[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 671 KB, 1009x1317, 8D0C4C67-F296-40AD-B427-5DE05CD4346A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14534890 No.14534890 [Reply] [Original]

*completes philosophy in your path*

>> No.14534895

>>14534890
Too bad his ethics is retarded

>> No.14534901

>>14534895
Wrong

>> No.14534925

>>14534901
Why should we be moral, according to Kant?

>> No.14535006

>>14534925
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783110366396/9783110366396-010/9783110366396-010.xml&ved=2ahUKEwjYy9uUuIPnAhVPmIsKHeh2CdEQFjASegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw0w5oRzwS122mbLbe4vQoZk

>> No.14535020
File: 17 KB, 236x240, 106948842702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535020

>>14534890
Kant was refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

>> No.14535074
File: 16 KB, 578x433, 7E083052-F061-4E93-9367-E39E19A2358B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14535074

>>14535006
So the point of being moral is to make ourselves happy, yes? Isn’t that the true good-in-itself? Will and freedom are only means to that end. But Kant doesn’t think consequences of actions are important, or that we should strive for happiness. What a confusing mess. Hegel was right: Kant wrongly places reason above our subjective, irrational nature, as if the foundation of everything we do isn’t based on irrational desire. Reason’s only goal should be to assist our irrational nature. With reason alone, there is no reason to do anything.

>> No.14535302

>>14534890
all enlightenment philosophers have been destroyed by macintyre
move along
>you shouldn't lie to a murderer that asks you where your children are
op i know you want to justify the time you invested but stop coping so hard please

>> No.14535316

>>14535074
No, the point of morality is to reconcile the self with being

>> No.14535346

>>14535074
No, acting in order to make yourself happy is a hypothetical imperative. Will and freedom are ends unto themselves, only logical non-empirical maxims can result in free will. Everything within the realm of appearances is necessarily tied to causality.

>> No.14535657

>>14534925
Because it’s the right thing to do
>>14535302
>look mom I can create bullshit hypotheticals that will never happen to discredit legitimate ethics

>> No.14535722

>>14535074
>Hegel was right: Kant wrongly places reason above our subjective, irrational nature, as if the foundation of everything we do isn’t based on irrational desire. Reason’s only goal should be to assist our irrational nature. With reason alone, there is no reason to do anything.
Wait, that's Hegel? Sounds a lot like Hume.

>> No.14535759

>>14535657
>you should do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do

>> No.14535834

>>14535759
>A=A
Makes sense to me anon

>> No.14535904

>>14535657
>because it’s the right thing to do
What is right?
>>14535834
right = right, sure. But you’re equating doing an action with the reason for the action. You’re retarded

>> No.14536357

>>14535759
Yes

>> No.14536399

>>14535834
>>14536357
We don't take kindly to circular reasoning in these philosophizing parts, pardners.

>> No.14536405

>>14534890
I see the circus is in town.

>> No.14536891

>>14535074
No, the point is to be *worthy* of being happy, not to be happy. You got Hegel wrong too. 0/10 post

>> No.14536948

>>14534890
refuted by Eichmann

>> No.14537080

>>14535074
Happiness is a qualified good. If happiness is ruled by an ill will it will lead to misery.

>> No.14537101

>>14537080
So Kant is just a stealth consequentialist?

>> No.14537102

>>14535722
Yeah, that does sound like Hume.

>> No.14537110

>>14537101
No, because he champions the good will, which is an unqualified good. So no room for consequences there.

>> No.14537112

>>14534890
thats not kant.

>> No.14537116

>>14535904
>What is right?
Better phrased as what is Good. Again: that which reconciles the self to being. And the answer here is obvious: God. God is Good (and right)

>> No.14537235

>>14537110
what makes a will good?

>> No.14537271

>>14537235
One that acts out of duty toward the categorical imperative and nothing else.

>> No.14537321

>>14537271
Isn’t the categorical imperative based on achieving a good society? How is this not ultimately consequentialist?

>> No.14537406

>>14534890
Kant was of course a great philosophical genius, but he writing style can be a bit impenetrable to beginners. A useful companion to Kant's CPR (and related works) is Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation", which is written much more clearly and accessibly. In some instances, Schopenhauer understood what Kant was driving at better than Kant himself. (Skip Hegel and the German Idealists - they added confusion rather than clarity.)

>> No.14537824

>>14537101
A consequentialist would consider all happiness good. Kant rejects that, because he considers it obvious that happiness a tyrant gets from torturing his subjects is not good.

>>14537235
A will is good when it wants to do the right thing.

>> No.14537872

>>14537824
I'm pretty sure Bentham would consider that situation just as bad as Kant.

>> No.14537934

>>14537824
>Kant rejects that, because he considers it obvious that happiness a tyrant gets from torturing his subjects is not good.
Because torture generally involves risk of negative consequences in the future, either in this life or the afterlife
>A will is good when it wants to do the right thing.
and what is the right thing?

>> No.14538405

>>14536399
>1 = 1 is circular reasoning

>> No.14538408

>>14538405
define 1

>> No.14538411

>>14538408
One

>> No.14538416

>>14538411
define "One"

>> No.14538418

>>14538416
One Numeric Entity

>> No.14538426

>>14538418
define "One", "Numeric", and "Entity"

>> No.14538441

>>14537824
There's an interesting thing Father Zosima says in The Brothers Karamazov: "If you're happy, you're doing God's will upon the Earth."

I take it to mean, among other things, that it is not psychologically possible to be evil and happy. Dostoevsky after all, had supreme insights into human nature, and he did spend a lot of time around criminals, so it makes me think it has some validity.

>> No.14538497

>>14534890
>>14538475

>> No.14538502

>>14538405
False analogy as shown here>>14535904