Anonymous
6/24/2025, 3:04:14 PM
No.24492433
>>24491521
Alright let me stop trolling/being a dick and get real with you. Dogmatism isn't a mental illness, it's a natural way of thought toward which we are oriented because it is, in fact, closest to the practical standpoint, i.e. the standpoint of daily life. In daily life we think of objects existing independently outside of us, and of ourselves as free beings. We think of external objects as both a) passively cognizable, and b) in relation to acting, either as things we can change, or as obstacles to our acting. This perspective is absolutely true and it would be madness to deny it. Transcendental idealism is only trying to explain and defend this ordinary standpoint.
Dogmatism arises when you make being qua passively cognizable the first and only principle of reality. The natural scientist of course takes a 'dogmatic' stance - if you're investigating the laws of physics, you are not considering the object of your inquiry as something that stands in relation to consciousness, but as something in itself. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. But if you absolutize this stance and think that passive being, operating under laws of necessity, is actually the ground of all reality, there is no longer any room for freedom, consciousness, or morality. People who try to artificially 'synthesize' the two are begging the question. Aristotelians (especially neo-Thomists nowadays) who claim there is no problem are stuck in the middle ages - there is a reason many naturalists have trouble accepting free will etc. It's not enough to say 'ackshually, form is prior to matter, so free will makes sense' - to a materialist this is gross question begging, *even if what they are saying is true* (Fichte himself arrives at this point of view).
The dogmatist/materialist can always say "freedom is by definition supernatural, something that operates on its own without obeying any laws - how can this be? How could freedom even exist in nature?" This is what transcendental idealism is answering (particularly in Fichte's case) by deducing nature from freedom, deducing freedom *into* nature and overcoming dualism. In the same way materialists try (and fail) to deduce consciousness and freedom from nature. This is an artificial, philosophical perspective - Fichte calls it a "fiction" in one of his letters to Schelling. (The standpoint of natural science is also ofc a "fiction", it abstracts from consciousness itself, even if it examines empirical consciousness in e.g. psychology or cognitive science).
Within this fictitious perspective you can say things like "everything is a product of the imagination" and it is true and not schizo at all. You're reading idealism as if it's written in ordinary language and concerns itself with the ordinary standpoint. The Kantanon likes to write as if idealism gives you some true picture of reality that only a wizard can know but he is trolling. This fiction is still 'true' inasmuch as it's a theory that explains reality.
Alright let me stop trolling/being a dick and get real with you. Dogmatism isn't a mental illness, it's a natural way of thought toward which we are oriented because it is, in fact, closest to the practical standpoint, i.e. the standpoint of daily life. In daily life we think of objects existing independently outside of us, and of ourselves as free beings. We think of external objects as both a) passively cognizable, and b) in relation to acting, either as things we can change, or as obstacles to our acting. This perspective is absolutely true and it would be madness to deny it. Transcendental idealism is only trying to explain and defend this ordinary standpoint.
Dogmatism arises when you make being qua passively cognizable the first and only principle of reality. The natural scientist of course takes a 'dogmatic' stance - if you're investigating the laws of physics, you are not considering the object of your inquiry as something that stands in relation to consciousness, but as something in itself. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. But if you absolutize this stance and think that passive being, operating under laws of necessity, is actually the ground of all reality, there is no longer any room for freedom, consciousness, or morality. People who try to artificially 'synthesize' the two are begging the question. Aristotelians (especially neo-Thomists nowadays) who claim there is no problem are stuck in the middle ages - there is a reason many naturalists have trouble accepting free will etc. It's not enough to say 'ackshually, form is prior to matter, so free will makes sense' - to a materialist this is gross question begging, *even if what they are saying is true* (Fichte himself arrives at this point of view).
The dogmatist/materialist can always say "freedom is by definition supernatural, something that operates on its own without obeying any laws - how can this be? How could freedom even exist in nature?" This is what transcendental idealism is answering (particularly in Fichte's case) by deducing nature from freedom, deducing freedom *into* nature and overcoming dualism. In the same way materialists try (and fail) to deduce consciousness and freedom from nature. This is an artificial, philosophical perspective - Fichte calls it a "fiction" in one of his letters to Schelling. (The standpoint of natural science is also ofc a "fiction", it abstracts from consciousness itself, even if it examines empirical consciousness in e.g. psychology or cognitive science).
Within this fictitious perspective you can say things like "everything is a product of the imagination" and it is true and not schizo at all. You're reading idealism as if it's written in ordinary language and concerns itself with the ordinary standpoint. The Kantanon likes to write as if idealism gives you some true picture of reality that only a wizard can know but he is trolling. This fiction is still 'true' inasmuch as it's a theory that explains reality.