Objective Versus Subjective: An Obsolete Philosophical Notion, For Ten Centuries Already; Kant As A Racist Dog.

Good abstract of traditional muddled philosophical thinking, circa eighteen century… Or what’s wrong about philosophy.

Friend Stephen Jones suggests that: “In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. ” I am always leery when I see the caveat: “
caveat: “In philosophy…” Because philosophy is the love of wisdom, It should not have its own patois. Wisdom is universal, not a special body of knowledge such as orogenesis (creation of mountains).In philosophy…” Because philosophy is is the love of wisdom, It should not have its own patois. Wisdom is universal, not a special body of knowledge such as orogenesis.

An objective claim is supposedly a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference.

The main idiot here, who pushed this ludicrous conceptology is a Prussian academic called Kant, a servile dog serving and advising his racist masters, much admired because he enabled slave masters, Nazis, and other exploitative criminals and fascists, and the mentalities which served them.

No strength, no objectivity, says Friedrich…

In truth, of course objectivity is all too often in the eye of the beholder. Claiming there is a sharp distinction between the subjective and the objective, so sharp, it is plain to see, is a grave error.

Indeed, as our understanding of the world has progressed, we grasp the objective through enormously subtle theories, not just our senses. Those theories are subjectively built. Even when they look “true” in the sense that they predict what is observed, that does not mean they are really true in a deeper sense to come. For example Classical Mechanics is “true”… As applied to rockets… But becomes seriously wrong when applied to satellites… And Relativity, which then needs to be used, and the equations of which are mostly “true”… Are not necessarily all understood (in particular mass vs energy)… And according to yours truly contains an error about FTL communications.

So we capture objectivity in our more exquisite sciences, from theories made by “subjects”. Moreover, even the most direct “evidence” is processed by senses… of the subject.

In conclusion, the distinction between “subject” and “object”, in the abstract, is not worth studying: scholastics philosophers, who had the meaning of subjective and objective around, wasted centuries on these stupidities… while the likes of Abelard and Buridan did create useful Middle Age philosophy, and logic, which built the road to modern science. However, in the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics the distinction between objective and subjective becomes deep, and highly practical, as teleportation, observation, error correction and the like are crucial to Quantum Computers….

It is sad to see so many philosophy departments prisoners of the notion that there is a chiasm between objective and subjective… As if they had learned nothing from history… History being one of the closest things to objectivity there is.

ⁱᵃⁿ@sluffflux said:
“I taught English in China for a few years and I always played my classes The Truman Show because it seemed to disturb them so much“

The “Truman Show” is a movie depicting a fake world where the hero has been manipulated by media plutocrats who have total control on his environment, into believing that the fake world he sees is all there is. Just like any dictatorship of the “Proletariat” would have to be to persevere… The ability to distinguish Objectivity versus subjecting subjectivity is the most practical thing, nowadays.

Patrice Ayme

***

Note On Racist Philosopher Kant: Kant Categorical Imperative as the Principle of Humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never
simply as a means.”

But interestingly, although Kant made clear that slavery was not permissible from the point of view of the Categorical Imperative, and contract logic, he did not just not repudiated slavery, but strongly advised some deciders in the West Indies to keep imposing it. We have the letters. Like Hitler, Kant did one thing in public, another in private.

What gives?

Define humanity carefully, objectively!
Kant was tremendously influential in developing a theory of race that was used to justify
slavery, and, later, apartheid, be it in the USA, South Africa, and the British Empire (hence Kant’s aura).
According to Kant’s account of race, human racial differentiation originates in four “seeds” that were
present in our ancestors and have developed differently as a result of climactic and other influences. This
is no different from what we find in other creatures, e.g.,
…”in birds of the same species which can nevertheless live in different climates, there are seeds for
the development of a new layer of feathers. These feathers appear when such birds live in cod
climates, but they are held back when they live in temperate climates.”
The same phenomenon occurs in humans with the result that different races have developed in response
to the different environmental demands. It is important, however, that once development has occurred, it
cannot be undone, and “resists further transformation” because the dominant seed has “stifled the other
seeds.” The differences, however, are not merely physical, but include psychological dispositions. So,
for example, the native American, having had to endure the extreme cold, suffers from a “half extinguished life power” . And the “Negro“, because he has benefited from the rich land of Africa, is “strong, fleshy, and agile. However, because he is so amply supplied by his motherland, he is also lazy, indolent, and dawdling.”

Whites, however, have diverged least from the original form and the “noble blond form” characterized by its “tender white skin, reddish hair, and pale blue eyes” that inhabited the northern regions of Germany, is the strongest. This form itself does not constitute a race, but only a lineage within the white race. However, “This stock would have gotten on well enough to persist as a race if the further development of this deviation had not been so frequently interrupted by interbreeding with alien stocks.”

The Nazis would take into account these judicious, “objective”, observations to create the superior Aryan race… In baby factories, by encouraging their superior Aryan soldiers to impregnate as many battlefield brides as they could find or be offered to.

(Another glorious, much admired philosopher in the Anglo-Saxon realm is John Locke… who was pro-monarchy as long as it was not absolute, and pro-slavery, as long as it was not this, that and the other thing. Locke owned stock in slave trading companies and was secretary of the Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas, where slavery was constitutionally permitted… Another objective philosopher in love with having subjects to objectify…).

***

P/S: Much, all too much, of what is called “objective” is obtained… subjectively.

This explains why so many of yesteryear’s theories which were viewed as objectively true turned out to be completely false. It does not mean that, certain facts cannot be determined, or that planes cannot fly. To find out what is objective, indeed, one needs experiments… But, in advanced science, said experiments are interpreted through partially subjective theories.
They always have, and always will.
To help convince you of this, just check in detail superconductivity theory and superconductivity experiments, as they stand in the last 100 years, to this day. They guide each other, and all together, form a kind of cult, with the BCS theory at its center. The general principle of that cult is that electrons pair up and make bosons… And bosons love being together. It has sort-of demonstrated in a special case (and Nobel prizes were distributed). In practice the Holy Grail there is to make a room temperature and pressure superconductor. Nobody knows if it can be done, and if not, why not. In 2021, a room temp superconductor was finally designed (after breaking lots of diamond anvils…)

Frankfurt School of Philosophy As Nazism Unexamined

Unexamined until now, that is…

IF YOU DON’T HAVE A HEART, YOU DON’T HAVE REASON:

Was The Frankfurt School of Philosophy Disguised Nazism?

By 1946, it dawned even on the most obdurate, that German philosophy, viewed as a mass movement, had been a disaster. Its reasons turned out to follies of the greatest infamy, with an appearance of polished intellectual superiority, which foiled the superficially minded, as long as they had a cold heart. This very infamy made those infamous “German” reasons a strong social bond, binding the German masses together, to commit mass murder, and wars of massive aggression,  twice in a generation, under the enlightenment, the sun, of Satan.

Thus, unsurprisingly, some German mini philosophers reached the same conclusion in their Fort of the Franks (Frankfurt). They “wanted to break free from the past“(Adorno). Assuredly. Their past. By denying it. (My point of view on the Frankfurt School of Philosophy will be viewed as an outrage, a counter-sense, by the traditionalists. The present essay is a reply to “How the Frankfurt school diagnosed the ills of Western Civilisation” in Aeon, May 31, 2017. In essence, I believe the Frankfurt School did not have the courage to look at the main discourse of German history. They accused the imperialism of sliding doors (!) and Hollywood movies. I accuse Luther, traditional racism, intellectual fascism, and the plutocratic effect, in other words, Germany.

The German Enlightenment was dominated paradigmatically, pragmatically, and politically, and militarily,  by one state, Prussia, which was hyper militaristic, brutally expansionist, and successful at it, outrageously racist, and a dictatorship.

Berlin In Ruins, 1945: German Philosophy’s Crown of Creation!

The top philosopher of Prussia,  Kant, didn’t just believe in slavery or the tradition of enslavement, he wrote publicly to the highest authorities to encourage them to stand firm, while enabling slavery. Kant also believed that the highest morality was to obey the authorities unquestionably, a theory Nazis were enthusiast to enact while exterminating the sort of people Prussia, and then all of Germany, as early as 1815, discriminated against grotesquely, and criminally.

Herder, another piece of German Enlightenment, sang the praises of tribalism, to a point so extreme, he rejected French style Enlightenment, wholesale (although French style Enlightenment was just a modernized version, as far as eradicating exaggerated tribalism, of the one inaugurated by imperial Rome).

With (German) “Enlightenment” like that, who would not want to reject it? The Nazis?

***

The “European” Wars of the Twentieth Century were not European wars. They were German wars. That’s a dirty little secret which does not want to be faced, especially in the USA, for obvious reasons (twice the USA stood by, watching, for years, its parents, France and Britain, suffer the brunt of mass murdering German infamy). Germany deliberately ambushed humanity in August 1914, and again by electing an exterminationist racist fascist dictatorship, and obeying it enthusiastically. OK, it was a particular type of Enlightenment, under the Sun of Satan. But it was very German, in the sense “German” had taken after the rise of the satanic Luther (who wrote about torturing the Jews for pleasure) and the monstrous Prussian State. The mass murdering aggressiveness of Bismarck, the Kaiser and Hitler, were no accident, but the fruit of generations, even centuries of very specifically German evolution of the worst type.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/luther-hitler-unelected/

***

To believe that Europe became crazy in 1853-1945 is to confuse “Europeans” (sane and victimized) and Germans (culprit and insane). Nietzsche pointed it out before me, and well before German folly reached the highest heights. So it’s to confuse victims and perpetrators. Nothing to build a deep philosophy on.

To believe that “reason” caused the German atrocity of the period 1853-1945 is inaccurate: what was viewed then as patriotic German reasons caused the German atrocities. It had nothing to do with the Enlightenment in the style of Montaigne, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Sade Lamarck, or even Rousseau.

Aeon claims that: “Far from humane liberation, 20th-century Europeans had plunged into decades of savage barbarism. Why? The Frankfurt School theorists argued that universal rationality had been raised to the status of an idol. At the heart of this was what they called ‘instrumental reason’, the mechanism by which everything in human affairs was ground up.

When reason enabled human beings to interpret the natural world around them in ways that ceased to frighten them, it was a liberating faculty of the mind. However, in the Frankfurt account, its fatal flaw was that it depended on domination, on subjecting the external world to the processes of abstract thought.”

To say that the cause dominates the effect is silly. To brandish “abstract thought” as a flaw is also silly. “Abstract” and “thought” have to be defined. If “abstract” means a model the brain created, then most thoughts, defined as neurological activity, are abstract.

In the visual system, modern neurology has revealed more than 90% of the circuitry as re-entrant. Thus abstract, calling on what the brain views as memories of what was experienced. This is assuredly typical.

“The rationalising faculty had thereby become, according to the Frankfurt philosophers, a tyrannical process, through which all human experience of the world would be subjected to infinitely repeatable rational explanation; a process in which reason had turned from being liberating to being the instrumental means of categorising and classifying an infinitely various reality.”

One would expect that Germans brought, educated, and mentally created under dictatorship, would be incapable to perceive what tyranny is, and how one gets there. This is exactly what happened under the Frankfurt School.

Far from being “rationalizing”, reason, in German culture prior to the last few years at best, was extremely irrational. German reason was irrational reason, because it tended to miss all the reason of the heart. Attacking the world in 1914 was a deliberate insanity: the German High Command thought that Russia would be slow to mobilize, and that Great Britain would come to full force no sooner than a year after France, and most of continental Europe had been defeated and occupied.

Moreover the High Command and the Kaiser decided to believe the soporific insanity of a world racial government which President Wilson had offered to share with them. (While not thinking for an instant that the US president and his colonel House may have had an “America First” agenda!)

And, somehow the very “rational” Germans naively believed that the Americans would help circumventing the British and French naval blockade (which they did, for a while, as long as it made them richer).

That set of reasons for launching all of Europe, in the atrocious infamy of World War One was not reason, it was a mad logic. And it was even more insane for average “rational” Germans to goose step behind those six men who had decided to destroy Europe… Just to save their version of German plutocracy.

From there on, it got even worse: because thousands of German war criminals had not been hanged after World War One, they felt free to do it again: surely, it would work better, on an even larger scale. Literally. A war criminal such as Ludendorff, de facto commander of the German army in 1918, never got prosecuted for his mass murdering in Belgium (in particular, Liege). So Ludendorff was probably the most important founder of the Nazi Party, and certainly the most prestigious.

Well, there was a reason: the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy had been very supportive of its German colleague in the Paris negotiations of 1919. Surely, it would happen again? (It did, but not to the same extent!)

Many are the reasons, that’s why we need a heart.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: Instrumentalized rationality consists in adopting specific axioms to get a logic to the ends one wants to achieve… and scrupulously restricting oneself to them. (As it is, that’s not saying much: Euclid did just that, more or less, with plane geometry!)
What the Frankfurt School wanted to express was “Instrumentalized” Reason, not “Instrumental Reason“. Now generally reason is instrumentalized, that’s why we brandish it. So, per se, it’s not saying much. A better notion maybe “Intellectual Fascism“, a type of thinking where an all too-small axiomatic set is used to animate’s one’s logic, while ignoring obviously related and more impactful axioms.

In particular, axiomatic sets ignoring the questions, and solutions of the heart, like basic human love, are symptomatic of Intellectual Fascism. That was, overall the Achilles heel of most German philosophy. Cogent, but blind to more significant alternative logics.
When the Frankfurt School speak of “Instrumental Rationality” in a derogatory way, it really speaks of “Intellectual Fascism” the ends of which are deplorable…

 

 

 

 

 

DeKanting Philosophy:

Writing this essay made me sad. I had come across a group of self-assured philosophers, singing the praises of Kant. That was a moment of solitude. Sheep praising the wolf. When I brought up objections, pointing at the enormous connection between Kant and Nazism, I was haughtily told “We, in philosophy, do not judge thinkers on one sentence”.

This depicts how followers of Kant behaved in Nazi occupied Europe:

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

One Sentence, One Idea Can Move The World, And Not For The Best:

In the Twelfth Century, Saint Bernard (de Clairvaux; Abelard’s, and humanity’s, enemy) was asked how he, the saintliest and most influential Christian (he told Pope Urban II what to do), could defend homicide.

Saint Bernard haughtily replied: ”It is not homicide, but malecide, the killing of evil.” Bernard, one of the known universe’ most evil men, then launched the Second Crusade, the Cistercian order, the Knights Templars, the Inquisition, and the killing of millions, for centuries to come.

People who are viewed as philosophers, by a large following, have much more influence than is generally attributed to them.

Some are anti-philosophers, those who give guidance, honor and cover to the satanic minds who grab power and lead civilization to the abyss, driven only by the greedy instinct of the self-destructive predator.

Locke helped slavery. Rousseau, Kant, Herder etched in the stone of (pseudo) philosophy the erroneous systems of moods and thoughts which brought Nazism. Yet, they still have lots of cognitively impaired followers. Truly these guys are not philosophers, but plutocratic puppets. That makes them all the more dangerous.

How does one subjugate people? By making them feel wrong. Then it is easy to make them think wrong. In the end they believe it is smart to engage in whatever will and up oppressing, or even, could destroy them.

In the philosophy of the predator, destruction, whether means, or end, is an intrinsic good.

The archetype modern example here is Prussia, and the fascist, racist, anti-Judaic Nazi Germany it ended up creating… bringing the annihilation of Prussia.

The Germans, under the influence of a triumphing Prussia in the Eighteen, and Nineteenth Centuries Century, were led to believe it was smart to dislike, despise, hate, oppress, subjugate, exploit, dehumanize, Poles, Slavs and Jews. Superficially, it worked. Until September 10, 1914, when the all devouring Frankenstein of Prussian racial fascism had to beat a hasty retreat on the battlefield.

(Indeed, in parallel, and to be able to enforce all this oppression, subjugation, contempt, dehumanization, maximal force, that is, military force, had to be used. Thus, in Prussia and its admirers, militarism was inseparable with racism. Prussia had an army comparable in size to France, in the Seventeenth Century, with a tenth of the population. This militarization paid off handsomely: after coming close to total annihilation, under the gay aggressor Frederick II, Prussia grabbed immensely rich Silesia, its mines and industry, from Austria.)

Instead Of Reading Hitler, Read Kant, It Does Just As Well:

Thus a mood of exploitative racism and hungry military aggression was created by Prussia’s masters. All they needed were parrots to sing their praises. And they were many, the most prominent of these birds repeating songs of evil was Kant. Now for some comic relief. It turns out that Kant is still much admired, 70 years after his followers exterminated tens of millions of innocent civilians (they wanted to do more, but they were rudely interrupted by carpet bombing).

How was the mood created? In no small part by making people admire a pseudo-philosopher, Kant. Kant was racist, militarist, mechanical. A perfect philosopher for a racist militaristic regime.

“The reason a people has a duty to put up with even what is held to be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority is that its resistance to the highest legislator can never be regarded as other than contrary to law, and indeed as abolishing the entire legal constitution.” –Kant

In other words: dictators (=”highest legislators”) rule, disobeying them is immoral. That could only please Kant’s paymaster, the hereditary dictator of Prussia. Remark: This, that resisting the dictator is immoral, nothing new: I call that the Qur’an Fascist Principle (Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.”

This is the essence of Hitler’s Fuhrer Prinzip. Kant was just a guy who heard about the Qur’an. This makes Kant vastly inferior to Voltaire. Voltaire read the Qur’an, and dragged the emperor of Mecca, Muhammad his name, it in the mud, to the point that the Politically Correct censored him, in the Twenty-First Century (!) Voltaire was right, so he gets censored, Kant is a Nazi, so he gets lauded. In a world where human values are inverted, a plutocratic world, in other words, this all makes sense.

Not only Kant was a fanatical Jihadist of the worst type, but Kant was a racist, and could be said to have invented the (false) theory of scientific racism. Sometimes the idiocy gets even funny: Kant thinks Africans smell bad. But it’s all scientific. Says the pseudo-philosopher:

“We know now, for example, that human blood turns black (as is to be seen in blood coagulum) …. Now the strong body odor of the Negroes, not be avoided by any degree of cleanliness, gives reason to suppose that their skin absorbs a very large amount of phlogiston from the blood, and that nature must so have designed this skin that in them the blood can dephlogisticate …”

Negroes are of course born idiots, and in this Kant follows another of the Prussiano-Anglo-Saxon pantheon of evil philosophy, Hume:

“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents... So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.” -Kant

Kant is the first author of no racial mixing (later implemented by the Nazis). A new concept in Europe:

“The mingling of stocks (due to great conquests), little by little erodes the character and it is not good for the human race in spite of any so-called philanthropy.”

For comparison, Rome had African (Libya), and Arab emperors (or “Augusta”). Rome happily mixed all races.

That racist principle was used by Kant with lots of direct impact. The Spanish Crown was encouraging a policy of interbreeding and had ordered the Mexican governor to comply. The governor had, however, opposed the order. Kant encouraged him (in contradiction to making obedience the highest principle; Kant acted as if racism was an even higher principle than obedience). In a letter to the governor of Mexico, Kant wrote:

“[Of the idea that] nature would develop new and better races of produce them through the commingling of two races there is little ground for hope in as much as nature has long since exhausted the forms appropriate to soil and climate, whilst cross-breeding (for example of the American with the European or of these with the Negro) has debased the good without raising proportionately the level of the worse — hence the governor of Mexico wisely rejected the order of the Spanish Court to encourage interbreeding.”

Heil Kant!

Kant’s account of race also includes the superiority of the white race and that the others will become extinct. For details, see Wulf D. Hund’s “The Racisms of Immanuel Kant,” a book which begins and ends with this quote from Kant:

“All races will become exterminated … except for the whites.”

Kant’s insults against Jews are too numerous to count. The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” Nicht so klar? Here it is, for the brin impaired. Kant: “THE EUTHANASIA OF JUDAISM IS THE PURE MORAL RELIGION.”

Johann Herder (1744-1803) quoted Kant’s lectures on practical philosophy: “Every coward is a liar; Jews, for example, not only in business, but also in common life.”… Nazis made a “hideous misinterpretation of Kant”? Or is it that some people are just hideous stupid?

So why is Kant still popular? Adolf Eichmann, on trial in Jerusalem, found the explanation:

“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”

In other words, Kant is the perfect philosopher for weak-willed idiots. All the more as he invented a weird, pseudoscientific jargon which appeals to those who find too difficult to learn true science, the uneducated and unintelligent. Hence said jargon became wildly popular with philosophically inclined half-wits.

Tolerating Kant, is tolerating Nazism. Adulating Kant, is adulating the essence of Nazism. Time to get acquainted with those facts.

In other news, one of the world’s most powerful men died when his jet got flipped by a snow plough. In Moscow. He had just been plotting with one of the world’s dictators. Interesting how plutocrats live on the edge. (More on this later.)

Indeed, plutocrats do not have much too fear, besides snow storms, as long as those who view themselves as “philosophers” drink the cool Kant aid.

Patrice Ayme’