The case for metacategorical transcendence

One interesting and important finding that I derived from my categorical research is that we need to differentiate not just people but their mental structures from their own categorical specifications of these structures. The Diagram shows that there are a priori structures into which we are all born, and yet you can see that each individual within these structures is unique and differentiated from others. This comes from the fact that each individual creates their own categories (ideas) that they develop on their own and due to influences or inspirations from others. However, we need to notice that these internal distinctions of categories are not, in fact, categorical and therefore not a priori as Kant argued. I am writing this in order to show that the distinction of structure versus category (a form of content) is more important because it is a priori in regard to distinctions of categories within each individual’s philosophical worldview. Continue reading

Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

As can be seen with an old popular thread I started on Objectivism online forum, I am very interested in putting side-to-side various philosophies, even before I learn that some of them cannot be thoroughly compared! So I would like to find out whether it is even possible to conceive of transcending Rand’s worldview with that of her well-known ‘archenemy’ – Immanuel Kant himself. I’ve spent the last two years trying to figure out this big conflict in contemporary philosophy by studying Kant’s philosophy and debating Kantians, especially on Philosophy forums, which are now, unfortunately, non-operational. So what are some ideas that I’d like to put forward to initiate this discussion? Continue reading

Toward New Theology

In the previous post I mentioned that I will show you how to be truly subjective with the concept of God, but I did not mention that there is an objective caveat. Whenever you are shaping a conceptual area in a particular way, that area enters the state of synchrony with other participants and hence manifests objectively, i.e., in reality. As it happens with science, so it can happen with religion, but in a way that is more grounded than it is today. The new area of my philosophy that I would like to introduce today is theology, and specifically physically-conditioned, subjective theology. Continue reading

Transcendence: the call for new integrators!

Every idea can be made into an idealism, but can every idea be extended and function as a true idealism? Throughout history, philosophers have been inventing various idealisms to define their supposedly unique stances: transcendental, absolute, critical, material, and others. However, if we start branching philosophy into mere idealisms, we can get easily lost. I’ve proposed a different way to categorize philosophies that differentiates taking an idea as primary (position) or secondary (direction), and, following this, I’ve already categorized more than 100 individuals! Continue reading

Confusions of idealism

On Philosophy Forums on November 13th, 2015, I’ve written a post with unique arguments for categorizing Kant as a materialist. Bill Harris, my main opponent, criticizes me for not understanding Kant. However, I am convinced that it is Bill who doesn’t understand my arguments. The debate is still going on, so I think I should drive my point further home, as it also would be in Ayn Rand’s and Leonard Peikoff’s interests. Continue reading

Who was Immanuel Kant, and why should you care?

The general argument is that Kant was not a materialist but a transcendental idealist. However, that is not an argument but more like a conformation to Kant’s really twisted view. Prefix “trans-” means “on the other side.” What is on the other side of idealism? A transcendental idealist is a non-idealist. Kant was indeed a non-idealist, and he criticized idealists for their being removed from empirical reality. Moreover, he rejected realism and believed that mysticism was meaningless. That’s an eliminative way to figure that Kant was really a materialist. Another way is to look at what he advocated. Continue reading

Part II of The Philosophical Context: The Classical Europeans

Many philosophers and scientists worked within the framework provided by Plato and Aristotle. St. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian who leaned more toward the “metaphysical,” Baruch Spinoza more toward the “physicalist.” During the early European Enlightenment (17th century), Rene Descartes rediscovered the dualistic conception of mind/body, in which mind was primary. Under the influence of religion, Descartes’ thinking overemphasized the flaws in the Platonic vision of philosophy and science that were meant to be transformed by Spinoza’s monism. But Spinoza’s interpretation of Aristotle was mostly ignored due to the pressures from the Church. Instead, Descartes and the empirical scientists in the tradition of Francis Bacon helped shift the Platonic perspective to be bounded by mind alone. Isaac Newton criticized Cartesian ideas, for Newton matched and deepened Aristotle’s position and also revolutionized his physics. Newton, as Aristotle, had an interest in honestly applying hard science to the questions of mysticism, and he kept physicalism primary in his conceptions. Continue reading