Of Criticism and Judgment

[tcpip]

airiefairie has written an excellent post at The Isocracy Network on the perceived need of political pundits (of which I must admit adding a few elaborations and footnotes). Apart from the direct issue of personal involvement in civics, it also raises the question of the core faculties of the thinking process. By this I mean not the passive absorption of information, nor the ability to regurgitate such perceptions, but the conscious ability to criticise and judge, which should be available to any with an adult mind.

Such reflective thinking often seems missing in the minds of many adults and this causes me some concern. For without it a person simply isn't capable of expressing any rational judgment except over the own sensations, and even then not necessarily to their own good, as they are incapable of reflecting in their own tastes; I suspect such people are particularly prone to unconscious drug and alcohol abuse.

More serious pathological behaviour occurs however when moral decisions are made without criticism, and judgment, the former defined as faculty to engage in reflection and the latter to express it. With the example of Adolf Eichmann, confirmed by the famous Milgram psychology experiments and followed up by the Stanford Prison experiments, individuals who don't not engage in criticism and reflection are prone to follow what is socially expected of them - even if it means sending tens of thousands to concentration and extermination camps (Eichmann), or electrocuting people (Milgram experiments), or engaging in a physically abusive misuse of power (Stanford). Even if they claim "oh, I would never do that", the reality is most people would and do. They will follow an authoritative figure representing their church, nation, or state, or ideology to the point of engaging in the worst abuses of human rights and especially is it is socially sanctioned to do so.

Immanual Kant (whom I may not care for his metaphysics, but I often like his rationality - and no, the latter does not require the former) has two great contributions to this matter. One is the third in the philosophical trilogy, Critique of Judgment. But perhaps more important is the pithy essay 'What Is Enlightenment'. In it he quite correctly describes enlightenment as the moment when one overcomes their own mental immaturity; when they have faith in the own ability to learn through criticism and accept the criticism of others. When they no longer fear the social sanction from who become upset from 'uncomfortable comments' (which, of course, Socrates specialised in).


Now before passing my own judgment on such people, there are exceptions and caveats to be stated. Some people are simply not capable of engaging in criticism; as noted above those who have a cognitive deficiency that means they effectively do not and cannot have an adult mind. Others, capable of criticism, may have genuine fears for their physical security if they pass judgment (e.g., under a totalitarian government) - but only in such cases is a temporary silence justified. In all other cases, we should state, honestly and forthrightly, what is true and false as we perceive it (and admit our own possibility of error), to espouse what we consider right and wrong (and test these claims to universality), and even to sincerely express our tastes (acknowledging that the tastes of others will vary).


Those who do not engage in criticism are idiots; those who do not engage in judgment are cowards.

Comments

[ironed_orchid]

"What is Orientation in Thinking?" - which unfortunately doesn't appear to be available in English as an online text, is also very good.

Also, I can't help it, but it seems odd to me, or at least very outdated, to speak of Kant having a Metaphysics. Sure he has metaphysical precepts, but the critical philosophy is a formal methodology to describe different modes of human thought and judgment.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

books.google.com has "What Is Orientation in Thinking?" in Kant By Immanuel Kant(!), Hans Siegbert Reiss, Hugh Barr Nisbet from p237 onwards, although it's missing three pages (*mutter* *mutter*). That's the best I can find.

but the critical philosophy is a formal methodology to describe different modes of human thought and judgment.

Right! That part I am more than happy with.... There is a contemporary philosopher (whose name totally escapes me at the moment) who argues that the one can keep the deductive reasoning in Kant without having to adopt transcendental idealism.

*googles* Ahh, The Bounds of Sense by Peter Strawson.. also on google books, yay!

[ironed_orchid]

Hurrah for google books...

Yes, but I'm FOR Transcendental Idealism, because, unlike Strawson, I don't see see it as metaphysical at all. In fact, my position is contrasted to Strawson and his followers on one side, and those who would have Kant be a rationalist on the other.

The really good, and clear book on this topic is Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which originally was published in 1983, and a second edition, with some revisions came out in 2004.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I don't have any problems with recognition of the inclusion of distorting subjectivity within perception and experience (the philosophy of critical realism does the same) and ultimately expression. However imo Kant's model of space-time as in intuition certainly is a metaphysic.

One of these days however I will get around to reading Allison's book...

[ironed_orchid]

However imo Kant's model of space-time as in intuition certainly is a metaphysic.

But what he says about space and time is that we can't KNOW them, because our intuitions present everything as being in space or time, and thus we can't separate out space and time from our mode of intuition.

So he is agnostic about whether space and time might exist, and how they might exist, outside of our mode of intuition. Just as he is agnostic about the nature of things in themselves. It's a principle of what we can know, and whether we can know anything independently of the limitations of human perception (answer: no). Transcendental Idealism is also not about subjectivity as such, but rather about refiguring our standard for objectivity as what other humans can also perceive, rather than some all knowing god's eye view.

Hence, not a metaphysics, but more an epistemological methodology.

But I should step away from this topic, as I can go on for hours in this vein.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

So he is agnostic about whether space and time might exist, and how they might exist, outside of our mode of intuition.

Even if we cannot step outside space-time (or matter-energy for that matter, or things-in-themselves) we can still engage in (critical) investigation of their existence and thus acquire (increasing and improved) knowledge of the subject at hand.

Thus I would tend towards a Newtonian position on space (contra Leibniz), and argue that there is evidence that it has an independent existence to matter, rather than being simply an abstract relationship between objects (and, likewise for time, between events) based on experimentation. Likewise I would argue that we have (via Gauss and Poincaré), again through experimentation, knowledge that space-time is effectively measured through curved, non-Euclidean geometry.

Of course, reading Kant he does have an odd definition of 'idealism'. Whereas most philosophy would argue that idealism is the position that reality is ultimately ideas and is contrasted with materialism, it seems to me that Kant argues that idealism is actually the act of criticism i.e., "The assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining is idealism."

Which, imo, brings me back to Strawson! Thus I find myself more comfortable with critical realism (which doesn't comment on the ultimate nature of reality vis-a-vis idealism versus materialism, but rather concentrates on the realism aspect)

Hence, not a metaphysics, but more an epistemological methodology.

That is indeed welcome, but of course Kant was writing at a time before epistemology was even coined as an inquiry.

But I should step away from this topic, as I can go on for hours in this vein.

Oh hush now. If you can go on, please do!

[ironed_orchid]

The book google is picking up is Kant's Political Writings, edited by Reiss, and published by CUP. It's just doing weird keyword stuff at the top of the page.

Which is very handy for anyone interested in the public/private thinking stuff which Arendt picked up and developed.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I must also say the conclusion of "What is Orientation in Thinking?" does remind a great deal of the conclusion of "What Is Enlightenment?"

Accept whatever seems most credible to you after careful and honest examination, whether it is a matter of facts or of rational arguments; but do not deny reason that prerogative which makes it the greatest good on earth, namely its right to be the ultimate touchstone of truth. If you fail in this respect, you will be unworthy of this freedom and will surely forfeit it; and you will bring the same misfortune down upon those other guiltless souls who would otherwise have been inclined to employ their freedom lawfully and hence in a manner conducive to the world's best interests!"

I have to say, he's pretty good when he's pissed off! :)

[ironed_orchid]

Yeah, I tend to treat them as companion pieces, which is what it's annoying that while "What is Englightenment?" is available EVERYWHERE, "What is Orientation in Thinking?" is not.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You could do the world a great service by making an OCR scan of the essay :)

(Because if you don't do it, I will..)

[ironed_orchid]

oh hey, I DO have a scanner....

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

An OCR scanner? Wouldn't want the great work as single page images... :)

[ironed_orchid]

Actually, no. But I can make pdfs.

I should hand it over to you. One problem is that the Reiss translation is still in copyright. Whereas there have been several translations of "What is Enlightenment?".

Oh, and speaking of translating "What is Enlightenment?", check out this review of the Kuehn bio of Kant, well, skim to the end, and see if you notice anything odd regarding their complaint about how he translated it...

Something odd indeed.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Semper ... Sapere... Now that's an unfortunate Latin fail..

So... "always [use] courage" versus "dare to think"?

Hmmm... Courage without thinking. Now that's possibly pathological; now imagine if that was the motto of the Enlightenment!

Perhaps Kuehn is of the opinion we should be more like a lion, or other beast, rather than the judgmental and critical philosopher!

Look forward to the PDF...

Re: Something odd indeed.

[ironed_orchid]

Yeah, their German may be okay, but they FAIL at Latin.

Kuehn's book has "Sapere Aude".

I wonder if it was the reviewer or a proof reader or editor who changed Sapere to Semper, which I admit, might be more familiar to most.

[telarus.livejournal.com]

Damn, we've been having a shitstorm around Moral Relativism on the PD.com forums. Are the last two paragraphs your thoughts, then? (want to get the cite correctly when I post this)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Yes, pretty much the last three.. IMO a moral statement is one that can be universalised on an intersubjective level, whereas much of what people argue as moral relativism is simply recognition of subjective individual tastes.

PD.com forums? I get an IT company with that url...

[telarus.livejournal.com]

principiadiscordia.com/forum

sorry, I'm just used to abbreviating it like everyone there does.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

OK, I've signed up - which thread is the discussion in?

[telarus.livejournal.com]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0

Ok, just so you can get acquainted with the PDcom egregore:

.The thread is in "Apple Talk"(as in Golden), which is where most of the drama/chatting/hanging-out happens, so don't expect a focused thread there.

.The mods don't ban people, they rely on the hive-mind's immune system (yes, we flame and troll each other nearly constantly.... oddly enough we actually get stuff done while it's happening).

.The first page of the Moral reletivism thread is mostly snide comments about various thing, forum in-jokes, and general lulz ("This thread is mired in Cartesian Dualism" was a line that someone who tried to troll us used quite often which turned it into an in-joke). It gets interesting by page 3.

.That happens mostly in Apple Talk and Or Kill Me, usually to test if the OP is serious about the thread or just messing around.

.Enjoy the Chaos.

[damien-wise.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put. It simply fits and seems to work (which is to say, agrees with my opinion. ;) ).

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You mean your considered opinion. ;)

I was wondering whether the final sentence could have induced some negative responses. After all criticism and judgment are considered to be in very poor taste in some parts of polite, ordinary and mainstream (read: hypocritical) society.

But then again, it was those who were 'impolite' and 'outcasts' who stood up to the authority figures in the Milgram experiment; and it was the 'polite' and 'ordinary' etc who shut their eyes and pretended not to see as fascism rose to power.

And I am sure they would do it again. Writing in the midst of the cold war Herbert Marcuse (in One Dimensional Man) was astounded with the promotion of a false "Happy Consciousness" and the avoidance of criticism, of judgmental comments etc; in the face of possible nuclear war and the obliteration of all species!

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

"polite, ordinary and mainstream (read: hypocritical) society"
Ouch! How very true. And FWIW, I agree with that last sentence of yours. It's harsh, but then reality is.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

"What swine decent people really are" - the final line of Emile Zola's Savage Paris.

[damien-wise.livejournal.com]

So true. Sometimes, one has to choose between being polite and being honest.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously one can be polite and honest (in the same way that being impolite does not imply honesty). But the politeness must be in presentation, not content.