Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry... Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer -- and Freud

1. Introduction

In this essay, we will explore the roots and the interconnections between the search for truth and accurate knowledge (epistemology), narcissism (human pleasure-seeking, power-seeking, money-seeking, egotism, etc.), and 'sophistry' (which we will define here as a deliberate act of epistemological, rhetorical, and/or ideological deception -- which in turn is usually connected to the deliberate hiding of one's own narcissistic agenda and more specific narcissistic activities.)

Obviously, it makes the study of epistemology -- the search for truth and accurate knowledge -- that much harder than it is already when one is facing significant opposition from those who may be purposely trying to hide the truth (including sometimes ourselves).

Let's now investigate some of the different roots and personal idiosyncrises that contribute to this 'all too human' core bi-polar conflict between our search for truth and accurate knowledge on the one hand vs. either our own wish and/or the wish of others to hide this same truth based usually on personal narcissistic interests on this matter (and therefore conflict of interest relative to the other bi-polarity of ethical integrity and congruence).

More often than not, based on my personal experience and observation-interpretation-evaluation of the world -- personal narcissism, and the illusion of truth, wins. (Yes, I can feel Schopenhauer turning over and smiling in his grave.)

However, as much as we live in a Schopenhauerian nightmare of a world in many, many respects, Schopenhaurian irrationalism and non-ethics is not all that the human race and human evolution -- both individually and collectively -- is about. As the school slogan says: Character matters.

Thus, the answer to the problem of human narcissism is not to give up on it -- and let it take over the human world; rather, human narcissism has to be recognized as an integral part of human nature and human behavior but a part that needs to constantly held in check under the principle of 'homeostatic balance'. Truth, integrity, and compassion for other people are not human ethical qualities that we can afford to give up on. The future of the world is at stake from matters of war vs. peace to matters of environmental pollution/warming vs. environmental restoration, to matters of family, community, civil, economic, and political stability vs. instability, chaos, and a 'survival of the fittest-Lord of The Flies' type existence.

Moving towards a philosophical position of homeostatic and dialectic-democratic balance is always the best policy vs. the alternative of either a narcisstic 'free-for-all' of chaos and civil disobedience, and/or the opposite righteous extreme of anti-narcissistic (religious) extremism. Indeed, any kind of existential extremism is dangerous which includes the later-in-his-career philosophy of one of my favorite philosophical mentors -- Friedrich Nietzsche.

........................................................

2. Roots of The Term 'Sophism' (From The Ancient Greek School of Philosophy) -- and Its Present-Day Meaning (Deception)

From Wikipedia on the internet...

Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.

The term sophism originated from Greek sophistes, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom (sophós means "wise man").

Sophists of Ancient Greece

The Greek words sophos or sophia had the meaning of "wise" or "wisdom" since the time of the poet Homer, and originally connoted anyone with expertise in a specific domain of knowledge or craft. Thus a charioteer, a sculptor, a warrior could be sophoi in their occupation. Gradually the word came to denote general wisdom and especially wisdom about human affairs (in, for example, politics, ethics, or household management). This was the term given to the Greek Seven Sages of 7th and 6th Century BCE (like Solon and Thales), and this was the meaning that appeared in the histories of Herodotus. At about the same time, the term sophistes was a synonym for "poet", and (by association with the traditional role of poets as the teachers of society) a synonym for one who teaches, in particular through the performance of prose works or speeches that impart practical knowledge. Richard Martin refers to the seven sages as "performers of political poetry."1

In the second half of the 5th century BCE, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue," speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, along with the sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger") and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. Their attacks against Socrates (in fictional prosecution speeches) prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.

Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of the sophists. Others include Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus.

In comparison, Socrates accepted no fee, instead adopting a self-effacing posture, which he exemplified by Socratic questioning (i.e. the Socratic method, although Diogenes Laertius wrote that Protagoras—a sophist—invented the “Socratic” method[1][2]). His attitude towards the Sophists was by no means oppositional; in one dialogue Socrates even stated that the Sophists were better educators than he was [3], which he validated by sending one of his students to study under a sophist.[4] W. K. C. Guthrie associated Socrates with the Sophists in his History of Greek Philosophy.[4]

Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues. These texts depict the sophists in an unflattering light, and it is unclear how accurate or fair Plato's representation of them may be; however, it is also suggested that such criticism was often ironic. Another contemporary, the comic playwright Aristophanes, criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, yet suggests that Socrates was one of their number.

Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism...

.....................................................

3. DGB Philosophy vs. Nietzsche


We have to remember that when we are studying another philosopher, whether we are reading one of the philosopher's actual works, and/or an interpretation of one or more of the philosopher's works by another author, we are still only receiving 'sound bites' -- or since what we are reading is generally on paper or on the internet, 'visual bites' -- and 'pieces' (accurate, distorted, or somewhere in between) of the philosopher's actual philosophy.

Furthermore, we have to allow for the fact that every philosopher is going through his or her own evolutionary process that could be early in his or her writing career, mid-way through it, or late in his or her career. Nietzsche, the philosopher who wrote 'The Birth of Tragedy' (his first work, 1872) was not in the same philosophical place or spirit as when he wrote 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (1883-1885) which Nietzsche himself (as well as probably most scholars today) view(ed) as his crowning philosophical masterpiece.

DGB Philosophy has more in common with 'The Birth of Tragedy' (the principle of homestatic balance, balancing opposite perspectives, ideas, feelings, impulses, lifestyles, philosophies etc., differential unity, the potential harmony of integrating/synthesizing opposites... a la Hegel) than it does with 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (existential extremism, the ethics of an immoralist, the philosophy of an unbridled, unmodified narcissist).

............................................

4. DGB Philosophy vs. Wittgenstein

To qualify my statements here, I am in the early phase of reading Wittgenstein, do not have anywhere close to a full knowledge of his philosophy, and in effect, I am 'deconstructing some of his visual bites' here that are not ringing a harmonious chord with DGB Philosophy.

Firstly, let's start with this Wittgenstein proposition that comes from 'Introducing Wittgenstein', by John Heaton, 2005.

Wittgenstein Proposition 1: 'The business of philosophy is critique.'

DGB Critique: This is a one-sided definition and/or description of philosophy. The business of philosophy is -- partly -- to critique, which is what I am doing here. I am deconstructing Wittgenstein -- or at least, in this case, one of his reported propositions. This assumes that Heaton's report of this Wittgenstein proposition is accurate which I would/will probably have to go out and buy Wittgenstein's most famous work, 'Tracatus Logico-Philosophicus' (which from now on we will just call 'Tractatus') if I want to make 100 percent certainty of the accuracy of this reported Wittgenstein proposition. But for now, I will trust Heaton and the fact that Heaton is reporting Wittgestein propositions accurately in his much more simpler book to read: 'Introducing Wittgenstein'.

Deconstruction(ism) is the philosophy of critique.

The other half of philosophy is 'Constructionism'. Thus, we can distinguish between 'Constructionist Philosophy' and 'Deconstructionist Philosophy', and simlarily too, we can distinguish between 'Wittgenstein Constructionism' and 'Wittgenstein Deconstructionism' just as we can also distinguish between 'DGB Constructionism' and 'DGB Deconstructionism'. And the same is true for Nietzsche who arguably I would consider to be the greatest Deconstructionist in the history of Western Philosophy (David Hume might give him a run for his money.) But even Nietzsche developed his own Constructionist Philosophy -- 'The Philosophy of the Superman'.

The best philosophers in the eyes of DGB Philosophy weave a homeostatic balance between Constructionist and Deconstructionist Philosophy.

.............................................................

5. Nietzsche as an Example of The Evolving Internal Conflict Between Homeostatic Balance and Existential Extremism


We can see this in Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy, 1872' (Nietzsche attempting to optimally balance a lifestyle philosophy of Appollonian vs. Dionysian virtues).

However, we cannot see this in 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta, 1883'. (This was the philosophy of the Superman -- i.e., Nietzsche -- ignoring all human morality in the pursuit of his own unbridled narccissistic values/vices (and projecting them on Zarathrusta).

Is it a coincidence that Nietzsche was getting closer to his loss of sanity and his institutionalization relative to this loss of his sanity, or was his impending insanity being driven by viral and/or other possible bio-chemical factors such as the often proposed theory of 'syphilus' (again, perhaps partly due to the phlosophy of an unbridled Dionysian narcissist)?

Now, I do not wish to falsely stereotype Nietzsche for any lifestyle that he did or didn't live, or suggest any false reason for the insanity that would take over his mind in 1889 -- after all, he is still probably my favorite philospher; indeed, I would probably sooner read Nietzsche than any other philosopher including Hegel. Perhaps Friedrich (Fritz) Perls was the closest I would consider to a modern-day Nietzsche -- both in lifestyle and in writing -- and indeed, Perls might be the one writer who's writing I would consider to rival or even surpass Nietzsche's. What was the common element in their writing: they could both keep their writing immediate, down to earth -- and dramatically existential.

You cannot read either Nietzsche or Perls without at least partly being mesmerized by their passion for life -- and their 'existential extremism'.

Who amongst us doesn't at least partly subscribe to the idea of living life to the fullest of our potential, our fullest passion,.

We only live once. But if we are talking about living life in the fast lane -- in the Dionysian lane, a life of 'unbridled narcissism and hedonism' -- then, that lane usually ends up having negative consequences, negative side-effects: perhap crashing in self-destruction which, coincidentally or non-coincidentally, just happens to be the way that Nietzsche ended up living the last 10 or 11 years of his life, institutionalized and mentally, more or less, incoherent and incapacitated. You tell me how this happened, and whether it wasn't in some way connected to his ultimately self-destructive philosophy. Was his mental insanity in the last 11 years of his life 'genetic'? Viral?

.............................................................................

From the internet (Google... Nietzsche, insanity)

6. What caused Nietzsche's insanity and death?:

A paper just published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica reconsiders the insanity and death of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who is commonly thought to have died of neurosyphilis.

In contrast, the authors of the new study suggest that Nietzsche died of frontotemporal dementia - a type of dementia that specifically affects the frontal and temporal lobes.

While many people have 'diagnosed' historical figures in retrospect, this study is different, in that the authors reviewed Nietzsche's actual medical notes in light of what is known about the progression of syphilis and dementia today.

More than 100 years after his death, Friedrich Nietzsche remains one of the most contentious figures in the history of philosophy. His writings contain some of the most profound philosophical statements of the 19th century, and have been exceptionally influential. However, they also express ambiguities and contradictions, which leave scholars perplexed and still arguing about their meaning and intent. Such ambiguities are reflected not only in Nietzsche's life, but also in his terminal illness and death.

Following a psychotic breakdown in 1889, at the age of 44 years, he was admitted to the Basel mental asylum and on 18 January 1889 was transferred to the Jena mental asylum. He remained in demented darkness until his death on 25 August 1900. In Basel, a diagnosis of general paralysis of the insane (GPI; tertiary cerebral syphilis) was made. This diagnosis was confirmed in Jena and is still widely accepted. However, even some of Nietzsche's contemporaries doubted this. The lack of certainty about his primary luetic infection, the long duration of the disease and some clinical features lead us to question the diagnosis of GPI.

In this study, we re-construct the anamnesis [clinical history] of Nietzsche's illness and review the clinical presentation. We then note the natural history of GPI as it was at the turn of the 19th century, and suggest an alternative diagnosis, namely that of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) which has been characterized in detail only in the last two decades.


Link to abstract of paper.


................................................................

7. Back to Wittgenstein.

It seems as if Wittgenstein didn't take Nietzsche seriously on his deconstruction (critique) of science.

Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: Science on the other hand consists of all true propositions. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)

Response, DGB Philosophy: What a load of hogwash this Wittgenstein proposition is. Science is just as loaded with human narcissistic bias as every other cultural and non-cultural activity in human affairs is including: philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, sports and entertainment, law, business and economics -- and science and medicine. You cannot talk about any human endeavor without including a discussion of the influence of human narcissism on whatever human endeavor you are talking about.

Wittgenstein (1889-1951), in the proposition above, acts as if he had never even heard of Nietzsche (1844-1900), let alone read any of his philosophy.

..........................................................

From...The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant. His early work was influenced by that of Arthur Schopenhauer and, especially, by his teacher Bertrand Russell and by Gottlob Frege, who became something of a friend. This work culminated in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the only philosophy book that Wittgenstein published during his lifetime. It claimed to solve all the major problems of philosophy and was held in especially high esteem by the anti-metaphysical logical positivists. The Tractatus is based on the idea that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language, and it tries to show what this logic is. Wittgenstein's later work, principally his Philosophical Investigations, shares this concern with logic and language, but takes a different, less technical, approach to philosophical problems. This book helped to inspire so-called ordinary language philosophy. This style of doing philosophy has fallen somewhat out of favor, but Wittgenstein's work on rule-following and private language is still considered important, and his later philosophy is influential in a growing number of fields outside philosophy.

.............................................................

8. Nietzsche's Deconstruction of Science

Nietzsche brought science down to its knees through his philosophical deconstructionism of science relative to his arguments concerning the influence of human bias and narcissism but Wittgenstein pops off a proposition here about the 'epistemological perfection of science' (Science consists of all true propositions. Only in your dreams, Mr. Wittgenstein, only in your dreams! My DGB editorial comment.)

I am not trying to be overly skepitical, pessimistic and/or cynical but skepticism, pessimism, and cynicism are probably closer to the general truth than Wittgenstein's blatant scientfic idealism.

Relative to the study of, and inter-connection between, epistemology and science, one has to delve into the inluence of narcissism and particularly narcissitic capitalism (or for that matter narcissistic political ideology, whether capitalist or socialist) on the outcomse of 'supposed scientific research'. 'Who is paying the scientist?', is perhaps the most relevant question in this regard. When reading a scientfic research outcome, it is prudent for the smart, epistemologcally-minded philosopher -- or person in general -- to examine all possible areas of 'conflict of interest' (between a scientist who comes up with a particular research finding and the company and/or government agency that may be paying the scientist to come up with exactly this same finding). Otherwise, as a reader, and as a person separated from the context of the supposedly 'scientific information' you are getting, you may not know -- in fact, you probably won't -- whether you are getting truth or hogwash. More times than not, it quite possibly might be narcissistic hogwash that you are getting.

........................................................


9. Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: It (philosophy) clarifies the limits of meaningful language. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)

DGB Philosophy Response: I may or may not have basically already addressed this philosophical proposition in 'Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1', but in case I didn't, and/or for those who have not read or cannot remember the first paper, I will re-address the same basic proposition here.

Specifically, Wittgenstein -- like the rest of us, including Nietzsche, including Kant, including Schopenhauer, including me -- have/had 'psychological issues' that were/are 'impinging on his/our philosophical process'. They may not tell you this in philosophy class but philosophy -- particularly for the 'obsessed philosopher' -- is generally a 'compensatory process consciously or subconsciously aimed at addressing and satisfying unfinished psychological business'.

10. Arthur Schopenhauer

You look at Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Schopenhauer, by all accounts, was a nasty, brutish man. Philosophically, he described the world as a 'nasty, brutish place to live in' -- one might say, a perfect projection of his own nasty, brutish personality. What was Schopenhauer's solution to the 'narcissistic, brutish -- 'Lord of The Flies' -- problem of man's existence. Schopenhauer had two propososed solutons: 1. go to the theatre, engage in the arts, and look for a cathartic release from the stress of normal, nasty day-to-day living; and/or 2. learn a 'Buddhist style of living' of basically 'negating all human (narcissisic) desires and impulses' (which from what I understand Schopenhauer was never able to do himself).

Thus, in this example, you can see the inter-connecting self-dialectic being played out between Schopenhauer and himself, between depth psychology and compensatory philosophy acting as a form of self-psychotherapy for his own unbridled narcissistic peronality, and/or as a 'form of salvation' for his own 'unbridled, day-to-day, narcissistic sins. You could say that Schopenhauer, like the rest of us in our own unique way, had a 'dialectic bi-polarity going on his personality' that he was playing out through the creation of his own particular philosophy, aimed at alleviating, compesating for, and therapizing, the otherwise one-sided, nasty side of his existence.

.....................................................

Arthur Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 – September 21, 1860) was a German philosopher best known for his gloomy and questioning manner. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the fundamental question of whether reason alone can unlock answers about the world. Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation, emphasized the role of man's basic instinct, which Schopenhauer described as the will to exist, or "will". Schopenhauer is perhaps best known for his analysis of human motivation and the human condition, arguing that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be truly fulfilled. Consequently, Schopenhauer favored a lifestyle of negating human desires, similar to the teachings of Buddhism.

Schopenhauer's metaphysical discovery of "will", his views on human motivation and desire, and his aphoristic writing style influenced many well-known philosophers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Sigmund Freud and others, forming a cornerstone in what is now known as "German Idealism."[1]



.....................................................................

11. Back to Wittgenstein:

And so it was with Wittgenstein as well. I do not profess to be nearly as good a guesser at what was going on in Wittgenstein's psyche as I just speculated with Schopenhauer, but still, from being involved with Gestalt Therapy for ten or eleven off and on years, plus from studying Freud and Jung and Hegel, I can often pick up quickly symptoms of what might be called 'bi-polarity disorder' in any of a thousand and one different possible ways that this both healthy and pathological psychological process can play itself out in human behavior.

With Wittgenstein, we read about his philosophical wish for epistemological and language(semantic) clarity on the one hand (let's call this Wittgenstein's 'rebellious underdog' using a mixture of DGB and Gestalt terminology.

Now, on the other hand, I read on the back cover of 'Introducing Wittgenstein' that:

'Ludwig Wittgenstein, has captured the popular imagination as the modern day Socrates, the fascinating master of enigmatic reasoning who, with his icy logic, convinced Bertrand Russell that there was a hippo in the room.'


And I say, whoa, just a minute now. What is going on here? It looks like we have another personality dynamic - another 'ego-state' -- at work here. Wittgenstein claims that he seeks epistemoligical and language clarity on the one hand -- this is supposedly the business of philosophy -- and then Wittgenstein somehow bedazzles, befuddles, mystifies, and mesmerizes Bertrand Russell into going stir-crazy looking for a hippo in his room.

How seriously do we take this? And on what level? One of the most intelligent, brilliant philosophers in Western history -- Bertrand Russell that is, with good rational-empirical groundings -- being led up the garden path, or take on a 'magic carpet ride' as I have written previously, by a seemingly even more intelligent man who was using his intelligence in the name of sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors, mysticism...Was this a one-time, just for gags, deed? Or something more deeply inherent in Wittgenstein's personality: the bi-polarity of the clarifyer vs. the mystifier?

12. The Philosophy of Illusion (Sophistry)

There are differet reasons for the philosphy of illusion from the magician who wants to pull one over on you, to a personal gag on someone, to the most serious and pathological of narcissistic economic, political, violent and/or sexual intentions.

Being an older brother, I am familiar with the 'gag' motivation. I practised it growing up at the expense of my younger sister and brother. You shoot someone a fabricated and/or embellished story with the purpose of raising his or her anxiety/fear level. You want to see the anxiety-level rise on his or her face until he or she finally catches on that he/she is being had. Trickery and skull-duggery! The philosophy of illusion.

13. Fear, Identification With The Aggressor, and Transference

Let me be more specific here because there is a learning phenomenon here that takes place in every child growing up, modified in one way or another -- called 'identification with the aggressor'. Almost every psycholgist and/or psychotherapist knows about this process in some fashion or another -- it comes from the learnings of Freudian Psychoanalysis and is also connected to the Freudian/Psychoanalytic concept of -- transference.

In all my years of studying human psychology, I have never been more mesmerized by the study of any concept-phenomenon than I have been with the Freudian concept of transference and its interconnection such other related Freudian/Psychoanlytic concepts as: 'introjection', 'identification', 'identification with the aggressor', 'projection', and the Adlerian concepts of 'compensation' and 'lifestyle'. DGB Psychology -- which I called 'Gap Psychology' in the 1980s before I turned my attention to philosophy -- puts its own particular 'integrative stamp' on the concept/phenomenon of transference that borrows from Adlerian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Jungian Psychology, and more in an effort to more fully understand this most mesmerizing of human behavioral phenomena which is connected to thousands of different brands of 'bi-polarity fixation and disorder', 'obsession-compulsion', 'addiction', and 'serial behavior patterns' from the most innocuous to the most pathological of 'serial crimes' (rape, murder, fraud, sophistry, narcissism in its worst elements of human behavior...).

Let me give you a couple of examples of how it works. Many movies have made high-voltage drama out of this psychological phenomena including 'Psycho' by Alfred Hitchcock, 'Straight-Jacket', which scared the crap out of me when I was a small kid, and the latest 'Batman' ('The Dark Knight') movie where Bruce Wayne had a terrifying episode with 'bats' in a cave as a child, and he then turned 'this fear upside down' as his 'alter-ego' -- 'Batman' -- when he grew up. This is an example of the phenomenon of 'identification with the aggressor'.

In the movie, 'Straight-Jacket', a woman comes home from wherever she was to look through her bedroom window and see her husband in bed with another woman. She goes into the shed, comes out with an axe, and then goes crashing through her bedroom window to make mince meat out of her husband and his girlfriend. The woman's young daughter is standing, looking through the bedroom door as this is happening. I was petrified watching this movie scene just as the little girl in the movie was. (The little girl in the movie grew up to become a 'carbon-copy serial killer' of her mom just at the same time that her mom was finally released from a mental institution for having committed the initial crime. Of course, everyone was blaming the mom for the new set of crimes while the grown up little girl 'operated in the shadows using her mom's alter-ego' as the means of 're-enacting her childhood traumatic, transference scene'. I, on the other hand, on a more modified, toned down -- but still frightening level to my younger brother and sister -- started playing 'Straight-Jacket Babysitting Games' where I started chasing my brother and sister around the house pretending I was 'Straight-Jacket'. I even had a song that I invented with a line that went: 'Straight-Jacket, if she catches you, you're dead'. Needless, to say I don't think my sister or brother found as much humor in this game as I did. I had turned my fear 'upside down' and become the 'perpetrator or victimizer' of my fear rather than the 'victim'. I had moved from a position of being 'out of control of my fear' to a position of 'being in control of it' and 'harnessing' it against others. Vicariously, I could 'tell good horror-psycho stories'; probably still can. I probably still have some undeveloped 'Edgar Allan Poe' creative-destructive impulses in me'.

There is a level where this phenomenon of transference and identification of the aggressor is not funny; it has played a part in the character-formation of some of the worst serial killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths in the history of mankind -- from The Boston Strangler to Jack The Ripper to Ted Bundy to I could go on and on and on... But this mesmerizing human phenomena of transference and identification with the aggressor can and does have just as many 'creative' repercussions on individuals and culture as it does 'destructive-violent' ramifications and 'narcissistic-sophistry' ramifications. Transference -- both in its positive and negative ramifications on the human psyche and on human society and culture in general -- is an amazingly spectacular phenomenon. I think at one point, towards the middle-end of Freud's career (1920, Beyond The Pleasure Principle), Freud started connecting the phenomenon of transference to both 'the repetition compulsion' in man -- and the 'death instinct'. He was undoubtedly focusing on the negative-destructive and self-destructive capabilities and realities of transference.

But one of the creative potentials-realities of transference can be found in one of Freud's earliest conscious memories -- and its 'transference-effect' on his life. Classic Psychoanalysts view this as a 'screen memory' -- perhaps hiding another more traumatic scene and/or fantasy in Freud's personality that is more enlightening to the makeup of his personality. But to me this Classic Psychoanalytic 'screen memory' theory is balderdash -- horsecrap if you pardon the expression. I follow Adler's theorizing in this area of human psychology -- his interpretation of 'conscious early memories' and their connection to what Adler called a person 'repetitive ('obsessive-compulsive, serial' -- my editorial additional words in the brackets here ) lifestyle.

Personally, I combine Freudian and Adlerian theory here to give my own 'DGB Transference Theory' that connects 'conscious early memories' to 'transference repetition compulsions'. I call these conscious early memories 'transference memories' or 'transference scenes' -- something that Freud also did in his pre-1896 Traumacy-Seduction Theory (only with unconscious memories where he used both 'hypnosis' and then later 'free association' to 'track down in the unconscious') -- whereas, I counter-argue on Adler's behalf: keep it 'simple stupid' -- stay with conscous memories; you can find everything you want and need here as a psychotherapist without resorting to the chase for real or unreal 'unconscious memories'.


14. Freud's Earliest Transference-Traumacy Memory-Scene

Freud's earliest transerence scene -- or at least one of them, and undoubtedly in my opinion his main one -- was a situation where he walked into his mom and dad's bedroom while they were having sex together -- one of the most classic, childhood transference scenes. In that instant, Freud took on a 'bi-polar split' between himself as the young child in the memory -- the curious, the investigator, the scientist, the person looking for 'epistemological clarity and truth' in what exactly was happening in this scene that he could not fathom while his dad was crouched over his mom, presumably in all his glory; vs. his dad in the memory which would become Freud's 'introjected dad in his personality' -- the narcissist, the sophist, the illusionist, the mesmerizer, trying to hide from his son 'the epistemological truth' of what exactly was going on here...

Twenty or thirty years later we start to see the beginning of 'Freud's repetition compulsion' -- or what I would call his 'transference re-creation compulsion' -- just like in Psycho, just like in Straight-Jacket, just like in 'The Dark Knight', just like what Freud would start to see in the behavior of his clients, starting with Breuer and 'The Anna O' case -- the first case history of Psychoanalysis. Repetition compulsions that started to follow the 'structural and psycho-dynamic format' of the client's -- in this case, Freud's -- earliest memory.

The Psychoanalytic Room starts to take its famous formation. The 'psychoanalytic couch' replaces 'the bed' in Freud's transference scene. The client replaces 'one bi-polar split' in Freud's 'introjected dad' in the form of 'resistance' and 'the defense mechanisms' -- the client doing everything in his or her power to 'hide the narcissistic truth' from 'Freud-the-grown-up-child's scientific-psychoanalytic investigation: The power of 'resistance, defense, narcissism, sophistry and illusion' over the 'power of epistemological truth'.

Here is one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- bi-polar splits in the human psyche. Freud found it in his parent's bedroom. And now he was going to bring it to the attention of the whole world in what would eventually become 'the id' vs. 'the ego' and/or 'superego'. Sexual and/or narcissistic impulse -- hidden by 'human sophistry' vs. the 'ethical restraint' and/or 'the pursuit of epistemological truth'.

What kind of human drama would we have? What kind of human soap opera would we have, without this core bi-polar split in the human psyche? Well, we could talk about the 'Liberal/Conservative' bi-polar split; or the 'Capitalist/Socialist' bi-polar split; or the 'Republican/Democrat' bi-polar split. But these discussions we will save for another day.

For now, this is where we will leave our hopefully provocative discussion on 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry' on this fine, Friday morning, 10:11am.

-- dgb, September 5th, 2008.

An Updated, Modified, Extended DGB Version of Sir Francis Bacon's Four Idols

Feedback From One of My Readers on My Latest Kant Essay


So, Kant and his work, obviously provided a lot of
> inspiration for other philosophers.
> The apparent conflict in the study of knowledge... In a
> way, this is where the dialectic would/could have begun?
> You give very good examples. Glass half full/empty
> perspective, gymnasts, steroids etc.
>
> There is a lot to think about even just in this brief intro
> to Kant's philosophy's - it's huge.
> One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite
> thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny.



................................................................................

My Reply:

Thanks for the feedback,

You are mainly right on several of your comments.

Firstly, Kant did indeed seem to open up the 'dialectical doors' for Hegel to later push through, and elaborate on, with a gusto...

And yes, secondly, Kant inspired a lot of later philosophers -- Fichte, Hegel, and Schopenhauer to name just a few...

Thirdly, your 'One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite
thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny' is part of the essence of dialectic philosophy -- as well as life, love, lust, nature, biology, physics, medicine, psychology, philosophy, economics, politics, law, art, religion, science, etc...It can lead to the 'love/hate' phenomenon of falling in love, then falling out of love. It is often what we initially 'most love' about a person that we later come to 'most resent and/or hate'.

But there is still more to dialectic philosophy than all of this...and a part that I will proceed to develop in the next few papers about 'idols'...

Specifically, there is self-contradiction and the seeds of both self-discontent and self-destruction inherent in even one idea, one theory, one attitude, one characteristic, one line of behavior -- standing all by itself. Indeed, it is this self-contradiction that sets up the 'necessity' of the opposing idea, perspective, theory, philosophy, attitude, characteristic, behavior, polarity, etc. as a 'part of the homeostatic balancing process of life'.

Thus, we are all guilty of 'idol worshipping' to one extent or another, and to one domain, and/or another. We can also call these 'fixations', 'obssessive-compulsions', 'extreme polarity swings' and/or 'addictions'. Thus, the beginning of my essays on the relationship between...Gods, Archetypes, Myths, Self-Energy-Centres, Idols...and The Hegelian Philosophy of Self-Contradiction.

For example, building on a perspective started by Sir Francis Bacon called 'The Four Idols' and both updated and extended by me...We have now 'The 16 Idols of DGB Philosophy:

..............................................................


The Sixteen Idols of DGB Philosophy

1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietcsche would put it;

2. Idols of The Cave: Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people;

3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-gound yourself;

4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the godesses Gaea): Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;

5. Idols of The Theatre, The Magician, or The Sophist: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself;

6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title;

7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean;

8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life;

9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life;

10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- except perhaps to only the person or people you most trust, and even this is dangerous, because things can change, people can change;

11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war;

12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction;

13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.

14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it;

15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and die -- in marriage.

16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others.
...............................................................



dave

From Wikipedia...

Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................

From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.

At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.

Feedback From My Latest Kant Essay...and a Call For More Feedback and/or Prospective Essays From My Readers...

Dave,

So, Kant and his work, obviously provided a lot of inspiration for other philosophers. The apparent conflict in the study of knowledge...

In a way, this is where the dialectic would/could have begun? You give very good examples. Glass half full/empty perspective, gymnasts, steroids etc.

There is a lot to think about even just in this brief intro to Kant's philosophy's - it's huge. One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny.

-- Noreen

................................................................................

Noreen,

You always have a knack for giving great feedback -- anticipating and/or foreshadowing my next essay and/or line of thought, and/or changing my direction of thought in a direction that I had not anticipated but which is very meaningful in its own right. I hope that one day you will join me as a co-writer on Hegel's Hotel and/or alternatively, with your permission, I will share more of your feedback on my essays with the rest of my reading audience. I think your own contributions give Hegel's Hotel a new dimension that is not there when I am writing 'unilaterally'.

As much as I am partly a 'control freak' and have finally settled on an 'architectural structure' that feels good to me...(See my newest table of contents for Hegel's Hotel by googling...Hegel's Hotel, table of contents...), still there is all the room in the world for good writers to send me there own personal contributions to Hegel's Hotel which I will add to the evolving structure and process if I like the quality of your work...

Already my dad has made some great contributions to Hegel's Hotel including a section on romantic philosophy and poetry that I dedicated to him. A few years ago, my dad and I co-wrote an essay called 'Plato's Room' which I will add to Hegel's Hotel in the Plato section just as soon as I can find it. I also hope that my dad may make contributions to both my business section and my poltical section as he has been involved in both for most of his adult life. And finally, my dad contributed to an excellent essay to my 'God and Religion' section that I will reprint here in hopes that it will encourage other prospective philosophical writers to submit there own papers for possible inclusion in Hegel's Hotel...Remember, 'dialectic' means more than one perspective by one or more than one writer...Hegel's Hotel was/is not meant to be as 'unilateral' as George Bush and associated company (I think that includes McCain)snubbing their collective noses, and bypassing, the United Nations on their way to invadng Iraq on the grounds of Iraq's imminent threat to America's national security which in turn rested on the declared grounds of their 'weapons of mass destruction'.

DGB Philosophy believes in 'dialectic-democracy-freedom-equal rights-embracing conflicts-negotiation-integration-and-the-aimed-for-idealism-of-differential-unity-harmony-and-wholism (much like the Democratic party is striving for in their convention right now as I write).

It is easy to try to avoid, evade, ignore, demean, disrespect, overpower...conflict and disagreement...but it is in dialectical disagreement that we can often see the most meaningful creative tensions, negotiations, integrations, and evolutionary success stories where 'two perspectives, theories, lifestyles, businesses, political points of view, philosophies, psychologies, biologies, chemistries...suddenly merge into one'. This is the Hegel's Hotel: DGB philosophical idealism of 'differential unity'.

-- dgb, Aug. 27, 2008.

...................................................................................

Gordon Bain" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: God is the Bridge
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:50:31 -0400

I am having some trying days of late, but today is bright and while it
is
cold, it is fun to think.

I go back a little and come to your God is a Bridge thinking, or is Man
the
Bridge?

It occurs to me that without question, God is the Bridge.

There are countless times in life when the load gets heavy, and you
must try
to understand the unthinkable...the questions for which there are no
logical
answers. It is then we can look to the stars and imagine beyond, as
your
mother does most every clear night. She is not crazy with man contrived
theological passions. She simply finds solace and calmness in the
belief of
a greater power ... God...and allows her uncertainties and unanswerable
questions ..indeed all of her hurts and despair .. and we all have
them.. to
ride the stars (read that crossing the bridge) through the vastness of
incalculable space to a place of perfection, serenity and
understanding. It
is a bright and happy place where a person can set their load down, and
find
solace. It allows her to have inner strength that is enviable. In other
words that which she cannot understand she gives to God.

It is said you rarely see an athiest in the heat of battle. In truth,
most
all of the world with its billions of people believe in a greater
power. We
are in a state of self love and me..ness right now. If those less
endowed
could not reach out to their God, how could they bridge the death and
destruction of world savagery, or explain their children dying of
hunger and
disease?

I think your Mom is right. I have thought about it a lot in my time,
tried
to be smart, said clever things to suggest I had an angle on the
religion
thing. I come back to the simple belief in a greater power. As Einstein
remarked in his later life, no matter how many answers are found, there
are
ten thousand times more that are unexplainable except to view and
explain it
as the work of a greater power. Paraphrased and pulled from my memory
of
what he said, but that is the gist of it.

So David, I was quite fascinated with your God is the Bridge poem, for
all
of the reasons given. I hold that the title is suggestive, soothing,
and
meaningful. It is worthy of a scholar's rendering. However, it would be
easy
to crash under the weight of needing to have this God-like state proven
beyond a shadow of doubt. Then it would be a bridge to nothingness,
literally.

Dad

Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy -- Re-visited

This essay was written about 9 months ago and then just re-written a couple of weeks ago (August 9th, 2008). Now, I am re-addressing the essay for a third and hopefully final time. However, perhaps with a hopefully better and better knowledge of Kant in the months or years to come, I will have to rewrite this essay again at some future point. Time will tell. This essay is based on new information I am presently getting about Kant.

-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.

...............................................................................

From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...

Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]

In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.

Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.

..............................................................................

From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...

Critique of Pure Reason (1787)


Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)

Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)

Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)

There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)

Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."

A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)

Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)

Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)

Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)

All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)



.................................................................................


Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited


I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.

Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.

Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.

Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.

I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.

At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?

This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.

The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?

That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.

Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?

If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.

Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.

You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.

It depends on your perspective.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?

Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?

Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.

When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.

What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.

So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.

Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.

Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.

In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.

And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.

This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.

For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.

This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.

From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)

Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.

For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.

-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.

Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On The Charge of 'Elitism'

Upcoming Essays...

First on Deck: Updating Sir Francis Bacon's 'Four Idols'

Second on Deck: Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 2) -- On The Charge of 'Not Being Experienced Enough'

Third on Deck: Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 3) -- On The Charge of 'Not Being Tough Enough'

Fourth On Deck: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy (Part 2): On Science, Epistemology, Rationality, and Narcissism

Fifth on Deck: Nietzsche vs. DGB Philosophy: Existential Extremism vs. Homeostatic Balance

Sixth on Deck: Gods, Myths, Philosophers and The DGB Model of The Personality

................................................................................

Now Up...

Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On the Charge of 'Elitism'


We have to remember that any essay is a 'sound bite' of its author's overall philosophy and intentions. This is no different than a politician's speech -- or a poliitican's answer to a journalist's or a citizen's question -- which represents an even 'smaller sound bite' which has an even greater potential to be taken out of context and/or to deliver a smaller, sometimes much smaller, component of the author's overall philosophy, motivation, and intentions.

The wrong soundbite can destroy a politician's career, or cause 'giant spikes or crashes' in a politician's positive or negative reception with the audience that the politician is trying to impress or 'win over'.

Recently, in the American presidential race, McCain didn't win too many people over with his off the cuff comment that a rich person is someone worth '5 million dollars or more'. Similarily, Obama's 'inflate your tires' comment didn't go over too well with citizens everwhere getting 'pulverized at the gas pumps' by big oil companies and/or 'the free oil market'. And again, McCain's 'Ask my staff how many houses I own...' didn't go over too well either with wavering prospective voters.

In some ways, it is easier to be a philosopher or a journalist or a political analyst and do all our 'Monday morning quarterbacking' when these poltiicans have to be 'very fast on their feet' when they are reacting to some very difficult personal and professional questions. How many of us non-politicians would like to deal with these types of questions on a day to day, moment to moment, basis, not to mention having our persnal biographies put under a microscope, and being the subject of opposing 'political smear campaigns'. In the dog days of August, as we get closer and closer to -- what is it, a November election? -- 'politics rears its ugly, narcissistic head' in the name of winnning.

Has anyone forgotten the 'Florida voting scandal' where Bush squeeked in front to the finish line of the last American election -- at the expense of democratic fairness? How many 'prospective Democratic voters' didn't get to vote in the Florida election process?

Narcissism and power politics usually wins over ethics, morality, and integrity. Does anyone think that the type of 'dirty politics' played here in America is any different than what Americans are complainng about now relative to China 'doctoring the passports' of two or three of its youngest gymnnasts? Or the steroid scandal?

It's all called 'cheating' -- and both athletes and politicians will do it in the name of 'winning'.

Now, personally, I think Obama missed a political opportunity.

Obama has been hit with the criticism of 'elitist' by the Republican camp.

The trick for Obama -- as I see it -- is 1. how to answer criticisms like the charge of 'elitism' -- I heard the comment reported on CNN that Obama has been portrayed as a 'latte-drinking Liberal' -- 2. how to be aggressive back and land some of his own 'haymakers' against McCain and the Republcan Party ('the best defense is a good offense'); and 3. do this all in an ethical, upstanding, non-dirty, non-tit-for-tat' -- 'latte-drinking' (if you will) -- way.

To bring in a boxing metaphor, if McCain is 'Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier or George Foreman' -- the 'straight-ahead warrior' -- then Obama has to show that he is 'Cassius Clay a.k.a. Muhammad Ali -- in his prime -- a politician who is quick on his feet, and even quicker with his hands (brain and mouth), with a lightning-fast retaliatory jab that makes McCain pay for any smear tactic -- like 'elitism' -- that McCain throws Obama's way.

Now permit me the luxury of being a philosopher-writer who has much more time to think than a politician improvising on-stage. Furthermore, permit me the 'projected fantasy' of steppig into Obama's shoes for a minute or two, of trumpeting a bit of DGB Philosophy which I believe is closer to Obama's 'integrative-differential-unity' philosophy (or visa versa) than it is to McCain's more 'Conservative-Republican-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism-let's not raise anyone's taxes, let's just let the rich keep getting richer, even if it is at the expense of financially hurting the middle and lower classes...(like the oil companies getting richer and richer beyond belief from gouging pump prices).

Anyway, here's my speech:

McCain and the Republican Party label me as an 'elitist'. And yet McCain said that a rich person is someone making over 5 million dollars. McCain said that he can't remember how many houses that he owns. McCain said that he will not tax the rich anymore than they are currently being taxed. McCain said that he will still subsidize big oil companies even though they are currently bringing in record profits that defy belief.

So I ask you: Who is being the elitist?

Furthermore I ask you: Who is more interested in the problems -- and particularly the financial traumacies -- of the lower and middle class? Who is looking to bring down the cost of education? Who is aiming for universal health care and health insurance? Who is looking to bring down the cost of gas? Who is looking to change the way politics is conducted in the White House and in Congress?

Who is looking to stop the way that 'lobbying' is done in Washington? Who is looking to stop special interest lobbyist groups from undermining democracy and preferentially treating one class of people -- usually the already very rich (yes, Mr. McCain, that is people like you and me both who are worth more than 5 million dollars and therefore, by your own stringent definition, deserve to be called 'rich') -- while systematically exploiting one or more other classes of people (usually the middle and lower classes)?

Is it you, Mr. McCain who is promising to do these things? Or is it me? And therefore -- I ask you again, and I ask the American people -- who really deserves to be called 'the elitist'?

-- dgb, August 22nd, 2008

More Thoughts on Narcissism in Relation to Ethics, and Ethics in Relation to Narcissism

At the risk of being redundant, I want to come back to one of the most important concepts in DGB Philosophy -- narcissism.

My thoughts on narcissism are borrowed mostly -- aside from my own modifications -- from Psychoanalysis. My influences within Psychoanalysis are predominantly Sigmund Freud and Heinz Kohut -- mainly Freud although many of my ideas relative to 'healthy narcissism' and the 'narcissistic transferences' peel off towards Kohut. The concept of narcissistic transferences will be developed at a future time under the heading of 'Transference'.

Narcissism, short and simple, equals self-interest -- at least in DGB Philosophy. Now narcissism is like almost everything else in life -- you can have too much of it and you can have too little of it. Too much of it and you come across as arrogant, selfish, conceited, cocky, self-absorbed, and uncaring about the well-being of others. The extent of narcissistic pathology in a person can range from mild to the psychopathic and/or sociopathic. Too little narcissism and you may appear invisible to othters, mild-mannered, modest, wanting to please, submissive, obedient authority, mascohistic, etc.

The opposite of narcissism is -- altruism with its derrivatives such as love, caring, generosity, empathy, compassion, senisitivity...

The healthy derivatives of narcissism/self-interest include: self-assertiveness, self-confidence, being in touch with oneself, being alive with passion, goal-directed, purposeful, self-empowered, willful, knowing what you want and confident you will get it...

The unhealthy derrivatives of narcissism include; addiction, self-infatuation, blindness to the needs and/or wishes of others, excessive drugs, alchohol, partying, eating, sex, gambling, power-seeking, revenge-seeking, rage, hate, violence, the exploitive, psychopathic, and/or sociopathic mentality...

The message of DGB Philosophy is not new -- just re-stated with new philosophical and psychological integrations, modifications, extensions, applications etc.

Everything in balance, including: narcissism and altruism -- caring about oneself and living one's life with passion and self-empowerment on the one hand, without self-destructiveness; and compassion, empathy, sensitivity, kindness, generosity,
caring, love on the other hand.

Most people tip the scale at one side or the other. Psychological and social health comes to those people who can find a good balance of both without upsetting the applecart at either end. That is easier said than done. Most people have too much 'yang' or too much 'yin' but not the perfect mix of both. That is a DGB philosophical ideal in the spirit of Daoism -- a philosophical perspective with deep roots in Chinese history. Soon, DGB Philosophy will be exploring the philosophy, the history of Chinese philosophy and politics -- and the chasm between them.

I look astonishingly at the life of someone like Mao Tse Tung. I found a small little book on philosophy by Mao -- in which I have so far read two excellent papers by him: 1. on the relationship between knowledge and practice (It was called: 'On Practice'); and 2. On Contradiction.

Then I buy a biography of him and I read that 'In all, well over 70 million Chinese perished under Mao's rule -- in peacetime.'

And I have to ask myself, how does such an intelligent man write two beautiful papers like I just read -- and be associated with the deaths of over 70 million people not including, the wars that he was involved in? That is a collosal gap, a collosal chasm between philosophical idealism and/or ideology on th one hand and narcissistic power-building and ruthless politics on the other hand.

And it is on this last note that I answer my own question: Philosophical idealism and ideology has to meet narcissistic self-interest, power-mongering, greed, money-chasing, and ruthless politics on the playing field of reality. It is only after the two have met in battle, in collision, that we can attempt in hindsight to determine how much idealistic ideology is left in the mind, heart, and behavior of the leader and/or party that trumpeted it to victory; and how much this idealistic ideology has been trampled under the marching feet of political leaders, corporate leaders, religious leaders, and the general public.

Idealistic ideology, integrity, character, and ethics has to be continually re-visited, re-cycled, re-trumpeted, re-invigorated, re-practised - or it will always end up losing to narcissism from any and/or every corner of human existence. Marx thought that Capitalism was the enemy but he was wrong. Narcissism is rooted much deeper in human nature and behavior than Capitalism -- Lenin, Stalan, and Mao Tse Tung have all showed us that. You can be an imperialist Socialist and/or Communist just as easily as you can be an imperialist Capitalist or Feudal Lord.

Dictators come in all sorts and shapes, in all different varieties of righteous ideology -- from Capitalism to Communism.

What underlies them all is a ruthless narcissism. Can anyone name me a 'benign' dictator that wasn't narcissistically ruthless? Maybe one day I will come upon one but I haven't yet.

In summary: idealistic ethics has to meet reality on the battlefield of ruthless narcissism. When they have met, then we can talk about whether there is any idealistic ethics left that is still worth talking about -- or whether it has blown away in a cloud of smoke under the fire of human narcissism.

-- dgb, Aug. 18th, 2008.

Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy (Part 2): The Contradiction Between Dialectical Thinking and Absolute Knowledge

I do not profess to be a Hegelian scholar -- not by a long shot. The deeper I go into Hegel and Hegelian thinking, the more sophisticated my arguments will likely get relative to what I am arguing about. But I'm on a time clock here. The time clock is my life. Hegel is a very complicated -- and sometimes frustratingly abstract and convoluted -- thinker.

I don't wish to spend the rest of my lifetime focusing and specializing only on Hegel. And I have said this before -- I do not wish to take my arguments into the furthest reaches of philosophical outer space to the point where you, my most esteemed readers, cannot understand me anymore than either you or I can understand Hegel at his abstract worst.

Hegel -- not unlike many other philosophical geniuses, and/or geniuses from other fields -- created a philosophy that could be, and was, profoundly revolutionary one moment (such as in his articulation of the nature of 'dialectical thinking' or 'dialectical logic) and bizarrely abstract, obtuse, convoluted, and/or self-contradictory another moment. (such as in probably his most controversial and profoundly stupid meaningless statement of his career: 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' How is that for white-washing, sugar-coating, and sucking up to Prussian Kings?).

One has to ask oneself: How can a thinker of Hegel's stature argue on the one hand that, 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.', and on the other hand argue in 'The Philosophy of Right' that moral subjectivism is a bad thing because it can be used to justify any crime. (Lloyd Spencer, Introducing Hegel, pg. 102)?

No kidding -- Sherlock. And what, Mr. Hegel, do you think about the inherently self-contradictory logic between your statement of supposed wisdom -- 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' -- as compared to your other statement in another context is supposedly equal or better wisdom ('The Philosophy of Right') that 'moral relativism' is a bad thing. Explain this apparent self-contradiction, will you please, Mr. Hegel? Obviously, you can't because you are dead. So if any of your most beloved students -- of which I partly claim to be one -- can pick up this apparent self-contradiction in your logic, and explain it way, like snow melting off the ground in spring, then, by all means, please pick up the dialectic here in your absence. I, personally, remain quiet because I see no way of explaining this self-contradiction away.

There are ways of seemingly justifying this Hegelian eye-sore. I will take up the task of my potential Hegelian protagonists and protectionists. We can justify it on the ground of 'historical determinism' and/or 'teleological determinism' -- the logic would run something like this: If you think in terms of where reality has come from and/or where it is going, then the present reality becomes a 'justified, rational, necessary reality'. But it still boils down to moral-ethical relativism, which in effect is moral-ethical white-washing -- and hogwash. The present reality -- no matter how corrupt and criminal it may be -- is 'dialectically justified' on the basis that it is a 'temporary phase of dialectical evolution' -- and 'rationally necessary for this ongoing evolution'. Again -- hogwash -- and justification for sitting on your hands and doing nothing about individual, social, legal, economic, political, and environmental moral-ethical transgressions, improprieties, corruptions, crimes...

We could also sit here forever and play 'cat and mouse definition games'. This is what Hegel meant by 'rational' and this is what Hegel meant by 'real'. No, he didn't -- he meant this. And so on.

The deeper we dive -- or the higher we soar -- into this verbal conundrum, the more mixed up and confused we will get. Word and mind games that will take us nowhere except on a magic carpet ride. It's like bobbing for apples and trying to grab the apple with your tongue. It might be a fun game to play at a halloween party when you're drunk and in mixed company but if you are serious about grabbing the apple, it is not going to happen -- unless you use your hands and/or your teeth.

And so it is with Hegel. If you want to make practical sense of Hegel -- as with any philosopher that delves too much in the abstract, then you have to use your hands and your teeth to clear away the abstractions, the conundrums, the self-contradictions, the word play, and the mind-games. Otherwise, you will be bobbing for apples for a long, long time -- about as long as it will take man's Spirit, or God's Spirit, or the Universe's Spirit to totally enlighten itself with 'Absolute Knowledge'. Try totally enlightening yourself with 'Absolute Balderdash' -- and you will be closer to the truth.

This brings me to my last point and Hegel's last 'self-contradiction' that I will talk about here.

Firstly, let me be clear on this point: I am a huge proponent of the value of dialectic thinking -- and that's what 'Hegel's Hotel' is -- it is an evolving philosophical treatise that is built from dialectic thinking -- thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. My philosophy used to be called 'Gap Philosophy' -- it philosophizes in the 'gaps'. 'DGBN' stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations'.

However, this having been said, dialectical thinking is simply one important means to an end -- and that end is 'more functional, pragmatic, practical knowing (epistemology), being or living (ontology), and becoming (teleology)'.

Dialectic thinking and negotiating does not always work. Sometimes it might bring us to an impasse, a stalemate. Othertimes, it just may not be the type of logic and/or thinking that we should be using in a particular context. Maybe we should be using Aristolean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic. Or Bush's infamous 'unilateral logic'. (If the United Nations does not want to support us in our invasion of Iraq, then we will go it alone -- unilateralism -- or we will lead an 'army of the willing'.)

If you choose to use Aristotlean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic, then you might think something like this: Either you can be married or you can be single -- but you can't be both. You can't 'have your cake and eat it too'.

If you are a 'unilateral thinker', you might argue something like this: I don't care what my husband or wife thinks or feels; I will do what I want, regardless. (Such a person is not likely to have a very long marriage unless he or she has a very submissive, subservient husband or wife. Similarily, international political unilateralness is not particularly good for international diplomatic relations -- when you are looking for foreign support and help down the road, don't expect it to be there after you have basically 'dissed' and 'dismissed' the countries that you are now asking for support and help from.)

Now 'dialectical thinkers' are always looking for different ways in which they can 'have their cake and eat it too'.

But here too, we need to differentiate between different types of dialectical thinkers, such as:

1. 'Unilateral dialectic thinkers': Here we apply and practise dialectic thinking within ourselves. For example, I read Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand, and then I read Karl Marx and/or Erich Fromm, and then I try to find a 'working synthesis' between 'Smith's and Rand's ideal Capitalism' vs. 'Marx's and Fromm's ideal socialism'. Or going back to my first example, I try to 'split the difference between being married and being single -- and still keep my wife.' And there is many different potential places that this type of dialectical thinking could take either you or me as we try to creatively balance such things as: narcissism (sexual drive, security...), empathy, altruism, morals, ethics -- and staying married.

2. 'Bilateral dialectical thinkers': Here two different thinkers sit down and try to work out a conflict resolution to whatever the disagreement or conflict is. I probably wouldn't recommend this for most married couples who want to stay married unless you are both very open-minded and liberal. Discussions about past, present, and/or future potential 'infidelity encounters' don't usually go over too well with the husband or wife. I tried this type of discussion once and let's just say that I probably will never try to do it again -- not with someone I am intimately involved with.

It's probably a good thing that God/Nature generally starts to lower the sex drive around 50 to 60; otherwise, it's scary to think how much more biological, psychological, and philosophical chaos could be thrown into the lives of 'civilized' people. So much for wisdom -- and peace of mind - in old age. Nursing homes out of control. Kids with changing grandfathers and grandmothers -- and not just because their fathers and mothers, or step-fathers and step-mothers, were changing. I'm trying partly to be humorous here but underneath the partly intended humor is an incredible amount of human and family pain, pathos, traumacy, and tragedy.

You want to talk about biological, psychological, and philosophical contradictions. There is no greater human contradiction -- at least for many if not most people -- between the drive, or shall we say, 'ethical restraint', to be 'monogomous' vs. the drive to be 'non-monogomous'.

For some, this may be a 'no-contest' conflict -- one way or the other; but for others -- like myself -- it may be a lifelong biological, psychological, and philosophical -- conflict/problem. If, some day, some philosopher finds a good working biological-psychological-philosophical dialectical conflict resolution to this problem that results in a better type of 'self and social homeostatic balance' than the one we currently have relative to this issue, such a philosopher would deserve to become a millionare. Because right now, the co-relation between: marital infidelity, possessiveness and jealousy, family instability, domestic violence, and family self-destruction -- has got to be huge.

Finally, to finish my last point. Dialectical thinking and logic has no boundaries, no limit to where it can take us. Even on one conflict issue, different dialectical thinkers could -- whether it be one, two, three, or a hundred people working together to resolve the same conflict-issue -- could probably come up with a virtually endless combination of workable or non-workable conflict-solutions/resolutions on this particular issue. Plus there are an infinite number of possible conflict issues out there in the real or imagined world we have to live in.

Thus, the potential 'end solutions' -- and their 'negation' -- and their 'counter-negation' and their endless number of potential integrations/syntheses are as infinite as the universe itself. Never will their ever be any arrival at 'Absolute Knowledge' because, according to dialectic logic, even 'Absolute Knowledge' would have to be subject to its own negation -- and further integration.

Conclusion: Dialectical thinking is incompatible and contradictory with any talk of 'Absolute Knowledge'. So once again, 'Absolute Knowledge' is a non-contributing factor in the evolution of DGB Philosophy.

That is enough for today on this subject matter. Have a great dialectical day. And may you work your way through your unsuccessful dialectic integrations -- to get to your successful ones that hopefully will make you happy.

-- dgb, Aug. 10th, 2008.

See DGB Philosophy, German Idealism

Faceoff: Kant Vs. DGB Philosophy: Sorting Out The Difference Between Man's Subjective-(Phenomenal) World and His Objective-(Noumenal) World

This essay was written about 9 months ago and I have just finished re-reading it and modifying it to keep it current with my ongoing, evolving thought process.
-- dgb, Aug. 9th, 2008.

...............................................................................

Kant's first challenge was to 'epistemology'. Some might say that Kant, in effect, destroyed epistemology. At least, he seriously deflated the epistemology balloon -- which included the balloon of science, sensory awareness, empiricism, and reason.

Epistemological optimism which before Kant or at least before Hume reigned supreme --took a huge double hit from Hume, the supreme skeptic, and then Kant who wasn't much less skeptical -- with Kant throwing the final epistemological 'knockout punch' in the form of what he called the 'noumenal world' which was 'the essence' of the world outside ourselves that in effect was 'unknowable' because it was above and beyond the capacity of our senses to 'know' this noumenal world. What Kant was in effect pointing to was the limitation of our senses relative to what might also be called 'objective knowledge'. All we could/can 'know' was/is our 'phenomenal world' which is the 'world-as-it-appears-to-us-through-our-own-private-senses (and logic and judgments)' -- i.e. our own privately construed 'subjective world'.

What Kant did that drove many a philosopher to the brink of insanity and/or suicide was he created a 'black and white epistemological dualistic world' where the 'black (man's subjective, phenomenal world) could not know the white (the objective, noumenal world) because the latter was outside the domain and power of man's senses.

However, Kant was wrong here. Kant's epistemological mistake was that he looked at the world 'dualistically' -- but not 'dialectically'. There is a huge epistemological difference. By looking at he world dualistically in terms of a black and white division between our 'subjective, phenomenal world of appearances' vs. the 'real, objective, but unknowable, noumenal world', Kant gave the impression to many that epistemology was in essence and effect -- useless and a waste of time -- since it was powerless to know and understand the 'real objective, noumenal world'.

This does not happen if you look at epistemology -- and the dualistic division of these two worlds (phenomenal and noumenal) -- dialectically as well as dualistically. 'Dialectically' implies that the two worlds -- our subjective, phenomenal world and the objective, noumenal world -- touch and make contact with each other; indeed, they often collide with each other and are at least partly intertwined with each other.

Furthermore, there is an imperative, survival relationship between the two. Our subjective, phenomenal world has to 'structurally represent our objective, noumenal world accurately' -- at least accurately enough in order for us to survive.

There are many different degrees of errors possible between the two worlds -- i.e., between our subjective, phenomenal world misrepresenting our objective, noumenal world. These errors can range from the most unimportant and benign to the most critical in terms of our survival. Misrepresentations of our subjective, phenomenal world relative to our objective, noumenal world can in some critical situations be the difference between life and death. Some may live where others die -- based simply on the degree of difference between an accurate representation of a significant life danger vs. a non-representation or misrepresentation of the same.
A four year old might properly understand the significant danger of an approaching car whereas a two year old might not.

One person might significantly represent the danger of running a car in a closed garage whereas another might not. One person might better represent the danger of a sheet of ice on a highway whereas another might not. One person might better represent the significance of the danger of a sheet of ice on his own driveway whereas another might not.

I dispatch 'mobility' vans and cars for a living, and the day before Christmas we had a customer who died from a heart attack after he slipped on a patch of ice on his own driveway. He was a 69 year old dialysis patient in dire health straits as it was. He had told our driver a week before Christmas that he would be lucky to make it to Christmas. Combine his weak health with an ice storm the previous night, and insufficient precautions the morning after the ice storm -- he was being escorted at the time but still slipped and fell -- and you had the recipe for a tragic accident.

When we think 'dialectically inside the epistemological dualism' in terms of 'a structural similarity between the two' and/or a 'structural, dialectical integration between our subjective, phenomenal and objective, noumenal worlds -- then we bypass the Kantian Epistemological Crisis that had seemingly every philosopher around his time having anxiety attacks because according to Kant 'knowledge of our objective, noumenal world' was impossible. Kant in effect had created a dualistic epistemological barrier that became in effect, an unbeatable epistemological monster.

In trying to modify the extreme empiricism of David Hume, Kant took epistemology to an even worse place than David Hume. Philosophers were bedazzled and befuddled by the skeptical extremism of David Hume; they were terrified by the implications of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

Philosophy, even to this day, has not fully recovered from the dualistic -- 'never the two should meet' -- epistemology of Kant. In the Post-Hegelian, Dialectical Philosophy of yours truly here, man's subjective and objective worlds meet all the time -- with both good and bad results -- the latter like when a Siberian tiger allegedly jumps a huge moat and massive fence at a zoo (unless it found another way out) -- and kills at least one person in the process, seriously injuring two others.

The most dangerous part of our own phenomenal, subjective world is our own private assumptions on what can and can't happen in the real, objective, noumenal world around us. False assumptions, generalizations, inferences, interpretations...can kill us...and/or others. We need to continually upgrade and update our epistemological structures and processes -- like I am this essay -- in order to keep our ideas, our concepts, our work...fresh, in tune with our objective-(noumenal) world and relevant.

Our very survival is dependent on us subscribing to this most important epistemological theme. The better our knowledge is -- i.e., the more structurally similar it is to the objective, noumenal world that we live in -- the better is our chance for a longer and more fruitful survival. I follow Ayn Rand's philosophy and Epistemology of 'Objectivism' here -- as well as Alfred Korzybski's philosophy of General Semantics. We will talk more about this at a later date.

Good epistemology involves a constant dialectic exchange between our subjective, phenomeanl world and our objective-noumenal one in a way that is not harmful to our very existence. The whole point of knowledge is to ward off dangers before they hit us and hurt us. Good epistemology is vitally important to our survival.

Kant's black and white-either/or epistemology has been pushed aside by DGB Philosophy for other subjectively interpreted 'better' brands of epistemology (Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand...in my opinion).

This does not mean that Kant's work was not important; indeed, it was. 'The Critique of Pure Reason' was one of the two or three most revolutionary books in the history of Western philosophy. It stimulated philosophers to look inward at the scope and quality of man's 'internal, subjective perceptual-interpretive-evaluative machinery'. But in doing this, Kant overstated his case, even though it was supposed to be an integration of 'rational' and 'empirical' points of view. And at first, the philosophers of the time didn't know how to deal with this overstatement -- until the overcompensating 'anti-thesis' philosophies started rolling in -- Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer -- that all in their own way tended to re-emphasize a Spinozian-like monistic (wholistic) world.

Hegel's was the best of the three post-Kantian philosophies because it trumpeted the idea of a 'dualistic-dialectic-wholism' -- a constantly evolving integration between monism (wholism) and dualism -- that still monistically resulted in Hegel's idealistic dream of a 'one in all' philosophy that unfortunately, wove itself eventually when combined with other major influences (too many to get into here but let's start with Fichte, Nietzsche, a cultural compensation to being humiliated by Napoleon, cultural anti-Semitism, cultural egotism and Nationalism, Hitler...) -- into 'Nazism'. I don't think Hegel would have supported Nazism but who knows for sure; certainly, Nietzsche wouldn't have and didn't -- he was against German Nationalism and the 'herd mentality'.

Anyways -- it's not that we can't 'know' our 'objective, noumenal world' -- because we can. Rather, we can never 'know' our objective, noumenal world -- perfectly -- because of the limitations of our subjective sensory and our logical-evaluative machinery is not perfect; in fact, partly gets worse with age.

Even as I read what I have written here, I am squinting without having a set of reading glasses on. Twenty years ago this would not have been the case. At one time I had 20/20 vision. Not now. My senses are now more limited and imperfect than they were 20 years ago. But I can still read what I've written -- give or take a few spelling mistakes when I don't have my glasses on.

So my philosphical perspective relative to Kant's epistemology is basically this: Kant 'struck out' on the basis of overstatement.

And anyone who believes the full extent of Kant's overstatement is 'striking out' too because they are missing the imporance of 'dialectic interaction' and 'the importance of accurate subjective representation' of 'objective-noumenal truth'.

"Mr. Kant, you were brilliant but you were also too much of an 'anal-retentive, perfectionist' for your own good and for the good of those around you -- who took you too literally and too much to heart for their own good."

Our objective, nomenal world does not demand that we are perfect. It simply demands that we are more right than wrong -- particularly on the important things that could/can cost us our lives if we are wrong.

That is why God/Nature gave us the subjective, sensory-logical-evaluative machinery that we have. To understand our objective-noumenal world reasonably accurately if not perfectly -- because that is what keeps us alive.

dgb, Dec. 27-28th, 2007, updated Aug. 9th, 2008.

See...DGB Philosophy: German Idealism