If we hold ourselves to the higher standard
of it must eligible as evidence in a court of law,
then much of philosophy gets tossed into the garbage heap.
an example of this is Kant and his famous saying:
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration
and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them:
the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”
OK, we have evidence for the starry heavens above but
the “moral law within me”? Nah, that is an assumption of
facts not admissible in a court of law. There is simply no
evidence of any kind of a moral law in Kant, in you, in me,
in anybody.
We see this false attempt to act upon evidence that we simply
don’t have. The group after Kant, which included Fichte, Shelling, Schleiermacher, and
of course, Hegel, all began with unproven assumptions not admissible
in a court of law. Each of them wrote about assumptions like the
“divine absolute” which is another name for god, and the existence
of some sort of spirit which infuses “the People” which causes “the people”
to act in some fashion. Each of those named above writes about the
“Spirit of the people”, the “German Spirit” as if it actually were a thing and
not some made up metaphysical thing. You have to stick to the facts as they
present themselves, not as how you want them to appear. This is the failure
of “German Idealism” during the period of Kant and thereafter. They assumed
facts not in evidence.
So what other “facts” that we have that are assumed
and not actually proven? The idea of “progress” is one.
We have no evidence that the human race is supposed
to travel the path of “progress”. From the lower, simpler
to the higher, complicated level. There is simply no evidence
for this idea. It is assumed that because we have a higher level
of technology, that we are “higher” or further along with
path of “progress”. But this idea of “progress” assumes that
that there is some liner progression involved and we see no evidence
for that. I would suggest that the Greeks were higher then us in area’s like
philosophy and ethics, and we are higher in science and technology.
so the question really becomes, we have “progress” in what exact area’s
and depending upon that area, we may or may not have “progressed”.
It depends upon how you define “progress”? The entire question of “progress”
revolves around how you define “progress”. The question of “progress”
and other questions, really operate within the boundaries of your definition and
thus have no basis for being admissible in a court of law as being
“facts”. As I stated, much of what passes for philosophy gets tossed
when judged upon being facts or being judge as opinion.
So we have statements like this, “The creative spirit of the people
help create democracy” Ok, there is no evidence of a collective
creative spirit of the people. We have individuals who are creative
and they do create. Am I such a creative person? Hell no.
We cannot take an individual property such as creativity
or socialness and assume that it is a collective process,
includes everyone. My sisters are creative, my brother and I,
nope, so does the entire family have a “creative spirit”?
some do and some don’t, it is not a collective thing.
Now I could say, my family has a “creative spirit”
and I would be partly right, and I would be partly wrong.
depending on who I was talking about.
We have to speak and write with the current evidence, facts in mind.
Thus we cannot make blanket statements about “everyone” or the “collective”
spirit, or the “absolute” spirit which is god.
“I believe in god” is a personal, individual statement which
some in my family believes. “I don’t believe in god” is a personal,
individual statement which some in my family believes. So is there
a collective understanding or a collective spirit about god in my family?
Not that I can tell.
We have to be careful about making individual, personal statements
that we falsely attribute to a “collective spirit” or a “collective understanding”.
My statement “I believe in UFO’S” is a personal, individual statement,
but I can present evidence, evidence that is acceptable in a court of law,
that UFO"S exist.
a Statement that “I believe in GOD” is a personal, individual statement,
but I could not present evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law.
Why? because the evidence for a god is mostly faith based, not evidence
based. I have faith that god exists whereas I don’t need faith for the evidence
for UFO’S. Philosophy must be presented upon evidence based, not faith
base. We must have evidence for our philosophical statements.
Enough evidence for a court of law.
Kropotkin