you are bat shit crazy and dont see why, like most kooks. what is normal? you have no clue. thats why you are batshit crazy. still better than mexican neonazis or their middleaged mystic gropers.
i apologise for my last reply. im acting like a mean midget.
Ichthus77
April 6, 2023, 4:32pm
343
just don’t be getting short w me again
are you ok in your retarded head? look at what you write…you think you are very smart? if you were smart you would be able to write it out in sentences that dont look like AI generated schizo word-salad, autism much?
my new favourite tool, chatgpt4:
does the person writing the below excerpt know anything about kant or are they simply making stuff up and being incoherent to sound smarter than they are: 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.
The author of this excerpt appears to have some familiarity with Kant’s work and ideas, although the writing is somewhat difficult to follow due to its informal style and dense phrasing. The author references Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose,” “Critique of Pure Reason” (CPR), and “Critique of Judgment” (CJ), and touches on concepts like the categorical imperative, duty, and happiness. However, the excerpt is not a clear or coherent presentation of Kant’s ideas.
While the author may have some knowledge of Kant, their writing style, informality, and the density of their phrasing make it difficult to determine the depth of their understanding. It is possible that they are attempting to sound more knowledgeable than they are, or they may simply struggle to communicate their understanding clearly.
my favourite anti-kooky-bullshiter-wordsaladcutting time-waster-bullshitter:
summarise this in bulletpoints: 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.
OUTPUT
Paraphrasing Kant’s Third Proposition in “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose”
CAN YOU DO BETTER??? OR DO YOU SEE MY POINT!!!AND WHY I GET ANGRY WITH SPAGHETTI MEN LIKE YOU!!!
HumAnIze
April 7, 2023, 9:32pm
348
Abortion is murder of a child by its own mother. Hard to imagine something more insane, horrible, monstrous, evil and irrational. Except maybe for those retards who are actually braindead enough to support such a thing.
HumAnIze
April 7, 2023, 9:33pm
349
How long has it been since human sacrifice was considered normal?
Trick question, it’s still considered normal today. Even though it is far from it.
i said killing you strawmanning spook
Am I the only one not willing to touch Chat GPT?
its very good at spotting bullshit my internet friend, if a model trained on trillions of data points relevant to whatever you query with microsoft behind it cant extract any meaning from something somebody claims is deep but seems like total bullshit then you can rest assured whatever you are reading is bullshit
Ichthus77
April 8, 2023, 6:00am
356
ChatGPT is my homie. Keep his name out of your mouth. I fed him this convo and he responded, “It appears PolandYoung has no argument and is very short.”
MagsJ
April 8, 2023, 7:13pm
359
My ego and intellect won’t allow me to, but PY used it for good not evil/not to generate a false prophet philosophy but to expose it.
