant is the most influential of that period."
I wouldn't know. I read some of his work long ago, and found it too turgid for words, if you'll pardon the pun.
How was Kant anti-reason?
Well, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance.
Quibble: "The Yellow Wallpaper" is not about the oppression of women, no matter how much feminists say so. It's a critique of how physicians were treating borderline-neurotic cases at the time, written by a woman who was darn near driven crazy by them. And it's a wonderfully creepy story, to boot. I refuse to allow the feminists to co-opt it.
Well, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance.
Let us assume I have not read either of those books. What about them is anti-reason?
From a personal philosophy point of view, something that really shouldn't be touched upon before the mid-teenage years, Kant is perfectly fine. However the idiot who decided to try and apply it's maxims to structured learning should have been shot before they did so. While individuals can function under a Kantian philosophy, society cannot.
Kant in essence said that if a thing cannot be proved or disproved absolutely then one could in essentially take any given position without appeal to reason and logic.
I'm more of a fan of John Locke and his theory of the rights of man, with governments deriving their powers through the consent of the governed, and property rights being central to civilization.
ravenshrike makes and excellent point.
Kant was one of my favorite philosophers while I was in high school. The notion of moral relativism is a good match for a high school intellect. Too bad too many people never grow beyond an immature sense of right and wrong.
The denigration of reason went into high gear with the notions that anything which was not in or was contradictory to the Bible was wrong...
No doubt some people followed this doctrine, but I don't think you can make the case that this was widespread. Popes from centuries ago are on record saying that where the Bible clashes with well-established fact, it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault. Then you have the legacy of biblical ideas spread through Christianity, which led to such rational endeavors as the development of modern science, not to mention that most of the greatest scientists were devoted Christians.
--
The only thing I remember about Kant was that line from the Philosopher's Song: "Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable..."
"moral relativism is a good match for a high school intellect" -- precisely because it justifies and buttresses the tenuous, foundering, social position of that same high-school intellect.
"No doubt some people followed this doctrine, but I don't think you can make the case that this was widespread."
This notion has been widespread for centures, and is so even today, although, and fortunately, it is not spread thickly. You can make the case that it never was spread thickly, but I can make the case that it was spread effectively. What made it effective was not how many people followed it, but who followed it and what power they had to enforce it on others. As I've related elsewhen, Sarah, the attempts by others to convince me to accept this doctrine is what opened my mind, at a young age, to the silliness of religion.
I would argue that attempting to discover the origin of attacks on reason is like attempting to discover the origin of murder or theft. Reason exchanges intellectual and emotional comfort for hard work and cold truths: its only attraction is that it's correct.
As for blaming women, after I finish rolling my eyes I have to point out that it IS partly true, but not because there's anything uniquely feminine about emotionalism over reason. (Last I checked, the Romantics were all men.) When the suffragettes and women in general got the vote and began to gain respect enough to gain admission into academic circles, that generation of higher-class women had been educated along the lines of sharp Victorian separation of the sexes- in other words, UTTERLY differently from men of their generation, along Victorian ideals of what is pleasingly feminine... which did not include logic or any of the "masculine" virtues of sacrifice and honor. We know what happens to male children that don't have this careful socialization and education- why should we have expected differently of the girls? (Because we had convinced ourselves that women are NATURALLY gentle, delicate, and stupid, of course- which was why they had no rights.)
A generation of half the human race that had never been given any of the education or values-drilling needed for life outside the home then proceeded to penetrate and then dominate teaching as a profession...
I have a behemoth of an essay rattling around in my brain about all this. However, I can't seem to finish sewing it together so I can animate it. I call it "Frankenstein". *sigh*
Oh, speaking of those Romantic bastards, check out Rousseau's thoughts on the education of women. That was one of his ideas that was very much in keeping with his time. Ask yourself what effect that kind of education and socialization would have on a mind...
I look forward to your überpost!
The assault on reason is simply a tool, no more, no less.
It serves those who champion ideas that reason would weigh and find wanting.
And besides, it's just not ~fair~ that weaker ideas should be eliminated from further consideration. Weak ideas have a right to compete with strong ideas on equal terms. ;)
Durnit, I overwrote my wink.
;)
No, winks are being eaten. semi colon right parens just aren't making it through. ;)
OK, who killed the emoticons?
Haloscan's been wonky lately.
...and property rights being central to civilization.
Yeah, I just finished admixing some of my labor on my property. [Which is one of the weakest points of Locke's otherwise fine thinking.]
"The assault on reason is simply a tool, no more, no less."
Yup, it's a means to an end, and, methinks, always has been. No emoticons are needed.
Kevin: Sadly, don't hold your breath. Frankenstein's been taking up space in the lab for months, a collection of ideas that I know are connected but refuse to cheerfully knit themselves together the way they usually do.
I know the feeling. The George Orwell Daycare Center post started back in MARCH.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table...
I am away from my library, which contains what materials I have pertaining to the philosophy-of-science wars of the late 20th Century. At the risk of oversimplifying, the constructivists and relativists trace back to Kant and Hegel. Me? I'm a scientific realist, tracing to Locke.
"masculine goal-oriented thinking that in a rapacious manner eliminates weaker ideas" - Yay! Go TEAM! Blam! Blam! Blam! *Rat-tat-Tattat!!*
If weaker ideas can survive a life lived entirely on intellectually vegetative support, then let them - they are the successful Breatharians.
There's always a couple of weirdo go-nowhere mutations spazzing out in some shallow and tepid end of the Gene-pool, with gooey tendrils probing and testing outside the pool-walls to see if it's at all habitable. Sometimes they get eaten by wild animals - or harvested for biofuel.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>