Antoine wrote (in response to Joe):
>I'm not sure how to respond to Joe Cronin's astounding claims about Kant
>and Hegel.
I am not sure why these are astounding claims, unless you mean already
accepted and acknowledged claims. The idea that system's like Kant's and
Hegel's were fascist or lead to Fascism was introduced by the first members
of the Frankfurt School. (It amazes me, indeed, that everything the
Frankfurt Schoolers said must be repeated today as if it were new. They
did "Kuhn" before Kuhn, they did "foucault" before Foucault...)
The first thing that comes to mind has to do with
>scholarship. The quotes that Joe picked to corroborate his claim that
>Kant and Hegelare in some way part of a tendency which culminated in
>Hitler suffer from a gigantic argumentative gap.
I'm not sure I agree here. Joe's citations all point tio the beleif in
Hegel and Kant that there is one reason, one rationality, which is a
totalizing theory. Such a totalizing theory is totalitarian or fascist -
it dominates and controls all and leaves no room for alternative voices
(more on this later in reference to Habermas).
I'm not saying that
>because of this gap, Joe's point is false, just that it isn't made. I in
>fact think it totally false to make the conneciotn that Joe made, but I'm
>at a loss at howe to proceed. In general, with respect to the issue of
>responding to fascism, I'm not interested too much in debate. I have a
>small amount of expereince in community responses to street level nazis
>and white supremacists, and dialogue of any kind was never on the agenda,
>never mind trying to create a space in which to describe the liberating
>consequences of the categorical imperative.
This sounds like a logical fallacy to me: it's called a red herring or a
proof surrogate. What's your point? What kind of experience? If your not
interested in debate, then why are you debating?
Kant and Hegel's views are to be
>vigorously repudiated.
Agreed
On the other hand, there is surely some room to
>distance some of the issues that Kant and Hegel first introduced, or
>introduced in a helpful manner. Kant, for instance, is among the first
>philosphers to insist on making practical reason come before theoretical
>reason.
Yes, but what interests does such an introduction does such a heirarchy
maintain? The fact is that practical reason has no power in Kant. Kant's
practical reason is relegated to the noumenal realm which has no
affect/effect on the physical world with which we are concerned. Where is
freedom important- in the noumenal or the phenomenal? Such a question
shows the absurdity of the division in Kant. Of course, one should read
Marcuse about this: I recommend "The Concept of Essence" and _Eros and
Civilization_.
This impotence of practical reason gets trnasfered into Hegel's
system. What is important in Hegel is spirit- whether individual or world.
But again, freedom in this realm has nothing to do with the real concerns
of everyday people on the street.
The further problem is that if theoretical reason is subordinated
to practical reason and practical reason has no real importance, then
neither does theoretical reason.
Joe writes:
I'm sorry, but the triple Kant, Hegel, Hitler doesn't strike
me as odd at all. i'm just not sure how many other german
philosophers would fitin between kant and Hitler.
The question about Habermas has to do with whether he would
fit at the end of the list. After all, what is
commmunicative reason, "maturity," etc. all about, if not
the dismissal of these "irrational" (unArian) suitors to the
throne?
Okay Joe, I agree with you, but I'm not sure that you have defended your
point adequetely. Could you draw out the lines a litlle more? Do you take
a similar stance as Marcuse et. al., (I might be little surprise) or what
is your connection between These three fellows?
The point about Habrermas just rings in here. Habermas bases all
legitimation on scientific reasoning- this is very totalitarian. Am I
missing something in Haby? I woudl realy like to see some further
develop[ment of aesthetic reasoning in Habermas- ios it there just for
show? Habermas wants us all to be Vulcans- but I don;t want to be Spock.
Nor do I think I should be Kirk. There must be some middle ground which we
human beings fall into. Perhaps this is what Gilligan tries to get to when
she says that Kantian rationality and female "emotionality" (What would be
a good word) need to combine if we are to make any progress in the world.
The point is that when everything is subordinated to scientific reasoning,
we have a certain domination of thought, a certain constriction on how we
think. Isn't this Foucault's point. (BTW, Foucault said he wished he had
read the Frankfurt School sooner so he didn't make so many mistakes early
on. So he agrees with some of what they said).
The point is, Kant's architectoni system constricts are way of
thought and our action, our means of acting in the world. In this way, it
dominates humankind and dominates the world. What does not conform to the
categorical imperative, what does not conform to scientific reasoning is
illicit. This mode of thought connects to Fascism in that Fascism is
simply a totalitarian state which dominates human beings. It controls the
means of production for the service of the state and it controls human
beings for their en;lightenment and freedom. Again, I refer you to
Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc.
JLN "The architectonic structure of the Kantian
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx system, like the gymnastic pyramids of
Sade's orgies and the schematized
principles of the early bourgeois
freemasonry reveals an organization of
life as a whole which is deprived of
any substantial goal."
from _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_
------------------
>I'm not sure how to respond to Joe Cronin's astounding claims about Kant
>and Hegel.
I am not sure why these are astounding claims, unless you mean already
accepted and acknowledged claims. The idea that system's like Kant's and
Hegel's were fascist or lead to Fascism was introduced by the first members
of the Frankfurt School. (It amazes me, indeed, that everything the
Frankfurt Schoolers said must be repeated today as if it were new. They
did "Kuhn" before Kuhn, they did "foucault" before Foucault...)
The first thing that comes to mind has to do with
>scholarship. The quotes that Joe picked to corroborate his claim that
>Kant and Hegelare in some way part of a tendency which culminated in
>Hitler suffer from a gigantic argumentative gap.
I'm not sure I agree here. Joe's citations all point tio the beleif in
Hegel and Kant that there is one reason, one rationality, which is a
totalizing theory. Such a totalizing theory is totalitarian or fascist -
it dominates and controls all and leaves no room for alternative voices
(more on this later in reference to Habermas).
I'm not saying that
>because of this gap, Joe's point is false, just that it isn't made. I in
>fact think it totally false to make the conneciotn that Joe made, but I'm
>at a loss at howe to proceed. In general, with respect to the issue of
>responding to fascism, I'm not interested too much in debate. I have a
>small amount of expereince in community responses to street level nazis
>and white supremacists, and dialogue of any kind was never on the agenda,
>never mind trying to create a space in which to describe the liberating
>consequences of the categorical imperative.
This sounds like a logical fallacy to me: it's called a red herring or a
proof surrogate. What's your point? What kind of experience? If your not
interested in debate, then why are you debating?
Kant and Hegel's views are to be
>vigorously repudiated.
Agreed
On the other hand, there is surely some room to
>distance some of the issues that Kant and Hegel first introduced, or
>introduced in a helpful manner. Kant, for instance, is among the first
>philosphers to insist on making practical reason come before theoretical
>reason.
Yes, but what interests does such an introduction does such a heirarchy
maintain? The fact is that practical reason has no power in Kant. Kant's
practical reason is relegated to the noumenal realm which has no
affect/effect on the physical world with which we are concerned. Where is
freedom important- in the noumenal or the phenomenal? Such a question
shows the absurdity of the division in Kant. Of course, one should read
Marcuse about this: I recommend "The Concept of Essence" and _Eros and
Civilization_.
This impotence of practical reason gets trnasfered into Hegel's
system. What is important in Hegel is spirit- whether individual or world.
But again, freedom in this realm has nothing to do with the real concerns
of everyday people on the street.
The further problem is that if theoretical reason is subordinated
to practical reason and practical reason has no real importance, then
neither does theoretical reason.
Joe writes:
I'm sorry, but the triple Kant, Hegel, Hitler doesn't strike
me as odd at all. i'm just not sure how many other german
philosophers would fitin between kant and Hitler.
The question about Habermas has to do with whether he would
fit at the end of the list. After all, what is
commmunicative reason, "maturity," etc. all about, if not
the dismissal of these "irrational" (unArian) suitors to the
throne?
Okay Joe, I agree with you, but I'm not sure that you have defended your
point adequetely. Could you draw out the lines a litlle more? Do you take
a similar stance as Marcuse et. al., (I might be little surprise) or what
is your connection between These three fellows?
The point about Habrermas just rings in here. Habermas bases all
legitimation on scientific reasoning- this is very totalitarian. Am I
missing something in Haby? I woudl realy like to see some further
develop[ment of aesthetic reasoning in Habermas- ios it there just for
show? Habermas wants us all to be Vulcans- but I don;t want to be Spock.
Nor do I think I should be Kirk. There must be some middle ground which we
human beings fall into. Perhaps this is what Gilligan tries to get to when
she says that Kantian rationality and female "emotionality" (What would be
a good word) need to combine if we are to make any progress in the world.
The point is that when everything is subordinated to scientific reasoning,
we have a certain domination of thought, a certain constriction on how we
think. Isn't this Foucault's point. (BTW, Foucault said he wished he had
read the Frankfurt School sooner so he didn't make so many mistakes early
on. So he agrees with some of what they said).
The point is, Kant's architectoni system constricts are way of
thought and our action, our means of acting in the world. In this way, it
dominates humankind and dominates the world. What does not conform to the
categorical imperative, what does not conform to scientific reasoning is
illicit. This mode of thought connects to Fascism in that Fascism is
simply a totalitarian state which dominates human beings. It controls the
means of production for the service of the state and it controls human
beings for their en;lightenment and freedom. Again, I refer you to
Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc.
JLN "The architectonic structure of the Kantian
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx system, like the gymnastic pyramids of
Sade's orgies and the schematized
principles of the early bourgeois
freemasonry reveals an organization of
life as a whole which is deprived of
any substantial goal."
from _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_
------------------