Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00158)

Dallas wrote:

>Pure thinking (Kant) is what is wanted.  All factors out in front
>of us.

Interesting, since I always viewed the core of Kant as being basically
"anti-theosophical."  Kant argues that we must assume that nature is
ordered in such a way that is is purposeful, which thereby constrains, or
forces someone, to approach the study of nature as being formed by an
intelligent creator.  Such mental "lock-down" seems unacceptable to the
mega-exploratory mind.

Also, his famous categorical imperative, which he claims is based on pure
reason, has been proven over and over again to fail Kant's criteria.  So
much for reason as the sole standard for moral knowledge.

And, for you, Dallas, in your pursuit of knowledge of noumena - Kant says
these things can be pondered upon, but never really known.  So, in essence,
it is a subtle suggestion that our questions of "what is human" are merely
an exercise in chasing our tails.

Side note: The philosopher P.F. Strawson, in his book "Individuals,"
intrigingly makes Kant into an empiricist - Kant would not be pleased - but
Strawson does an admirable job.

Basically, in my opinion, there is no evidence that Kant really represents
"pure thinking."

On a more personal level, Kant's approach to thinking so carried over into
his personal life that he ended up needing such a rigidity to his daily
routine, that it interferred with his ability to truly connect with those
around him.  He began to treat people like objects.  Another example of how
the dominance of "reason" in one's life can distort what it means to be a
caring individual.

Kym