I’ll do exposition for a while and bold potential areas of discussion in this that could be interesting to somebody. I don’t expect us to treat of this whole subject in one thread, but I’d like to share some of the thought I am involved in. I also think that pinning down some of this to talk about alone may help to give me some focus temporarily.

(This is line of consideration is first ongoing foray into political thought at all. This being said, I use the texts that have been available to me in my studies so far. I am not well read in political philosophy, and while I approach it in potentially a radical way due to my own background, I feel grounded in my movement into this field.)

* * *
Recent discussions of the Metaphysics of Morals (Via a certain problematic essay) reveal empirical biases in Kant which appear disastrous to our sensibilities of justice. Kant's views in the Metaphysics of Morals are certainly his, and they certainly involve his own biases, however the situation is more complicated than Kant merely holding what appear to be obviously wrong views on justice.

Kant recognizes an end (telos) for humanity (see the Critique of Teleological Judgment in the Critique of Judgment) and so do we at times today. This end for humanity is recognized by Kant as unknowable as to its reality, but the idea of this end is necessary to hold if we are to think humanity to have a purpose, for the idea of a purpose is unintelligible without there being an end. (There is no moral demand to believe humanity has a purpose, but it is a way we can think.) What is the best way to think about the end of humanity, if we are to think about such a thing at all? If we claim that we cannot, or should not, think about an end to humanity, what ramifications do we see this as having on the purpose of society, and to how we can think about ourselves in the world?

Kant does have a conception of the end of humanity, and this end is served by society. Some of the prescriptions in the Metaphysics of Morals, such as the ban on homosexuality, make sense with this view of the end of humanity in mind within a certain limitation. I propose that this limitation is a bias produced from Kant’s lack of foresight concerning the effect of developments in technology on the constraints humans need to follow to achieve the end of humanity (this is not meant to excuse Kant for his position in the Metaphysics of Morals).

For a larger scope on this situation I suggest turning to Plato and his conception of the Noble Lie, or Magnificent Myth.

Plato has it that to keep society ordered a certain falsehood is necessary. The one Plato suggests specifically is to tell the populace that different people are born made out of different material (gold, silver or bronze/iron). The type of material you are determines the class you are in society. Plato knows that this is false, but with such a belief in the people it is easier to keep the structure of society together concerning who is in the upper class and who isn’t.

Plato also understood there being a telos for humanity, and political order is something that is necessary to advance us towards that end. Ultimately, the aim at the end is the task of the social order. Because the end of the noble lie is to maintain the social order, it does not seem that this particular lie is necessarily the only one we could employ. It also seems that as we become more advanced the sort of structure that needs to be maintained is different.

When society starts it is partly founded on the recognition that different people can perform different tasks and we can all do better work and help each other to satisfy our basic needs. Specialization is a mark of society so far, but if we get to a point through technology where each person can provide for themselves without help from anyone then this end drops away from society and the sphere society governs is lessened. The change in what is necessary for our social order changes what is necessary in our lie about it – there is no need for different classes if the different classes do not support us in the end of humanity. How do we best understand technology in this context? It is clearly broader than mere tools, but also extends to the knowledge gained from research that help us to understand our world better.

We can examine our own society and see issues where people may be hanging onto myths that we could easily advance through with a critical eye towards our end. How do we go about identifying these cases so that it is easier to remove them as impediments to the development of humanity towards its end? Have we removed some parts of the lie already that are necessary?

Plato and Kant, to my interpretive knowledge, see society as having this aim at the end of humanity necessarily from the start, which I am sure that not all parties here, including myself, would agree with. Schiller recognizes the society we have as one developed out of natural force rather than our end as moral agents (Kant may have this in an unrefined way through his conception of the Kingdom of Ends – my interpretation of Kant on this point also needs refinement and more detailed attention). We live in a brutal world, and when we form society we don’t have a view so much as to the greatness of all people as much as we do to not having violence done to us as individuals. Schiller wants to find a way to transition from the society of force we are in to one a moral one that takes a broader scope of what humans are (their agency) into account. Schiller suggests that aesthetics is necessary for the transition from the former into the later. How do we understand society when it no longer is concerned with our limitations in nature?

Ultimately when we have perfected any technology we may need, we won’t be limited physically in the same way. We will still have a moral duty to each other, the possibility of a kingdom of ends (to be overly simplistic for a moment, this is a sort of kingdom where we no longer use each other as means at all, maybe). What is our duty to technology in the achievement of this sort of kingdom? Do we currently see this as our duty in some way?

Somewhat disconnected considerations: How much does this sort of thought contribute to, and help us from, Hegelian thought? Does this help us to be critical or Marx or not?

Erosopher wrote:
I’ll do exposition for a while and bold potential areas of discussion in this that could be interesting to somebody. I don’t expect us to treat of this whole subject in one thread, but I’d like to share some of the thought I am involved in. I also think that pinning down some of this to talk about alone may help to give me some focus temporarily.

(This is line of consideration is first ongoing foray into political thought at all. This being said, I use the texts that have been available to me in my studies so far. I am not well read in political philosophy, and while I approach it in potentially a radical way due to my own background, I feel grounded in my movement into this field.)

* * *
Recent discussions of the Metaphysics of Morals (Via a certain problematic essay) reveal empirical biases in Kant which appear disastrous to our sensibilities of justice. Kant's views in the Metaphysics of Morals are certainly his, and they certainly involve his own biases, however the situation is more complicated than Kant merely holding what appear to be obviously wrong views on justice.

Kant recognizes an end (telos) for humanity (see the Critique of Teleological Judgment in the Critique of Judgment) and so do we at times today. This end for humanity is recognized by Kant as unknowable as to its reality, but the idea of this end is necessary to hold if we are to think humanity to have a purpose, for the idea of a purpose is unintelligible without there being an end. (There is no moral demand to believe humanity has a purpose, but it is a way we can think.) What is the best way to think about the end of humanity, if we are to think about such a thing at all? If we claim that we cannot, or should not, think about an end to humanity, what ramifications do we see this as having on the purpose of society, and to how we can think about ourselves in the world?

Kant does have a conception of the end of humanity, and this end is served by society. Some of the prescriptions in the Metaphysics of Morals, such as the ban on homosexuality, make sense with this view of the end of humanity in mind within a certain limitation. I propose that this limitation is a bias produced from Kant’s lack of foresight concerning the effect of developments in technology on the constraints humans need to follow to achieve the end of humanity (this is not meant to excuse Kant for his position in the Metaphysics of Morals).

For a larger scope on this situation I suggest turning to Plato and his conception of the Noble Lie, or Magnificent Myth.

Plato has it that to keep society ordered a certain falsehood is necessary. The one Plato suggests specifically is to tell the populace that different people are born made out of different material (gold, silver or bronze/iron). The type of material you are determines the class you are in society. Plato knows that this is false, but with such a belief in the people it is easier to keep the structure of society together concerning who is in the upper class and who isn’t.

Plato also understood there being a telos for humanity, and political order is something that is necessary to advance us towards that end. Ultimately, the aim at the end is the task of the social order. Because the end of the noble lie is to maintain the social order, it does not seem that this particular lie is necessarily the only one we could employ. It also seems that as we become more advanced the sort of structure that needs to be maintained is different.

When society starts it is partly founded on the recognition that different people can perform different tasks and we can all do better work and help each other to satisfy our basic needs. Specialization is a mark of society so far, but if we get to a point through technology where each person can provide for themselves without help from anyone then this end drops away from society and the sphere society governs is lessened. The change in what is necessary for our social order changes what is necessary in our lie about it – there is no need for different classes if the different classes do not support us in the end of humanity. How do we best understand technology in this context? It is clearly broader than mere tools, but also extends to the knowledge gained from research that help us to understand our world better.

We can examine our own society and see issues where people may be hanging onto myths that we could easily advance through with a critical eye towards our end. How do we go about identifying these cases so that it is easier to remove them as impediments to the development of humanity towards its end? Have we removed some parts of the lie already that are necessary?

Plato and Kant, to my interpretive knowledge, see society as having this aim at the end of humanity necessarily from the start, which I am sure that not all parties here, including myself, would agree with. Schiller recognizes the society we have as one developed out of natural force rather than our end as moral agents (Kant may have this in an unrefined way through his conception of the Kingdom of Ends – my interpretation of Kant on this point also needs refinement and more detailed attention). We live in a brutal world, and when we form society we don’t have a view so much as to the greatness of all people as much as we do to not having violence done to us as individuals. Schiller wants to find a way to transition from the society of force we are in to one a moral one that takes a broader scope of what humans are (their agency) into account. Schiller suggests that aesthetics is necessary for the transition from the former into the later. How do we understand society when it no longer is concerned with our limitations in nature?

Ultimately when we have perfected any technology we may need, we won’t be limited physically in the same way. We will still have a moral duty to each other, the possibility of a kingdom of ends (to be overly simplistic for a moment, this is a sort of kingdom where we no longer use each other as means at all, maybe). What is our duty to technology in the achievement of this sort of kingdom? Do we currently see this as our duty in some way?

Somewhat disconnected considerations: How much does this sort of thought contribute to, and help us from, Hegelian thought? Does this help us to be critical or Marx or not?




Kant believes in widespread systematic lies to
support a greater kingdom?

There are a lot of leaps of interpretation that
are hard to kepe up with (or outside of certain
fringe groups, hard to find reference for).

Is there some way to back those surprises more solidly?
The basis of the "Kantian Noble Lie"?

leonardomenderes wrote:

Kant believes in widespread systematic lies to
support a greater kingdom?

Kant wouldn't agree to this. I'm sorry my exposition didn't shift over to the noble lie in a cleaner manner. I ask you to consider Kant in light of Plato's noble lie.

The promise is essential to society for Kant because no contractual agreement is possible without it (we just talked about this actually ), and so lying is fundamentally contrary to the foundation of society (the promise). The essential point I think that Plato would call the lie in Kant would be from where the government gets it authority. Unless the leadership was taken to be divine (which we have many instances of) how can one man submit another to punishment under law?

If we look at the arguments in Plato's Crito, where Socrates tries to debate the laws of Athens with his friend Crito who wishes to help him escape prison, we can see that agreement to live in the state and accepting that state as yours provide foundation for the authority of the state in some way. Kant also thought that citizens should have input in the laws which they follow, which is similar to the point in the Crito.


leonardomenderes wrote:

Is there some way to back those surprises more solidly?
The basis of the "Kantian Noble Lie"?

I can certainly find Plato's discussion of the noble lie. There are many others who consider the noble lie, I am only familiar with Plato, however.

Still struggling to link them,then....

The 'noble lie' gets a big boost from the
presumption that some people know a lot more
about what's best than others. The citizen's
input might presume a better reasoning...I'm not
sure.

Kant almost seems off of that map.
The desire for citizens to have input does
have to do with trust and buy-in, but
after that, the duties to ones self...
seem to leave things grey for public life.
You were talking about later Kant how how some lies
could even be 'noble' ... is there some scenario?

leonardomenderes wrote:
Still struggling to link them,then....

I suppose my discussion of Kant was a means of leading in my thoughts on one thing to my thoughts about another thing. This isn't all clearly worked out in my mind, but something I am considering how to approach.


leonardomenderes wrote:
The 'noble lie' gets a big boost from the
presumption that some people know a lot more
about what's best than others. The citizen's
input might presume a better reasoning...I'm not
sure.

The noble lie could be seen as a way for the people in power to remain in power also. In Athens (in the time of Socrates, but not Plato) citizens did have input into the laws (but there were slaves that never had input). It seems to me that for Plato the lower class would be too busy producing food and doing work and not have enough leisure to become noble enough to have a view to the end of humanity rather than their own needs. Plato would probably suspect that the input from citizens into the laws may lead to the inactment of laws that went against the end of humanity, but were in favor of themselves.

As technology, and education as a part of that, improve it seems that citizens are more and more able to join the base of people who can judge what is best for everyone and not just themselves.

leonardomenderes wrote:
Kant almost seems off of that map.
The desire for citizens to have input does
have to do with trust and buy-in, but
after that, the duties to ones self...
seem to leave things grey for public life.


The moral law is our dictation to ourselves of what we ought not do. This can sometimes be contrary to, but more frequently in line with, the law of the state. The combination of these two different sets of laws, as well as the normal battle of human inclination, shows the nature of our activities in the world to be a very grey area - for philosophy itself, it can't speak to the particulars of this without introducing content from its own experience, which means its own age in history as well.

leonardomenderes wrote:
You were talking about later Kant how how some lies
could even be 'noble' ... is there some scenario?

A scenario for a virtuous lie in Kant would be if your friend asks you if you like his poem, and you don't, should you tell him you don't like it and hurt him or should you lie? Kant does not have an answer to this, but leaves it open.

Lieing to avoid hurt
feeling sounds like later Kant,
if any.
I am less up on that.