we are all morons anyways, dont take yourself too seriously.
i act up because its funny, add a bit of spice by calling magnus a smelly dog moron but i dont mean it. i try to live loving all to the bset of my ability.
Feel free to remind us.
Yes, I know, and as I already explained to you, it’s completely irrelevant. All I asked you to do is to explain why you think that abortion is wrong. I never asked you to explain why it’s universally wrong. Yet, you keep blabbering about it. It’s your own invention born out of the fact that you do not carefully listen to what other people are saying.
I have no respect for Kant but I don’t think he ever said something as stupid as “Consequences are irrelevant because they have yet to happen”. Rather, he said that moral imperatives, such as “Do not steal”, have nothing to do with goals and consequences, which is a seriously stupid idea but not as stupid as “Consequences are irrelevant because they have yet to happen”.
The only thing that Kantian line of reasoning achieves is to make everyone blind as to why they think what they think ( effectively turning them into narcissists who think they are right because they think they are right ) and to make it easier for people to hide their true motives. It makes it easier for you to justify your decisions. All you have to do is claim they are “good in itself”. End of story. If others don’t like it, they can just go fuck themselves. No room for other people to criticize you. You’re right by default.
ok buddy…
Everybody talks crap about Kant w/o backing it up. Dude was (is) fire.
moral imperatives based on utilitarianism…genius.
sigh no. he had the harmonic triads. Scroll to Third Proposition.
drive.google.com/file/d/1wtXoLk … p=drivesdk
When you claim that moral imperatives have nothing to do with your goals and the consequences of your choices, and when you insist that you should do what is morally good even if it goes against your interests, you are teaching people how to be stupid.
Who? Kant treated people as “ends” (highest interest) because he acknowledged self=other as the first/basic universal/categorical (given) imperative.
Kant said that moral imperatives have nothing to do with one’s interests and that “Though shall not steal” means that one shouldn’t steal even if it goes against one’s interests. Intentionally or not, he was promoting the idea that, in certain cases, we should act against our interests. He wasn’t merely saying that the well-being of others is part of the highest goal of every person. That would have been better but still wrong if you ask me.
I suggest a concise and on-point paraphrasis.
To say no (sacrifice) you need a bigger (higher) yes. So you’re saying a higher yes when you say no to a lesser yes in order to develop innate capacities.
To paraphrase Kant’s Third Proposition (in Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose) as relates to pleasure/passion/happiness not being opposed to universalized (revaluation of) duty…
(…and this is not the only example I can pull, by the way…)
We have been given what is needed (by “nature”… wink wink, nudge nudge… he means God) to determine for ourselves what is right/good for our own and others’ well-being (happiness “as far as is possible on earth”) beyond the barbarism of bare every-man-for-himself survival: that is, the pleasures, the insight, the good will [also see Kant’s 3 syntheses in CPR, & the way he delineates judgment, understanding, & reason (respectively) in CJ]. Skip to the end - he’s talking about a cosmopolitan goal/purpose… he’s saying we can’t develop fully in isolation but need the antagonism of the other (iron sharpens iron)… just like Socrates in Plato’s Republic. Also as in The Republic, he notes we are warped wood (fragmented parts) …privation implying real wholeness … the Cosmopolitan Idea in the title. When he says nature has given us what we need to bring the Idea to fruition, he’s calling us coauthors toward a planned end/purpose.
But the end/goal is not mere utility or agreeableness, as if we could just pump everybody full of drugs & be done with it or something. Again … growth requires challenge. Ease doesn’t spur freedom/responsibility (not to lay blame, but gratitude). Choice/challenge is required to develop the innate capacity toward the higher yes/meaningfulness of self=other/us=them (the guiding principle he elsewhere calls the categorical … universal … imperative… & see 5th proposition).
Side note: There is a difference between reification & revaluation, and between reification & realization/fruition/finishing well (the already eternal Idea).
He was not about base pleasure or privation, but about higher joy and wholeness. Creating towards the eternal.
The way ethics/philosophy presents him as being strictly deontology/behavior also misses his stuff in line with virtue theory. He cannot be pigeon holed the way ethics is introduced. He had all the pieces of the puzzle together. So did the early virtue theorists, for that matter. Not sure when we fragmented.
bro go do your lectures somewheere else please, what are you even talking about and whats that got to do with me. plus you are talking insane nonsense, do you know what reification is? fucking yank degenerates.
Are you talking to me? I’m not anybody’s bro, bro. You want the Twitter version? You’re easily triggered on purpose. This got nothin to do with yous.
i went overboard sorry, thanks for your reply. you should google your own terms, reification is a term which classifies rational philosophy of kant and other europeans as logically fallacious and comes from the shady yank psychologists, ie modern chicken foot soup makers.
s’okay
If you’d actually digest my posts rather than eternally returning errors, the vitamins & minerals would do you some good.
nobody is going to digest your convoluted bickering