The children of Hume and Kant - and Idealism

[Carl Jung]

Being brought up in western society pretty much forces one to adapt to a view concerning many questions - that is directly inherited from the raging and still on-going battle between Hume and Kant. These questions are primarily "What is the human psyche?", "What can we have knowledge about?" and "What is the limit of our rationality?".

No one has as yet answered Hume except to say that if Hume was correct about causality, induction and the human psyche all of our knowledge is merely regularities that we discover but do not understand. However, if all of our knowledge is mere happenstance then there is no firm rational ground to build science or metaphysics upon - but most of us think there is - at least for science.

Kant built a system that more or less stated that it is no longer our knowledge that needs to change in order to fit reality - but reality needs to change in order to fit us.

Kant said that space and time are not things that belong to the phenomena themselves but is instead an intuitive network that we lay upon reality in order to understand it. Thus German Idealism was born that, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to solipsism - as we can have no knowledge but of ourselves.

However, looking at Hume, one is forced to discover the same thing. His problem of induction destroys any hope of us having knowledge of the outside world - and since he denies the self as an autonomous entity we are merely certain of our own reactions if they are reflected in the reservoir that is our memory.

I think Hume was a great genius but I can't understand his theory of the self or of knowledge. In order for knowledge to exist their must be something that "knows" - i.e. a subject.

Now, what is lacking in all philosopical treaties in the western hemisphere since the 1700-century? The way the human psyche can reach out into the world - if the world is a separate enitity from ourselves - as I think it is.

This route to knowledge or passage-way of information is, for me, a sign post that speaks of cracks in our picture of the human psyche. Their must be something we have as yet not discovered about how man relates to the world. The intuitive relationship with the world that man has, is for me, perhaps one of the reasons for me to seek knowledge from people like Sheldrake who sees this flaw and try to fill it with new ideas.

Philosophy can act as a sign post towards mysticism - at least for me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Being brought up in western society pretty much forces one to adapt to a view concerning many questions - that is directly inherited from the raging and still on-going battle between Hume and Kant. These questions are primarily "What is the human psyche?", "What can we have knowledge about?" and "What is the limit of our rationality?".

No one has as yet answered Hume except to say that if Hume was correct about causality, induction and the human psyche all of our knowledge is merely regularities that we discover but do not understand. However, if all of our knowledge is mere happenstance then there is no firm rational ground to build science or metaphysics upon - but most of us think there is - at least for science.

Kant built a system that more or less stated that it is no longer our knowledge that needs to change in order to fit reality - but reality needs to change in order to fit us.

Kant said that space and time are not things that belong to the phenomena themselves but is instead an intuitive network that we lay upon reality in order to understand it. Thus German Idealism was born that, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to solipsism - as we can have no knowledge but of ourselves.

However, looking at Hume, one is forced to discover the same thing. His problem of induction destroys any hope of us having knowledge of the outside world - and since he denies the self as an autonomous entity we are merely certain of our own reactions if they are reflected in the reservoir that is our memory.

I think Hume was a great genius but I can't understand his theory of the self or of knowledge. In order for knowledge to exist their must be something that "knows" - i.e. a subject.

Now, what is lacking in all philosopical treaties in the western hemisphere since the 1700-century? The way the human psyche can reach out into the world - if the world is a separate enitity from ourselves - as I think it is.

This route to knowledge or passage-way of information is, for me, a sign post that speaks of cracks in our picture of the human psyche. Their must be something we have as yet not discovered about how man relates to the world. The intuitive relationship with the world that man has, is for me, perhaps one of the reasons for me to seek knowledge from people like Sheldrake who sees this flaw and try to fill it with new ideas.

Philosophy can act as a sign post towards mysticism - at least for me.

What is lacking in philosophy since the 17th century? It seems to be sceptical in the sense of attacking our commonsensical notions about the world and ourselves, but not saying anything positive to replace those beliefs. We want to know what we are, what the world is, what can we know, what ought we to do etc.

And no, modern science doesn't supply the answers to such questions!

[Sextus70]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Being brought up in western society pretty much forces one to adapt to a view concerning many questions - that is directly inherited from the raging and still on-going battle between Hume and Kant. These questions are primarily "What is the human psyche?", "What can we have knowledge about?" and "What is the limit of our rationality?".

No one has as yet answered Hume except to say that if Hume was correct about causality, induction and the human psyche all of our knowledge is merely regularities that we discover but do not understand. However, if all of our knowledge is mere happenstance then there is no firm rational ground to build science or metaphysics upon - but most of us think there is - at least for science.

Kant built a system that more or less stated that it is no longer our knowledge that needs to change in order to fit reality - but reality needs to change in order to fit us.

Kant said that space and time are not things that belong to the phenomena themselves but is instead an intuitive network that we lay upon reality in order to understand it. Thus German Idealism was born that, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to solipsism - as we can have no knowledge but of ourselves.

However, looking at Hume, one is forced to discover the same thing. His problem of induction destroys any hope of us having knowledge of the outside world - and since he denies the self as an autonomous entity we are merely certain of our own reactions if they are reflected in the reservoir that is our memory.

I think Hume was a great genius but I can't understand his theory of the self or of knowledge. In order for knowledge to exist their must be something that "knows" - i.e. a subject.

Now, what is lacking in all philosopical treaties in the western hemisphere since the 1700-century? The way the human psyche can reach out into the world - if the world is a separate enitity from ourselves - as I think it is.

This route to knowledge or passage-way of information is, for me, a sign post that speaks of cracks in our picture of the human psyche. Their must be something we have as yet not discovered about how man relates to the world. The intuitive relationship with the world that man has, is for me, perhaps one of the reasons for me to seek knowledge from people like Sheldrake who sees this flaw and try to fill it with new ideas.

Philosophy can act as a sign post towards mysticism - at least for me.

Very interesting reflexions about these two great philosophers! I've been reading about them since some time ago so I can understand some of the things that you say here.

In fact, Hume and Kant were, IMO, some of the best philosophers of history, and many of the ideas of their respective ideologies has still a great influence in many areas. Hume's problem of induction is a reminder of the state of uncertainty and doubt that many natural and social sciences still (and will still) have due to the reasoning and analitical processes used in their conception and development, what means , with exception of what he refers as "ideas relations" such as math, we can't have a truly objective and accurate knowledge of the world due to its contingent nature.

Kant tried to solve this problem, stating that although our knowledge come from experience, there are rational structures and principles (such as space and time) present in mind that allows us to define and determinate the grade of universality and need of its contents. In fact, mind plays her role introducing her own structure in the reality, being experience her only limit, thus this statement also suggest the impossibility of a true and clear knowledge of the outside world.

However perspectivism (which appeared in the early 20th century if I'm not mistaken) brought an answer to this problem, proposing that the reality is the addition of the different and infinite "perspectives" of it since different subjects and points of view. However, this theory also impose a limit to a universal knowledge of the outside world, due to the "infinite" number of possible perspectives of it.

As you say, Philosophy worried for define the limits of our knowledge of reality, but didn't put much work to study and find the possible ways to how consciousness can reach out to the external world which with it interacts.

Regards!

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

What is lacking in philosophy since the 17th century? It seems to be sceptical in the sense of attacking our commonsensical notions about the world and ourselves, but not saying anything positive to replace those beliefs. We want to know what we are, what the world is, what can we know, what ought we to do etc.

And no, modern science doesn't supply the answers to such questions!

Well, you are describing analytic philosophy. I agree that analytic philosophy is in quite bad shape. Almost as bad as science.

However, their are still glimmers of hope such as Henri Bergson, Carl Jung and others that actually do provide essential information.

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Sextus70

Very interesting reflexions about these two great philosophers! I've been reading about them since some time ago so I can understand some of the things that you say here.

In fact, Hume and Kant were, IMO, some of the best philosophers of history, and many of the ideas of their respective ideologies has still a great influence in many areas. Hume's problem of induction is a reminder of the state of uncertainty and doubt that many natural and social sciences still (and will still) have due to the reasoning and analitical processes used in their conception and development, what means , with exception of what he refers as "ideas relations" such as math, we can't have a truly objective and accurate knowledge of the world due to its contingent nature.

Kant tried to solve this problem, stating that although our knowledge come from experience, there are rational structures and principles (such as space and time) present in mind that allows us to define and determinate the grade of universality and need of its contents. In fact, mind plays her role introducing her own structure in the reality, being experience her only limit, thus this statement also suggest the impossibility of a true and clear knowledge of the outside world.

However perspectivism (which appeared in the early 20th century if I'm not mistaken) brought an answer to this problem, proposing that the reality is the addition of the different and infinite "perspectives" of it since different subjects and points of view. However, this theory also impose a limit to a universal knowledge of the outside world, due to the "infinite" number of possible perspectives of it.

As you say, Philosophy worried for define the limits of our knowledge of reality, but didn't put much work to study and find the possible ways to how consciousness can reach out to the external world which with it interacts.

Regards!

I have never been able to take perspectivism seriously as it is nothing more than what Hume said. Perspectiveness and scepticism about knowledge amounts to the same thing - but it still seems we have intuitive knowledge.

This is quite a a good paper arguing that intuition can not be justified without finding a statement that is true in itself. http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos.../intuition.pdf

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Well, you are describing analytic philosophy. I agree that analytic philosophy is in quite bad shape. Almost as bad as science.

However, their are still glimmers of hope such as Henri Bergson, Carl Jung and others that actually do provide essential information.

Not altogether sure what analytic philosophy is. Weren't Hume and Kant analytic philosophers? Isn't our modern western notion about reality and our place in it guided by such "analytic" philosophy?

I know absolutely nothing about Bergson and Jung.

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

However, their are still glimmers of hope such as Henri Bergson, Carl Jung and others that actually do provide essential information.[my emphasis]

Well, Carl Jung, it is good to know you are here with us!

- Johann

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Johann

Well, Carl Jung, it is good to know you are here with us!

- Johann

Yeah, it's nice with a celebrity here.
BTW, I loved you in A Dangerous Method

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Not altogether sure what analytic philosophy is. Weren't Hume and Kant analytic philosophers? Isn't our modern western notion about reality and our place in it guided by such "analytic" philosophy?

I know absolutely nothing about Bergson and Jung.

Analytic philosophy stands in contrast to continental philosophy.

You could say - but this is an over simplified picture I'm painting - that Analytic philosophy came out of Locke and Hume and took over english speaking countries - whilst Continental Philosophy ruled the german and spanish speaking parts of the world and was a result of Kant and German Idealism.

A short and very incomplete explanation can be found here: Continental philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Johann

Well, Carl Jung, it is good to know you are here with us!

- Johann

Thanks!!!

Originally Posted by Pollux

Yeah, it's nice with a celebrity here.
BTW, I loved you in A Dangerous Method

Yeah, damn I look good!!!