12 Aug 2013 Full many a glorious morning I have seen

Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
Kissing with golden face the meadows green,
Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;
Anon permit the basest clouds to ride
With ugly rack on his celestial face,
And from the forlorn world his visage hide,
Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:
Even so my sun one early morn did shine,
With all triumphant splendour on my brow;
But out, alack, he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath mask’d him from me now.
Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth;
Suns of the world may stain when heaven’s sun staineth.

(William Shakespeare, Sonnet 33)

First-thing workout at 3:30 AM: 20 mn. Only 25 lowrise steps owing to yesterday’s nausea. Remainder was supine aerobics: air conducting and weights.

No physio. Feel light-headed and get easily nauseated when I walk. During morning hours before a long midday nap, was constantly falling asleep. Hospital is doing blood testing.

Beautiful glorious morning and beautiful glorious day flushed down the toilet by my condition.

Kant Study

The difficulty in understanding Kant far more prevalent that many philosophers are willing to admit. One of the Neo-Kantians, a gentleman named Schröter who’s not in Wikipedia, wrote:

“[that] it has never come into my mind to copy again what Kant has written or to know what Kant was after with his philosophy but only what according to my understanding he had to be after if his philosophy was to be coherent.”

I really need to track down this quote, and when I do, I’ll update this essay.

Call this character “Schröter’s” method of Kantian hermeneutics KH1: let KH0 be what we assume a Kantian interpreter is after by default, that is, when she doesn’t specify her hermeneutic; KH0 describes what Kant means. KH1 has to be specified when in use but the only other Kantian authority to do so is Adorno. The problem with KH1 is that it assumes that Kant was coherent. Altho he probably was, there is an element of question begging in adoption of KH1; perhaps Kant is incoherent all the way down.

It also assumes that Kant is coherent in only one way; but if we don’t have a single renarration of Kant’s thought on which we could construct fair tests on Kant in a class on Kant, and we don’t in my belief, this means Kant is incoherent in possibly more than one way. Our tests have to measure the student’s understanding of the teacher’s {mis)understanding.

Therefore KH1 is not a usable hermeneutic. Instead we do ontology using Kant’s tools and approaches to see if anything coherent and true pops out. The scandal is that basically, no one seems to understand vast tracts of Kant, notably the Deduction of the Categories, and Kantian hermeneutics is less a part of the history of philosophy than, say, describing Leibniz’ thought. Kantian hermeneutics is more original philosophy using Kant’s language. It is difficult, in my view, because Kant was trying to do (original) philosophy without tools he needed such as the distinction between constructed and constructible infinity that the mathematical intuitionists pioneered basing their thought on Kant’s insight.

To begin again, then. Again, as was the case earlier, when we produced an unworkable interpretation we cheerfully said, no problem, and continued to rock the Kantian Juggernaut back and forth in the mud to see if we could get it to work, all the while becoming more familiar with its dizzying array of tools.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: