One of my readers, Srikala, said...
Kant used to say that Hume's idea that there was only sequence not cause as such suffered from a defect. Kant gets round Humean skepticism by introducing cause as a concept of the understanding. Neither was it the only concept. It was one among several. The concepts of the understanding like the forms of intuition are introduced in the Kantian schema as a priori subjective categories. This would of course naturally bring back the Self. For more, if you like, refer http://www.eloquentbooks.com/Kant.html
.........................................................................
Thank you Srikala for your knowledgeable feedback and your insights into both the philosophical thoughts of Hume and Kant.
Philosophically, I -- and by extension DGB Philosophy -- stand somewhere between Hume and Kant: not a full Humean skeptic by any means. I am comfortable using the concept of 'self' or 'Self' and believing that this concept represents a 'real subjective-objective entity' with a 'Will to Self-Empowerment and Self-Fulfillment Acting in A Partly Friendly, Partly Hostile Natural and Social Environment'. I view DGB Philosophy as a 'humanistic-existential philosophy-psychology' in this regard.
However, at the same time, I have a real big problem with at least 3 of Kant's 'subjective a priori categories' -- and either you will have to remind me or I will have to go back and look up exactly how many 'a priori categories' Kant theorized.
But here is the problem I have with this type of categorization. And it brings us back to the same 'subjective-objective dialectic split' that Kant was battling with and trying to overcome. In this regard, as another reader has written me, Kant indeed lead Hegel right into the middle of 'dialectic philosophy'.
But irrespective of both Kant and Hegel (and I am certainly closer in my thinking to Hegel than Kant), I view these 3 a priori subjective categories that Kant was talking about not as such but rather as 'subjective-objective categories' and/or as both 'subjective' and 'objective' categories' where it is the responsibility of man -- from a survival and evolution point of view -- to represent accurately in his mind the same (or the structually similar) categories that also exist outside his mind in the 'real, objective world' -- which as Kant stated we can never 'know' and as I would correct Kant and say we can never 'fully know'. Still, our existence both indivdually and collectively as a human species absolutely depends on our being close enough to 'right' and close enough to 'truth' to continue to be alive -- and not dead. This is my Ayn Rand and my Nathaniel Branden and my Alfred Korzybski and my S.I. Hayakawa and my Bertrand Russell influence coming alive and excited within me -- at the expense of both Hume and Kant. And in the middle of all these philosophical and human influences is 'me' -- the one and only unique 'me'. 'My Self' My 'Will to Self-Empowerment'. My 'Individual Willpower to Philosophically Enlighten the world'. (I say that partly tongue in cheek.). More specifically stated, my 'Individual Self-Willpower to Dialectically -- and Multi-Dialectically -- Enlighten The World'...
Man's continued existence -- both individually and collectively -- absolutely demands that he be closer to 'epistemologically right' than to 'epistemologically wrong', especially in contexts/situations of absolute danger.
Like if I step out into the middle of a busy highway, do you really think that I am only going to believe that the issues of 'time' and 'space' and 'cause' are only subjective figments of my imagination? Or is reality going to have the last word on me if I get my so called a priori categories all messed up and out of wack with what might be best referred to as 'accurate representation' of the 'real, objective world' outside my either accurate or inaccurate representation (or parts of both).
Now relative to 'causes' -- causes may be 'causal generalalizations and interpretations and judgments' that we pick out of a crowd amongst a host of other 'dialectical and multi-dialectical factors' but still 'causal factors' exist not only subjectively in our heads but also realistically outside our minds in the world -- regardless, of what kind of horsebleep that Hume wants to try to throw at us in the name of 'logical and philosophical technicalities'.
To be sure, there are many causal factors and co-factors that may be tied up in a 'death' for instance.
For example, if I was an elephant and not a man, I might have more of a chance of living through a car or a truck hitting me at 60 or 80 or 100kms an hour. We can view a car vs. a truck, a human vs. an elephant, and the speed of the oncoming vehicle as all being 'causally relevant' in the result or consequence of the accident -- specifically, whether I am lying dead on the pavement or whether the elephant shakes his head and walks away from the accident.
But whether you are the legendary David Hume or the legendary Immanuel Kant don't try to tell me that all this 'causal' stuff and all this 'subjective a priori' stuff is all in my 'head'. Because if you do, I will say to you: I have a 'bat' here and a 'pillow'. Which one would you like me to hit you with?
And one more thing. I want to once again point out the very important difference between 'unilateral philosophy' and 'bilateral-dialectic philosophy'.
An informed, intelligent feedback comment and/or question from one of my readers and it allows me to make a better distinction between the differences between Hume, Kant, and DGB Philosophy. It's obviously not the same thing as a full-blown philosophical debate, and yet the one short feedback comment allows both you -- my reader -- and me, the author and creator of DGB Philosophy -- to take DGB Philosophy to another level of 'distinctive understanding' that would not have happened otherwise. You may or may not agree with my philosophical perspective but for all of us there is a 'heightened level of epistemological clarity' after a common sense and/or philosophically informed reader has created a 'dialectical point of resistance' around which DGB Philosophy can state a significant difference in its philosophical -- and epistemological -- boundaries.
In other words, keep bringing on the feedback. I love it!
-- dgb, Dec. 14th, 2008.
