TAJ, I have a few questions for you.
What do you/they exactly mean when you/they say "truth and knowledge are universal, necessary, and timeless".
Do you/they mean that all
real truths and
legitimate knowledge are "universal, necessary, and timeless"?
Or that there are certain instances of truths and knowledge that are "universal, necessary, and timeless"?
Or, something else?
For instance, it is true that it rained yesterday. It IS "true". But it is not universal, necessary, and timeless. Now, a condition of raining, with no other restrictions or qualifications, could occur at any time or place, and would thus be more universal. Yes? It seems to me that these universal things are actually ABSTRACT IDEAS. As one removes specifics of experience, one moves UP the ladder of (mental) abstraction. I wonder whether these "truths" exist outside of the mind at all. Does that make sense? It seems to me that specifics involve perception and experience. Whereas the notions of species, groups, categories, sets, and so forth, which disregard certain specifics and details of unique experiences, ALWAYS involve IDEAS (mental objects). In other words, specifics occur in the realm of sense and perception, while general (universal)
anythings occur in the realm of the mind. Once you shift from the details of experience to the general, one shifts from "out there" to "in here" (as a concept or abstract idea).
I understand the notions that a triangle or a square or a circle are what they are, and are what they are no matter what you might call them. Even though saying "a triangle is an object with three sides" is a tautology, as it is a simple description or definition, any thing with three sides, no matter what you call it has the traits and qualities of that "thing" we currently call and define as a triangle. But babies can recognize the shape distinct form other shapes at early ages - long before they ever have learned descriptions and definitions of a "triangle". I can see that this is what you would call "universal". I wouldn't say though that it is
timeless, because you might find yourself in a reality someday where such shapes and forms don't exist. And, in THAT reality, it would NOT be "necessary".
Is there anything anywhere that is truly "universal, necessary, and timeless"? Even the universe and all the constituent parts supposedly will collapse one day and fall back into a similar state that immediately preceded the Big Bang. It seems to me that if there is a spiritual nature, sort of like Hubbard's "static", THAT "thing" is the only true thing that might adhere to the description "universal, necessary, and timeless" - if in fact everything derives from it. In a sense "it" would be "first cause".
I would say that the fundamental basis of mind is far more "universal, necessary, and timeless" than any aspect of the transitory physical universe, since it orders and in a sense
creates the experiences of
any reality. What do you think?
Now, did a triangle exist anywhere before some human being got an idea of a triangle and described and defined it? Possibly somewhere along time three trees fell to form the pattern or some strange accident of soil erosion resulted in the shape, but other than that, is this thing called a triangle actually the tangible result of
Man's ideas about things meshing with experiences and observations of physical and mental reality? This seems to be what Kant was getting at when he talked of
empirically real and
transcendentally ideal - the two dynamically interact to result in some experience.
Is there such a thing as a "natural" triangle separate from Mans idea about such things?
Also, such things like triangles and circles are not that important, not like other key concepts that philosophers argue like God, the soul or free will.
I pulled put some old philosophy books last week and started looking through them.
I have read a book on Kant by Roger Scruton, but it sure is tough - because the qualified writers who talk about Kant can't even agree on what he often meant!!!!
From what I have read, this summary from Wiki seems accurate:
"In simple terms, Kant pointed out that we all shape our experience of things through the filter of our mind. The mind shapes that experience, and among other things, Kant believed the concepts of space and time were programmed into the human brain, as was the notion of cause and effect.[5] We never have direct experience of things, the noumenal world, and what we do experience is the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses. These observations summarize Kant's views upon the subject–object problem."
I pretty much agree with all of that. That sounds fairly contextual and relative to me. I also agree with all of this. Do you?
"Kant's work purported to bridge the two dominant philosophical schools in the 18th century: 1) rationalism, which held that knowledge could be attained by reason alone a priori (prior to experience), and 2) empiricism, which held that knowledge could be arrived at only through the senses a posteriori (after experience). Kant's solution was to propose that while we could know particular facts about the world only via sensory experience, we could know the form they must take prior to any experience. That is, we cannot know what objects we will encounter, but we can know how we will encounter them. Kant called his mode of philosophising "critical philosophy", in that it was supposedly less concerned with setting out positive doctrine than with critiquing the limits to the theories we can set out.[1] The conclusion he presented, as above, he called "transcendental idealism". This distinguished it from earlier "idealism", such as George Berkeley's, which held that external objects have actual being or real existence only when they are perceived by an observer. Kant said that there are things-in-themselves, noumena, that is, things that exist other than being merely sensations and ideas in our minds. Kant held in the Critique of Pure Reason that the world of appearances (phenomena) is empirically real and transcendentally ideal. The mind plays a central role in influencing the way that the world is experienced: we perceive phenomena through time, space and the categories of the understanding. It is this notion that was taken to heart by Kant's philosophical successors.
Kant's transcendental idealism consisted of taking a point of view outside of and above oneself (transcendentally) and understanding that the mind directly knows only phenomena or ideas. Whatever exists other than mental phenomena, or ideas that appear to the mind, is a thing-in-itself and cannot be directly and immediately known.
Kant had criticized pure reason. He wanted to restrict reasoning, judging, and speaking only to objects of possible experience. The main German Idealists, who had been theology students,[2] reacted against Kant’s stringent limits.[3]"
It seems to me that Kant's system fails to include the possibility of "direct experience" of a "thing-in-itself" via a "mystical experience". Meaning that if there is a "soul" that is the ground of all mental and perceptual activities, that through some function of it, along some quantum leap surpassing space and time, raw unconditioned consciousness might "grok" various things, events, worlds and even universes.
Does any modern philosophy encroach on such things, or are notions of the soul/spirit and such kept relegated to religion? Even Kant seemed as if he tried to sort of prove the "soul" (transcendental self) using his practical form of reason.
PS I pulled out the books on Kant, to read (again), after you yelled at me last week for denigrating your hero.
(by the way I deserved it - I can be very irreverent at times . . .)