On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:47:41 -0800, John Jones <jonescardiff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Nov 11, 12:07?am, Malrassic Park <male...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:33:12 -0800, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 1:38 pm, Malrassic Park <male...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Kant is elucidating the circularity involved in denying causality on
>> >> transcendent grounds.
>>
>> >I thought we were talking about his refutation of the denial of free
>> >will?
>>
>> I wasn't clear enough. Freedom vs. determinism is a question of
>> causality. The transcendent origin of all series is a spontaneous
>> First Cause. If one denies a transcendent first cause then much
>> necessary empirical knowledge is also denied. ("But if for this reason
>> you refuse to recognise this enigma in nature, you will find yourself
>> compelled to reject many fundamental synthetic properties and forces,
>> which as little admit of comprehension.") Free will, as spontaneity of
>> action, itself is a first cause of events within the world. Place your
>> big toe in a still pond and watch the ripples. But Kant is referring
>> to a First Cause from outside the world, the beginning of every chain
>> of events such as the source of the Big Bang. "Even if a
>> transcendental power of freedom be allowed, as supplying a beginning
>> of happenings in the world, this power would in any case have to be
>> outside the world." (op cit.) NKS says "transcendental," but a Freedom
>> to set the entire universe in motion would truly be transcendent,
>> because it is really "not a beginning in time, but in causality" (op
>> cit.), a transcendent versus an empirical cause.
>>
>> Thus the scientific materialist should realize that in denying
>> spontaneity, simply because it is not scientifically understandable,
>> he is denying much empirical knowledge that allegedly stands on solid
>> grounds, but that is equally incapable of being understood.
>>
>> --
>> fantasybedtimehour.com
>
>Spontaneity is an idea that belongs to the transcendentally real
>picture of causality whether spontaneity arises inside the world or
>outside the world. And because Kant is a transcendental idealist he
>would not promote the idea of spontaneity.
He would not promote the idea within the bounds of understanding, but
he would promote it as a rational Idea of free-will.
>Spontaneity is an idea that comes from the scientific materialists,
>even though they reject the idea. So if scientists accepted the idea
>of spontaneity then this might expand empirical knowledge. However, a
>spontaneity construed in causally real terms is not of Kant's making.
>
>The transcendent origin of all series is a spontaneous First Cause,
>but the transcendental origin of all series sup****ts or provides the
>conditions for causality itself. The two are quite different.
Kant distinguished a spontaneity within time from a spontaneity
outside of time. He would not allow for the latter (a First Cause) on
any grounds. "...any such assumption that over and above
the sum of all possible intuitions [i.e., nature] there exists an
object which cannot be given in any possible perception, is still a
very bold one...For the absolutely first beginning of which we are
here speaking is not a beginning in time, but in causality."
--
fantasybedtimehour.com
|
