07.08.09
Kant, freedom, science, and modernity
Comments on ‘modenity’s better claim on the spiritual’
Stephen P. Smith said,
July 8, 2009 at 6:59 pm ·
Freedom for freedom`s sake is unable to provide the deeper spirituality because it confuses necessity from sufficiency. It is necessary that we are free, but the more self-cultivated passion does not come for free. Rather, it is self-cultivation that involves the hard work, and suffering, to get beyond our narrow focus. Only the self-cultivated passion will find a compassion that will be uplifting.
==========
James said,
July 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm ·
I’m not calling you out, but Hucklebird has a point in a fuzzy sort of way: are we supposed to progress to the point where everything is puppy dogs, bunny rabbits, and everybody lives happily ever after?
This is significant feedback: noone can understand what is being pointed to: the discrete freedom sequence, or more simply the double birth of democracy, according to a complex pattern of emergentise. As we study the eonic effect a whole series of strange things like this appear. That’s all I meant.
Hucklebird’s statements aren’t really the point. I was pointing to the way in which the emergence of freedom shows a complex structure across world history. That’s pretty good competition with the drama of revelation, so-called foisted on Axial Age Israel.
The question of freedom can be charged with semantic chaotification, but in the final analysis the usage of Kant as a starting point makes it clear, in the sense that the antinomy of freedom and causality is resolved by his transcendental idealism.
In spectacular fashion the structure of history is shown to match that.
Hucklebird’s objection isn’t the point here.
Note the remarkable similarity to Hegel’s idea of freedom emergence in history. However I don’t use Hegel’s terminology or philosophy at all.
The rise of the modern is far more spectacular than the Axial interval of the Old Testament, which is actually quite primitive.
You can by the way translate this argument backwards to the period of Archaic Greece.
Note in passing: I am stymied because if I use terms like ‘spiritual’ its usage remains unclear. I have often used samkhya to posit a replacement there, but it is not intuitive to people.
James said,
July 8, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I understand the point about trying to reinterpret the Judeo-Christian myth of a “higher power” directing history, but I’m really asking what relevance this has for the average person. This likely isn’t going to comfort the schmuck who is laying in the ICU dying of cancer. I’m certainly not advocating some confused “supernatural” beliefs, but these religions are not going to go away unless there is some viable replacement for the average person’s concerns (birth, death, relationships, etc.). Reading a little Kant is not likely to help.
Stephen P. Smith said,
July 8, 2009 at 8:24 pm
What is viable has to do with sufficiency. Freedom is stuck on necessity. It is necessary that we are free, but freedom won`t help the person dying of cancer. The dying person must find something sufficient, but that does not involve freedom. It involves the hard work of dying, and complete surrender.
Freedom is the work of the secular.
Sufficiency is the work of religion.
dandy said,
July 8, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“This is significant feedback: noone can understand what is being pointed to: the discrete freedom sequence, or more simply the double birth of democracy, according to a complex pattern of emergentise. As we study the eonic effect a whole series of strange things like this appear. That’s all I meant.
Hucklebird’s statements aren’t really the point. I was pointing to the way in which the emergence of freedom shows a complex structure across world history. That’s pretty good competition with the drama of revelation, so-called foisted on Axial Age Israel.”
It is not clear from what you assert here what is your own opinion on the subject of happiness, a topic that claims considerable attention from Kant in his writings about ethics, and has everything to do with the question of freedom in the individual.
Is happiness a diversion in your opinion? Is it valueless?
James said,
July 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm
” It is necessary that we are free, but freedom won`t help the person dying of cancer. The dying person must find something sufficient, but that does not involve freedom. It involves the hard work of dying, and complete surrender.”
That is not really what I’m getting at. My point is that people at the grassroots level use these religious myths to frame the concerns of their lives. Even if you attack the people in a religion’s ivory tower, that is not really where these religions’ derive their power. If you get rid of one, another simply replaces it (i.e. Spiritualism).
Darwiniana » Kant, virtue and happiness said,
July 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm
[...] Comment on Kant, freedom, science and modernity dandy said, July 8, 2009 at 10:24 pm · “This is significant feedback: noone can understand what is being pointed to: the discrete freedom sequence, or more simply the double birth of democracy, according to a complex pattern of emergentise. As we study the eonic effect a whole series of strange things like this appear. That’s all I meant. Hucklebird’s statements aren’t really the point. I was pointing to the way in which the emergence of freedom shows a complex structure across world history. That’s pretty good competition with the drama of revelation, so-called foisted on Axial Age Israel.” [...]
Darwiniana » ‘God’ idea stillborn in Axial religions said,
July 9, 2009 at 5:19 pm
[...] Recent Comments Darwiniana » Kant, virtue and happiness on Kant, freedom, science, and modernityEnvironmentalists Protest G8 Summit | The Gaia Resource on Environmentalists Protest G8 SummitJames on Kant, freedom, science, and modernitydandy on Kant, freedom, science, and modernityStephen P. Smith on Kant, freedom, science, and modernity [...]
Darwiniana » The great freedom sutra said,
July 9, 2009 at 5:23 pm
[...] Comment on Freedom, Science, and Modernity James said, July 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm · ” It is necessary that we are free, but freedom won`t help the person dying of cancer. The dying person must find something sufficient, but that does not involve freedom. It involves the hard work of dying, and complete surrender.” [...]
dandy said,
July 9, 2009 at 7:07 pm
In a second view now there is no connection between the subject of the eonic effect, which is a large-scale phenomenon on the magnitude of a planet, or else on a global scale, and that of happiness, a subject which has to do with human actions made of individual’s particular decisions and therefore operates on an entirely different scale, that of a man’s choices in the context of his single life. Therefore to posit the issue of happiness along the lines of a discussion dealing with evolution on a remarkable magnitude is to entirely miss the point – that there is no connection finally between those two questions, one of them has to do with humanity as a whole while the other has to do with individual operatings, which is on a small scale compared with that of the eonic effect.
nemo said,
July 9, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Dandy, I answered your post here in another more recent essay:
http://darwiniana.com/2009/07/09/kant-virtue-and-happiness/