No. Because this is a philosophy forum, an understanding of the concepts of ethics and morals is necessary. Whatever anyone thought or said in ancient history is irrelevant (and really belongs in the Philosophy form, not the religion forum).
This is not a site wherein a man can stand upon the shoulders of giants and speak without serious interruption. You can study the giants of the past and try to learn what you can (most probably not what they really intended) and then perhaps add to what you believe that you know. But when it comes to professing it here, you must be able to build your thesis from the ground up all on your own merit.
Imagine if I was to say, “Jesus said …X…”. Would you give “X” any greater credit? Perhaps Buddha, Moses, Heidegger, Einstein, whoever? Who you choose to worship is your own business. But to presume that your audience worships the same people is presumptuous (the very seed of all sin).
To rely on his name exposes your ignorance (for the reasons stated above).
Not really. I can explain physics and psychology without mentioning anyone’s name. What makes you think that I have to know someone else’s thesis in order to explain my own?
Why do you have to use someone else’s name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.
Well, that is good to know, because you really aren’t getting off on the right foot.
Yeah well … don’t count your chickens.
We are not “inventing”. We are trying to get YOU to fully explain YOUR thesis (not that of Kant). And to do that, you must fully define the critical terms involved (quite possibly different than those of Kant without you realizing it). You may quote Kant for your definitions if you like, but if you cannot define your concepts, you most certainly cannot use science as a source.
If you cannot even define your own, this whole thread is going to be “ineffective”.