Sounds like The Matrix. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
This essay was thought provoking, thank you. I fully agree that we have been engaged in epistemic warfare. I do not know enough about Kants relationship with authorities to have an opinion if his philosophy was knowingly weaponized. I may spend time looking into this. I do understand this has been done numerous times. With that said, I am having another thought about this. Kant had the presupposition that a sovereign authority had the consent of the people and that the laws were just because of the categorical imperative.
Considering everything you said, and from my understanding of consent manufacturing, I do not think we have consented in the way that Kant meant when he said "united will of the people". If it were organic consent, the categorical imperative would apply- otherwise it is a manipulation of that first principle.
It seems that linguistic and semiotic manipulation has played a big part in this.. Our view of consent has been transvaluated among many other words which contribute to altering social reality and public discourse. Democracy becomes Democracy Inc.
Of course maybe Kant was a big bait and switch? Here is your ever changing definition of freedom and liberty.
Either way, I find most of his philosophy rather agreeable. Yet, I do not see legitimacy in our present state and I am not sure Kant would. But it is possible he knew it would be abused. Definitely going to think on this awhile.
Although the relation Kant/Frederick the great and the idea that Kant was more or less against overthrowing ruling governance is depicted correct in this article I very much disagree with the main thesis of the article expressed in the concluding sentence.
Kant’s metaphysics prepared and enabled mass-scale imperial governance without the costly problem of constant external violence??
Kant constructing the perfect interior prison for modern philosophy??? Only a lack of knowledge of Kant's epistemological system can result in this conclusion.
And "cutting people off from any independent reference to real, external truths and to make self-regulating mental conformity the highest good."???
Well let us listen to what Kant himself would had to say about that:
"But if one wanted to make entirely new concepts of substances, of forces, and of interactions from the material that perception offers us, without borrowing the example of their connection from experience it self, then one would end up with nothing but figments of the brain, for the possibility of which there would be no indications at all, since in their case one did not accept experience as instructress nor borrow these concepts from it. Invented concepts of this sort cannot acquire the character of their possibility a priori, like the categories, as conditions on which all experience depends, but only a posteriori, as ones given through experience itself, and their possibility must either be cognized a posteriori and empirically or not cognized at all."
The article is not based on a surface reading of Kant. It is a metaphysical diagnosis of what Kant’s epistemological structure operationally does. Kant may speak of experience and empirical grounding, but his system defines knowledge as structured entirely by the categories of the understanding; a priori forms imposed on appearances. This renders truth no longer correspondence with reality, but internal coherence within perception. That is the structure of epistemic containment. This is the prison - not rhetorical, but ontological. Kant’s system replaces participation in objective truth with internal moral law; a categorical imperative derived not from being, but from reason itself. Governance by internal regulation and behavioral coherence, rather than truth, justice, or reality. Quoting Kant’s references to experience does not rescue him. It reveals the rhetorical veil concealing his deeper inversion; the disjunction between Kant’s rhetoric and his metaphysical operation.
It is easy, but not generally useful, to invent motives for people we dislike. Now it may well be that Frederick's goal was population control. It does not necessarily follow that the Americans who adopted his school system had the same goal, when there is an alternative explanation.
At the start of the industrial revolution, society had a challenge. Mass production was efficient, but required large numbers of worker who could stand in rows, follow orders, and repeat basic tasks all day. The Prussian system was practically designed for that. Rather than a teacher exerting himself or herself to accommodate each individual child's different abilities, the system taught the children to sit in rows and do the same assignment. That translates well to the factory floor.
Our problem now is that we've built massive bureaucracies that depend on this system, even as mass production is no longer our main work process.
I neither like nor dislike ‘people’. I examine processes; their inception and their downstream implications and consequences. It’s instructive to understand the intent and operation of the Architects & Pedagogues at the roll out of State Education; the Wundtian lineage and the St Louis Hegelian lineage and then to comprehend how both of those seemingly ideologically different streams trace back to Kantian premises and Fichte’s architecture.
Thought provoking, as always. Thanks. A couple of nits... plus another view.
1. There's lots of evidence that our sensory systems filter reality into something that supports our survival (e.g., see Donald Hoffman's The Case Against Reality). In this regard, Kant's epistemology is consistent with modern science. You imply that Kant is wrong and that we can directly know reality. How is this possible? Who among us is God?
2. You suggest that Kant's ideas influenced Frederick the Great of Prussia. A quick Grok search reveals that the timeline doesn't support any Kantian influence on Frederick.
The evolution of culture is complex, with many factors contributing to its development. In the modern era, I think Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy can help explain some of the rot we're seeing. In large nation states, government power remains unchecked by market forces (or elections?). Bureaucracies expand. To justify more expansion, the ambitious bureaucrat searches to find the latest fad, which a few censored naysayers criticize; once implemented, the moral high ground is briefly occupied. Rent seekers multiply. The inevitable failure of the latest fad yields to yet another fad (with new censored critics and new rent seekers) that guarantees additional ambitious bureaucrats with additional moral high ground to occupy. It's great to be an all-knowing bureaucrat! With lots of money sloshing around, buying opinions becomes embedded within academia and NGOs. Rinse and repeat. Most of those outside of the bureaucracy have been busy with their own issues and have failed to notice the problems. As the problems become more difficult to ignore, some of the politically acceptable critics may be rehabilitated and lead to minor corrections. Though needed, radical corrections are less likely.
Finally, in your book, if you haven't already provided one, I suggest that you have a glossary. IMO, based on what you've already posted on X, there's jargon that I need to look up... and what I find on the Net may not match your meaning.
Sounds like The Matrix. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
This essay was thought provoking, thank you. I fully agree that we have been engaged in epistemic warfare. I do not know enough about Kants relationship with authorities to have an opinion if his philosophy was knowingly weaponized. I may spend time looking into this. I do understand this has been done numerous times. With that said, I am having another thought about this. Kant had the presupposition that a sovereign authority had the consent of the people and that the laws were just because of the categorical imperative.
Considering everything you said, and from my understanding of consent manufacturing, I do not think we have consented in the way that Kant meant when he said "united will of the people". If it were organic consent, the categorical imperative would apply- otherwise it is a manipulation of that first principle.
It seems that linguistic and semiotic manipulation has played a big part in this.. Our view of consent has been transvaluated among many other words which contribute to altering social reality and public discourse. Democracy becomes Democracy Inc.
Of course maybe Kant was a big bait and switch? Here is your ever changing definition of freedom and liberty.
Either way, I find most of his philosophy rather agreeable. Yet, I do not see legitimacy in our present state and I am not sure Kant would. But it is possible he knew it would be abused. Definitely going to think on this awhile.
Thanks again for the Saturday evening read.
Although the relation Kant/Frederick the great and the idea that Kant was more or less against overthrowing ruling governance is depicted correct in this article I very much disagree with the main thesis of the article expressed in the concluding sentence.
Kant’s metaphysics prepared and enabled mass-scale imperial governance without the costly problem of constant external violence??
Kant constructing the perfect interior prison for modern philosophy??? Only a lack of knowledge of Kant's epistemological system can result in this conclusion.
And "cutting people off from any independent reference to real, external truths and to make self-regulating mental conformity the highest good."???
Well let us listen to what Kant himself would had to say about that:
"But if one wanted to make entirely new concepts of substances, of forces, and of interactions from the material that perception offers us, without borrowing the example of their connection from experience it self, then one would end up with nothing but figments of the brain, for the possibility of which there would be no indications at all, since in their case one did not accept experience as instructress nor borrow these concepts from it. Invented concepts of this sort cannot acquire the character of their possibility a priori, like the categories, as conditions on which all experience depends, but only a posteriori, as ones given through experience itself, and their possibility must either be cognized a posteriori and empirically or not cognized at all."
(Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure reason A222B269)
Not What Kant Said – What Kant Did
The article is not based on a surface reading of Kant. It is a metaphysical diagnosis of what Kant’s epistemological structure operationally does. Kant may speak of experience and empirical grounding, but his system defines knowledge as structured entirely by the categories of the understanding; a priori forms imposed on appearances. This renders truth no longer correspondence with reality, but internal coherence within perception. That is the structure of epistemic containment. This is the prison - not rhetorical, but ontological. Kant’s system replaces participation in objective truth with internal moral law; a categorical imperative derived not from being, but from reason itself. Governance by internal regulation and behavioral coherence, rather than truth, justice, or reality. Quoting Kant’s references to experience does not rescue him. It reveals the rhetorical veil concealing his deeper inversion; the disjunction between Kant’s rhetoric and his metaphysical operation.
It is easy, but not generally useful, to invent motives for people we dislike. Now it may well be that Frederick's goal was population control. It does not necessarily follow that the Americans who adopted his school system had the same goal, when there is an alternative explanation.
At the start of the industrial revolution, society had a challenge. Mass production was efficient, but required large numbers of worker who could stand in rows, follow orders, and repeat basic tasks all day. The Prussian system was practically designed for that. Rather than a teacher exerting himself or herself to accommodate each individual child's different abilities, the system taught the children to sit in rows and do the same assignment. That translates well to the factory floor.
Our problem now is that we've built massive bureaucracies that depend on this system, even as mass production is no longer our main work process.
I neither like nor dislike ‘people’. I examine processes; their inception and their downstream implications and consequences. It’s instructive to understand the intent and operation of the Architects & Pedagogues at the roll out of State Education; the Wundtian lineage and the St Louis Hegelian lineage and then to comprehend how both of those seemingly ideologically different streams trace back to Kantian premises and Fichte’s architecture.
Thought provoking, as always. Thanks. A couple of nits... plus another view.
1. There's lots of evidence that our sensory systems filter reality into something that supports our survival (e.g., see Donald Hoffman's The Case Against Reality). In this regard, Kant's epistemology is consistent with modern science. You imply that Kant is wrong and that we can directly know reality. How is this possible? Who among us is God?
2. You suggest that Kant's ideas influenced Frederick the Great of Prussia. A quick Grok search reveals that the timeline doesn't support any Kantian influence on Frederick.
The evolution of culture is complex, with many factors contributing to its development. In the modern era, I think Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy can help explain some of the rot we're seeing. In large nation states, government power remains unchecked by market forces (or elections?). Bureaucracies expand. To justify more expansion, the ambitious bureaucrat searches to find the latest fad, which a few censored naysayers criticize; once implemented, the moral high ground is briefly occupied. Rent seekers multiply. The inevitable failure of the latest fad yields to yet another fad (with new censored critics and new rent seekers) that guarantees additional ambitious bureaucrats with additional moral high ground to occupy. It's great to be an all-knowing bureaucrat! With lots of money sloshing around, buying opinions becomes embedded within academia and NGOs. Rinse and repeat. Most of those outside of the bureaucracy have been busy with their own issues and have failed to notice the problems. As the problems become more difficult to ignore, some of the politically acceptable critics may be rehabilitated and lead to minor corrections. Though needed, radical corrections are less likely.
Finally, in your book, if you haven't already provided one, I suggest that you have a glossary. IMO, based on what you've already posted on X, there's jargon that I need to look up... and what I find on the Net may not match your meaning.