Kant Complete: The Ends Satisfy the Means

Daktoria · February 24, 2013, 2:52pm

Pragmatists often forget how their ideology comes from Immanuel Kant. Literally, Charles Sanders Peirce even disregarded anything beyond Kant’s first critique; Kant’s second critique is explicitly about the Critique of Practical Reason.

On top of this, Kant explicitly emphasizes the values of purpose and purposiveness in aesthetics. They are the ends which bring closure to people’s lives.

In sum, I’d like to ask pragmatists about why they give up. Yes, deontologists emphasize how the means justify the ends, but why can’t pragmatists realize how deontologists understand that the ends satisfy the means? Deontologists aren’t stupid. They realize that people aren’t robots. People need satisfaction to be willing to participate in activities.

You don’t even need to look at Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to get this. The first formulation does it just fine in recognizing autonomy since everyone in society isn’t necessarily satisfied by the same thing. That is satisfaction is contingent, not necessary. It’s particular, not universal. It depends on sensation which is empirically divided, not understanding which is rationally united.

Orbie · February 24, 2013, 3:29pm

Daktoria:

Pragmatists often forget how their ideology comes from Immanuel Kant. Literally, Charles Sanders Peirce even disregarded anything beyond Kant’s first critique; Kant’s second critique is explicitly about the Critique of Practical Reason.

On top of this, Kant explicitly emphasizes the values of purpose and purposiveness in aesthetics. They are the ends which bring closure to people’s lives.

In sum, I’d like to ask pragmatists about why they give up. Yes, deontologists emphasize how the means justify the ends, but why can’t pragmatists realize how deontologists understand that the ends satisfy the means? Deontologists aren’t stupid. They realize that people aren’t robots. People need satisfaction to be willing to participate in activities.

You don’t even need to look at Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to get this. The first formulation does it just fine in recognizing autonomy since everyone in society isn’t necessarily satisfied by the same thing. That is satisfaction is contingent, not necessary. It’s particular, not universal. It depends on sensation which is empirically divided, not understanding which is rationally united.

 Daktoria! Pragmatists do not forget that their ideology come from Kant, they simply do not know, have not their read their history.  That history shows, that pragmatism came about, as a kind of reaction to or an option to the line of thought Kant and his followers believed in.  Pragmatists probably threw up their hands when they read Kant, and said -this stuff is too hypothetical, and can't be based on things we observe here in real life.  So they were realists, not idealists like Kant.  I agree with the notion that ends should justify the means, if one has a pre-set notion of what those end should be.  This is why pragmatists abandoned Kant, because they couldn't agree to that notion.

Daktoria · February 25, 2013, 1:03am

obe:

Daktoria:

Pragmatists often forget how their ideology comes from Immanuel Kant. Literally, Charles Sanders Peirce even disregarded anything beyond Kant’s first critique; Kant’s second critique is explicitly about the Critique of Practical Reason.

On top of this, Kant explicitly emphasizes the values of purpose and purposiveness in aesthetics. They are the ends which bring closure to people’s lives.

In sum, I’d like to ask pragmatists about why they give up. Yes, deontologists emphasize how the means justify the ends, but why can’t pragmatists realize how deontologists understand that the ends satisfy the means? Deontologists aren’t stupid. They realize that people aren’t robots. People need satisfaction to be willing to participate in activities.

You don’t even need to look at Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to get this. The first formulation does it just fine in recognizing autonomy since everyone in society isn’t necessarily satisfied by the same thing. That is satisfaction is contingent, not necessary. It’s particular, not universal. It depends on sensation which is empirically divided, not understanding which is rationally united.
 Daktoria! Pragmatists do not forget that their ideology come from Kant, they simply do not know, have not their read their history.  That history shows, that pragmatism came about, as a kind of reaction to or an option to the line of thought Kant and his followers believed in.  Pragmatists probably threw up their hands when they read Kant, and said -this stuff is too hypothetical, and can't be based on things we observe here in real life.  So they were realists, not idealists like Kant.  I agree with the notion that ends should justify the means, if one has a pre-set notion of what those end should be.  This is why pragmatists abandoned Kant, because they couldn't agree to that notion.

If by hypothetical, you mean categorical…

What I was saying is pragmatists didn’t even look at Immanuel Kant’s second critique. As you said, they got fixated on his first. As realists, they threw up their hands. I agree. It’s terribly disappointing. Anyway, I’m not saying the ends justify the means. I’m saying the ends satisfy the means. The means precede the ends, so the means must justify the ends…

…but means aren’t exercised for free, so those who exercise them need to be satisfied. Otherwise, they’re being exhausted.

This is literally what Kant refers to in hypothetical imperatives when talking about the agreeable, beautiful, and sublime. They must satisfy a pragmatist’s inclinations.