HOW PARADIGMS BREAK IS PROCESSED

In general, people seek to orient themselves in life based on patterns of behavior or established paradigms in all fields of activity. One of the questions that condition the behavior of the human being concerns the truths established both by religions and also by science. People accept the truths imposed by faith-based religions, while those imposed by science are based on the success they achieve by describing the laws of nature and considered valid by the scientific community. Throughout the history of mankind, many religious dogmas have been demolished by the advance in scientific knowledge, just as many scientific paradigms that explained the phenomena of nature were demolished with the emergence of new paradigms accepted by the scientific community.

 

The breakdown of religious dogmas and scientific paradigms occurred because they did not hold up as truths to be accepted, and also because people started to think free of conventional moorings, that is, because they started to "think outside the box" which is an expression From the English "Think outside the box". How to think outside the box? When this expression is used, it is often referring to the ability to think of non-standard creative solutions for whatever problem is presented. Thus, thinking outside the box can be something to be worked on by someone following the following: 1) Be always informed with everything he can, trying to understand the current scenario from various angles, with systemic vision, with his mind doing connections between observed elements; 2) Escape the routine changing of environment, staying away from the problems of day to day; 3) Write on paper questions that require solution from different angles to obtain alternative solutions; And 4) Think positively by eliminating from his life what puts him down because a healthy mind is the source of creative ideas.

 

Engaging in the search for new things, looking at them from another angle, looking for new alternatives that meet needs is the starting point for thinking “outside the box” or “outside the square”. In that regard, one of Apple's founders, Steve Jobs was a specialist. Breaking paradigms is always a challenge, no matter what. On the one hand is the conventional, linear thinking, and on the other, the creative spirit, innovation, behavior change, the famous "think outside the box." In his main work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn presents, that for a certain time, people share a mental pattern that guides their convictions to solve a given problem. However, the dominant mental pattern, the paradigm, is often a barrier to get alternatives to the solution of the problem (KUHN, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Even so, many paradigms have been replaced by newer, more advanced ones throughout history.

 

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) doubted on whether the paradigms that prevailed in the past should be considered in the future. He was concerned with whether the repetition of a phenomenon in a given number of experiments in the past is a guarantee of its subsequent occurrence in the future. Does the finding of a certain number of occurrences of a law being satisfied in the past provide evidence that the same law will continue to be satisfied in the future? This means that we must be open to the possibility of introducing new paradigms (RUSSELL, Bertrand. Les problems de philosophie. Paris: Payot, 1989). Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), French physicist and historian of science, states that science, far from being able to prove its assertions by means of a logical derivation of self-evident principles, has as its method to derive empirical predictions from its theories and to compare it, with what is observed. By this method, however, no theory can be definitively established, since it is always possible that more than one theory fits satisfactorily with empirical data. (DUHEM, Pierre, Sauver les apparences, Paris: Vrin, 2003).

 

In turn, Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), French mathematician, physicist and philosopher of science and Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German theoretical physicist, had in common the conviction of those scientific ideas, in the elaboration of physical and mathematical theories, are free constructions of thought. In this sense, they understood that they are not induced in a logical and univocal, necessary and compulsory way, from the data of experience and, furthermore, that they are not inscribed in an innate or a priori structure of thought. It is in this space of freedom that the idea of ​​creation enters into the scientific work that leads to the discovery [PATY, Michel. A criação científica segundo Poincaré e Einstein (The Scientific Creation according to Poincaré and Einstein), available on the website <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-40142001000100013>. São Paulo, 2001). According to Henri Poincaré, science can teach us nothing about truth, it can serve us only as a rule of action.

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, states in his work The Logic of the Black Swan that the human mind is afflicted by three evils when it comes into contact with history, which it calls the "triplet of opacity". They are: a) the illusion of understanding, or how everyone thinks they know what is happening in a world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize; b) the retrospective distortion, or how we can approach subjects only after the fact, as if they were in a rear-view mirror (history seems clearer and more organized in history books than in empirical reality) and c) the overvaluation of factual information and the deficiency of people with deep knowledge and much study. Taleb refers to what he defines as the supreme law of Mediocristan when the sample is large and no single specimen will significantly change the aggregate or total. In Extremistan, inequalities are so numerous that a single observation can have a disproportionate impact on aggregate or total. In Mediocristan it is where we must endure the tyranny of the collective, the routine, the obvious and the predicted, and in Extremistan it is where we are subjected to the tyranny of the singular, the accidental, the unseen, and the unforeseen [TALEB, Nassim Nicholas. A lógica do Cisne Negro (The Logic of the Black Swan). Rio: Best Business, 2015].

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, states in his work The Logic of the Black Swan that the Black Swan is an "outlier" (given spurious of a statistical sample), since outside the scope of common statistics, since nothing in the past can point convincingly to its possibility of occurrence. The "black swan" has an extreme impact. He says: think of the September 11, 2001, "black swan" attack: if the risk was reasonably conceivable on September 10, it would not have happened. For Taleb, normal is usually irrelevant because almost everything in social life is produced by shocks and rare jumps, while almost everything that is studied about social life is centered on the "normal", particularly with "curves in the form of bell" or of Gauss, that reveal practically nothing. Because the bell-shaped curve ignores major deviations, being unable to deal with them, and yet makes us feel confident that we have tamed uncertainty. "Think outside the box" would be to consider, in addition to normal events, the occurrence of "black swans," that is, of unlikely events.

 

An example of conventional thinking is the attempt to keep operating the failed neoliberal model that dominates the world capitalist system and is leading many countries to ruin. Faced with this fact, it becomes imperative to "think outside the box" with the invention of new models of society on a planetary and national scale that are capable of rationalizing the process of growth and economic and social development of all the countries of the world. The new model of society to be built on a planetary scale should be able to manage the world economy and international relations based on a Planetary Social Contract to ensure world peace and promote global economic prosperity for the benefit of all countries and human beings. This Planetary Social Contract should result from the will of the UN General Assembly that would constitute the new World Parliament that would elect a World Government representative of the will of all the peoples of the world.

 

At the level of each country, "thinking out of the box" means building a new model of society inspired by the Nordic or Scandinavian social democracy practiced in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland where the Welfare State was established. The Nordic or Scandinavian model of social democracy could best be described as a kind of middle ground between capitalism and socialism, the attempt to fuse the most desirable elements of both systems into a "hybrid" system. It was the social democracy built up to this day in the Scandinavian countries the only model of society that allowed simultaneous economic, social and political advances. It is not by chance that the Scandinavian countries, in addition to having great economic and social successes, are leaders in HDI (Human Development Index) in the world.

 

* Fernando Alcoforado, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, ​​a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems.

Comments

Richard Plank Added Mar 18, 2017 - 5:40am
Other than your conclusion, well written and thought out piece as I would expect.  Hybrid is the word, most certainly, but their version I am not so sure.   I certainly agree with you that middle ground is probably what we seek.  For many years the United Negro College Fund in the US has a long running advertisement "The mind is a terrible thing to waste"  Not sure that middle ground is quite there yet, but perhaps it is closer than most people think.  The model is not quite as good as you suggest, however and the issue is always scalability.  And I question if any of those countries have really gotten a handle on the abuse of power or the other forms of behavior that create special interest power and limit the ability of the system they operate in to make positive impact on all the constituents.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Mar 18, 2017 - 1:52pm
Fernando
 
My motto is: Looking from the OUTSIDE gives you a better perspective. But to be able to do that, you need not only to travel and live in different environments, you need to WANT it and be capable of it (cash....).
 
Not everybody can do that on this planet, actually only a minority can.
 
I don't refer to specific points in your (very good) article. It's a general statement. Only the rich and the unemployed have nowadays the time and (sometimes) energy to think out of the box.
Dino Manalis Added Mar 18, 2017 - 2:22pm
Science and religion coexist and evolve.  We have to think outside of the box to find solutions to problems, but these actions should be evolutionary, not revolutionary!
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 18, 2017 - 8:42pm
Dear Richard Plank, of course you are referring to the defense that I make of a new model of society inspired by the Nordic or Scandinavian social democracy practiced in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland where the Welfare State was established, which I affirmed a kind of middle ground between capitalism and socialism, attempting to fuse the most desirable elements of both systems into a "hybrid" system. I disagree with your assertion that the Scandinavian model is not good because the social democracy built up in the Scandinavian countries is the only model of society that allowed simultaneous economic, social and political advances. This conclusion I got visiting Scandinavia for 3 months, talking to people, politicians, businessmen and university institutions. It is not by chance that the Scandinavian countries, in addition to having great economic and social successes, are leaders in HDI (Human Development Index) in the world, crime is close to zero and the chains are empty. In these countries there is no abuse of power. There parliamentary democracy and direct democracy are practiced in which the people express themselves through a plebiscite on various issues.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:01pm
Dear Stone-Eater Friedli, thanking you for your comments, I have to tell you that you did not absorb what I actually sought to put into my article. I did not say that it is necessary to travel to think outside the box and disagree with your assertion that only the rich and the unemployed today have the time and (sometimes) the energy to think outside the box. I think anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence and properly oriented can think outside the box. I said thinking outside the box is referring to the ability to think of non-standard creative solutions for whatever problem is presented. Thus, thinking outside the box can be something to be worked on by someone following the following: 1) Be always informed with everything you can, trying to understand the current scenario from various angles, with systemic vision, with his mind doing Connections between observed elements; 2) Escape the routine changing environment, staying away from the problems of day to day; 3) Write on paper questions that require solution from different angles to obtain alternative solutions; And 4) Think positively by eliminating from his life what puts him down because a healthy mind is the source of creative ideas. I made it very clear that engaging in looking for new things, looking at them from another angle, looking for new alternatives that meet needs is the starting point for thinking outside the box. Breaking paradigms is always a challenge, no matter what. On the one hand is the conventional, linear thinking, and on the other, the creative spirit, innovation, behavior change, the famous "think outside the box."
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:11pm
Dear Dino Manalis, initially I thank you for your comments. I disagree, however, that thinking outside the box should lead to solutions to problems that are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The facts of life and science point out that thinking outside the box necessarily leads to innovation which in other words means promoting a revolution in relation to the status quo.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:07am
re "According to Henri Poincaré, science can teach us nothing about truth, it can serve us only as a rule of action."
  Kant never quite put it that way but his philosophy is in agreement.
  As far as facts go, they can almost never lead us to truth, truth is elusive. Facts can show us what is not true. Truth is often difficult to prove, but falsehoods are easily shown. This is the basis of the scientific method.
  Its odd that 30 or 40 years ago people would consider Kant as the the greatest philosopher that ever lived but he is never quoted by modern philosophers, they prefer Nietzsche or Hegel, people who couldn't even sell their books back in their day.
 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:10am
As far as the Nordic societies go, the corporate news will praise them but the political correctness experienced by people who live there say that they find it terrible on alternative media in many places. As is often the case, the NY Slimes, Globe and Mail, etc say something that just isn't true at all. It is their business to sell us socialism so the government can be the new saviour for all.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 19, 2017 - 7:45am
Fernando, I agree with a lot of what you say.  In your response to Stone, it is especially true that the poor often have to think outside the box to find creative solutions to every day problems because they lack funds.  Im sure Stone sees this all the  time in Africa, but just didnt put the pieces together.
 
The Scandinavian economies are often held up as models for a reasonable compromise.  However, I often wonder if they work because those countries have a number of advantages.  The biggest advantage they have is a small and relatively homogeneous population.  The population of Norway is about the same as Houston, Texas where I live, not the 350 million of the USA.  Most of the people who live there have similar heritage and cultural background.
 
This similarity has resulted in a population that is more evenly educated, and with similar wants and desires. 
 
Therefore it is probably easier to reach a consensus for what is a reasonable compromise on a welfare state.  To me it is that consensus that makes the model work. 
 
Small populations make the welfare system easier to manage, and make the enticement for corruption, or wasted funds much lower.
 
As you probably have observed, reasonable compromises are almost impossible to reach and implement in the US because of the cultural diversity, and differences in desires and expectations.  The vastness of the landscape and population makes the wants and desires of New York, Iowa, and Texas all very different.
 
 
John Minehan Added Mar 19, 2017 - 12:52pm
The major problem, as implicitly identified by Taleb, is that the Neo-Liberal model is both highly successful and startlingly fragile. 
 
Nothing has moved more people out of poverty in so short a time. BUT . . .  entails a complexity (per Taleb) and inefficiency (in my opinion) that is unsustainable.
 
The Scandinavian Model, since it is quite centralized, is also complex and thus fragile.  In his book Antifragile, Taleb talks about the Swiss Cantons as (possibly) being a model for a sustainably antifragile society.      
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:07pm
Dear Doug Plumb, thank you for your comment that enriches our debate. I defend the thesis that science can help to produce advances toward the truth, but not definitely. There are countless examples of truths that have been revised with scientific advancement. In other words, there is no definite truth. In this sense, Poincaré is right. You yourself reinforce my point of view by stating that "as far as facts happen, they almost never lead us to the truth, the truth is indescribable". It is clear that you are a supporter of Karl Popper's method when you say that "facts can show us what is not true. Truth is often difficult to prove, but falsities are easily shown. This is the basis of the scientific method ".
I agree that differences of opinion arise about the Nordic societies. But based on what I have read and I have seen on a visit to Scandinavia, I maintain my point of view that the most advanced model of society in the world has been implanted there.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:26pm
Dear Bill Kamps, thank you for your comment that enriches our debate. Your arguments that it is easier to implement social democracy in Scandinavia because it has a small population has already been presented to me by many of my interlocutors. You say that with a small population "it is probably easier to reach a consensus on what a reasonable compromise is about a welfare state," and that "it is this consensus that makes the model work. Small populations make the welfare system easier to manage, and make seduction for corruption, or waste of funds much lower". I believe that countries like the United States can evolve in the direction of social democracy as long as there is a work of raising public awareness about the advantages of this model. The great challenge of the moment is not to reinvent the neoliberal capitalism that failed, but to adopt a new model of society that can also work in populous countries, the social democracy.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:12pm
Fernando, I haven't read Popper but have heard his ideas. I read Kant and a few afterwards and came to the realization that I would get a much greater understanding of things by closely studying Kant than I would reading anything else. I tried others afterwards, Nietzshe (OK maybe 1/100th of what Kant is), Hegel (garbage), Adorno (interesting in how he tries to emulate Kant in his writing and uses false precepts to discredit him. Adorno is a snake but I like reading him anyways to challenge my thinking).
  You look at modern philosophy on YouTube, from anyone and I always ask "OK, so why don't you read Kant ? Kant has a much better explanation for all of this than you do". Or I ask, in the case of the rising star Jordan Peterson, "why don't you explain Kant's message, its the same as yours but much better than your fumbled attempt to explain things". I swear these guys just want Kant to dissappear from consciousness.
  In terms of religion, faith, law, science he is simply the best. I learned more about English Jurisprudence and political science from Kant than anyone else. You have to have read Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbs, etc as well as law scholars like Bastiat and Pufendorf to understand Kant. You also have to know something about science, something the modern student of art will not.
  Modern philosophy is just stupid a lot of the time.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:14pm
The only way to know what Scandinavia is like is to listen to people that live there and forget what corp media ever said (or never ever watch it - like me)
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 19, 2017 - 8:32pm
Dear John Minehan, I agree that the neoliberal model is fragile because it has ruined many countries, including the United States, in addition to increasing social inequality around the world. This fragility results from the fact that this model is not subject to regulation that causes unforeseen events to multiply and put the entire system at risk. I disagree, however, that the neoliberal model is successful because it is a system in which only the financial system is the great beneficiary.
I disagree that the Scandinavian model is fragile because it is very centralized, and also complex. Its positive performance for decades demonstrates its success. There is no way to compare the Scandinavian social democracy that presents excellent economic and social indicators with the Swiss cantons that Taleb says in his book Antifragile would be a model of a sustainable antifragile society.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 19, 2017 - 11:18pm
Dear Doug Plumb, I intend to expound my thoughts on Kant since you consider that you would have a greater understanding of things based on his thinking. Kant's basic question was: How can we know the truth? In his youth, he accepted the rationalist answer that we know the truth by the intellect, not by the senses, and that the intellect possessed its own "innate ideas". Later, he read the empiricist David Hume, who, in Kant's own words, "awakened him from dogmatic sleep". Like other empiricists, Hume believed that man can only know truth through the senses and that there are no "innate ideas". But Hume's premises led him to skepticism, to the denial that it is possible to know the truth with certainty. Kant found both rationalist "dogmatism" and empiricist skepticism unacceptable, and sought a third way.

Now there was a third theory available since the days of Aristotle: the philosophy of common sense, which is realism. According to realism, we can know the truth through the intellect and the senses, as long as both work properly together. Instead of turning to traditional realism, Kant invented a whole new theory of knowledge, often called idealism. He considered it his "Copernican revolution in philosophy". But the simplest name for it is subjectivism, for it seeks to redefine truth itself as subjective, not objective. Kant denied the common premise of these three competing philosophies, that is, he denied that truth should be attained, that truth signified conformity to objective reality. Kant's "Copernican revolution" redefines the very concept of truth as a reality that conforms to our ideas". To this day, it was maintained that our knowledge should suit the objects . There will be more progress if we assume the contrary hypothesis, that it is the objects of thought that must fit our knowledge.

Kant has stated that all our knowledge is subjective. Well, is this statement a subjective knowledge? If it is, then the knowledge of this fact is also subjective, and we are all imprisoned in an infinite hall of mirrors. It was Kant who propelled the typically modern drift of objectivity to subjectivity. This may seem good until we realize that it implied a redefinition of truth itself as something subjective. And the consequences of this idea have been catastrophic. Kant is largely responsible for this way of thinking. Just as I disagree with your thesis that Kant's thinking about truth is the most correct, I also repudiate your claim that modern philosophy is simply stupid most of the time.
 
About Scandinavia you said that the only way to know what is Scandinavia is to listen to the people who live there. I have been there 2 years ago for 3 months listening to people when I realized that there was implanted the most advanced model of society in the history of mankind.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 4:51am
re "But the simplest name for it is subjectivism, for it seeks to redefine truth itself as subjective, not objective. "
 
It is objective, but uniformly subjective in terms of our senses. We all "know" that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line (the args that say this is false from adv. physics are false (and very bad) themselves). The outside physical world is objective in the sense that it is the same for all of us, subject to our senses, which are uniform, therefore uniformly objective.
  The physical world is subject to the senses. The physical world does not exist as we see it. The subjectivity applies soley to physics and not ethics.
  On the other hand, the moral world is not. Like mathematics, ethics and morals are known and are uniform, except in damaged people. We are all a little damaged. Morals can be determined through rational logic, laws can be written. According to Kant, Christianity is the best map of this psyche.
  re "Copernican revolution" redefines the very concept of truth as a reality that conforms to our ideas"."
  This is Theodore Adorno and the Frankfurt school talking and it is bad logic. His copernican revolution lead to what I wrote above, it left room for faith. It said the outside physical world is subject of ontological and epistemelogical interpretation, he is talking physics not ethics.
  If Scandinavia is so great, why are they bringing Muslims into it? It is such a stupid thing to do.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 4:57am
re " It was Kant who propelled the typically modern drift of objectivity to subjectivity."
 
He gets very badly represented. You have to read Kant, not others writings on Kant. This is important with all philosophers, as I was taught.
 There is a war on Kant because he does explain a rational ethic and its origins, one that lines right up beside Christianity and the illuminati satanists need to have this idea erased. Fifty or a hundred years ago, nonsense like Hegel was ignored and Kant was studied and praised.
  The satanists hate Christianity and its ideas are best laid out by Kant.
  The subjectivity in Christianity that they do not like is the idea of courts of conscience. They want their representatives determining what is right and wrong, not conscience. We no longer have courts of conscience because people that serve in juries follow the instructions of the judge and judge according to law, rather than judging both the law and the accused (jury nullification).
  If people learned about juries, they would demand them and the bad laws would be ineffective. Write all the laws they want, but if they cannot get past a court of conscience then they may as well be illusions themselves.
  The NWO favours Judaism and Islam because they are dependent on authority, and this allows for top down absolute rule.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:00am
See my essay here http://dougplumb.blogspot.ca/2016/10/kant-and-misleading-frankfurt-school.html on how the Frankfurters try to change Kant's message in more detail, with a "proof" that they are wrong.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:09am
A perfect example of the subjectivity of the physical world is Maxwells equations. They work in all aspects of physical reality because we have electrical resistance in all circuits. Play with Maxwells equations in circuits without resistance and you get direct conflicts (two capacitor paradox) so our subjective interpretation that Maxwells equations are reality is in fact wrong, even though any experient in a lab will show them as being correct (meeting observation). This is what Kant means in terms of subjectivity. It has nothing to do with ethics or morals.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:13am
Kant also explains that Jurisprudence requires that a basis in fact and right be established prior to trials. He says this is a basic requirement. Feeling don't enter because they are subjective. Our modern devils want this to be subjective and therefore subject to their interpretation rather than rational interpretation which is what you get with juries.
  Jews HATE the Trinity because the Trinity creates that final check of conscience in law. (The Holy Ghost is conscience)
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:30am
A jury is necessary because no laws can be perfect- ie murder is generally regarded as wrong, but in some cases necessary - this is why you need a jury to make the final determination. The problem is that perfect laws cannot be written, they require conscience in their application. This seems somewhat subjective, but it isn't.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:31am
Islamics and Jews do not permit juries. Juries and totalitarianism do not mix.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 20, 2017 - 5:32am
Also, a common man knows as much about right and wrong as the moral philosophers. This knowledge is innate.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 20, 2017 - 8:48pm
Doug Plum, first of all, I must acknowledge your vast philosophical culture. I wrote down some points of your comments for my reflection:

I agree that the physical world is subject to our senses and that it does not exist as we see it.
I agree that the "Copernican revolution" redefines the very concept of truth as a reality in accordance with our ideas.
You state that I need to read Kant and not others written about Kant. I regret to inform you, but I have read the two most important works of Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason and The Critique of Practical Reason, in addition to Perpetual Peace, among others books. My knowledge about Kant does not derive from other writings by various authors.
I like your example about subjectivity by addressing Maxwell's equations.
I also liked your considerations on the jury as necessary because no law can be perfect.


I disagree with your negative assessment about Scandinavia. The UN has recently published the ranking of the happiest countries in the world. The Scandinavian countries are among the first, with Norway the happiest in the world. See the website https://s3.amazonaws.com/sdsn-whr2017/HR17_3-20-17.pdf.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2017 - 4:39am
Fernando, If I want to know what isn't true, I will go to the UN. It is the most rotten group of liars - mainly because it is dominated by a few countries. They recently censored Richard Falks report in Israel and Palestine because it tells some truths about Israel and Palestine as well as Jewish Supremacy. They wish to control all, not dish out truth. It is a body owned and operated by the internationalists. Rockefeller donated 8 million dollars worth of land to build it.
  WW2 in mainstream is all lies, and the UN was created out of those lies. See Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man by Anthony Perkins to see how UN based organizations actually operate the money supply.
  UN, or "un" is a name for the devil.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2017 - 4:45am
re "My knowledge about Kant does not derive from other writings by various authors."
 
The first time I read the Critique Of Pure Reason, I thought Kant was nuts. The second time I could see the sense of it, after I read his other writings equally as carefully I really made sense out of it. My favorite is the last half of the third Critique and Religion Within The Boundaries Of Mere Reason.
  This idea that Kant is subjective is often the main objection to him. It is an idea echoed by the Frankfurt School (Adorno/Horkheimer) in The Eclipse Of Reason and in Adorno's Critique of Kant's first. The Frankfurt School is a brother or sister of the international banks - the cultural engineering part.
  I can honestly say that I understand about half of Kant, and I have spent an enormous amount of time with it. I talked on a newsgroup with other Kantians daily for about a year. I think its rare when someone understands more than half of it, so we all understand different bits I suppose. No one can claim to understand the whole book, at least not anyone I ever spoke to on it.
  I am not a habitual reader, except I read a lot of essays on the web. I only read really really good books. Most I put away after concluding they aren't the great books people say they are, Hegel is a perfect example.
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Mar 21, 2017 - 5:47am
Doug Plumb, I was delighted to discuss with you about issues that most people do not deal as are philosophical issues, especially about the truth. I have the same perception you have about the difficulty of absorbing Kant's writings. About subjectivity, I confess to you that I made this questioning by agreeing with Adorno and Horkheimer in the Eclipse of Reason.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2017 - 12:06pm
I did agree with them too, but then I re read Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and I also went to find out what neo-Thomism was and I cannot find it anywhere. The Eclipse advocates a Neo-Thomism. Perhaps Talmudism is what they mean somehow. I never read St. Thomas.
  Also Adorno is very tricky and misleading in his Critique of Kant's first.
  I really figured out why Jews hate Christians and did an essay on it on here, "Why And How Are Christians Being Persecuted?"
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2017 - 12:09pm
No one I ever met found Kant to be easy.