Was Kant a Douchebag?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:59 am

ForgedinHell wrote:However, that was a fair, and reasoned response, because your point was that philosophy does not look up to Kant, and the fact an entire issue was dedicated to him is proof otherwise.
i am not sure what you mean by 'looking up to kant'

i gave you a statement from someone who is generally regarded as a foremost authority on kant - and the statement is not exactly complimentary

i did not read the kant issue so i cannot comment on it specifically

however any book on kant will point out multiple ways in which his arguments are questionable, wrong or even incoherent

the prevailing view is that he made major contributions to the field, brought up interesting points, was influential, not that he was right about everything - about some things he appears to be completely wrong and hardly anyone will deny that

i think you are confusing modern perception of kant with medieval scholastics' view of Aristotle
Why? The statement is accurate, and you can check for yourself. If you find that I am in error, then show me your references.
the prevailing view is that whoever makes a positive assertion has to prove it
My opinions are quite different from Rand's. Not even closely related. Rand, for example, considered Kant to be the most evil person who ever lived. He hardly deserves that title.
still your views are over the top in a randial style

i am not sure what substantial differences between your worldview and rands are

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:34 pm

Kayla wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:However, that was a fair, and reasoned response, because your point was that philosophy does not look up to Kant, and the fact an entire issue was dedicated to him is proof otherwise.
i am not sure what you mean by 'looking up to kant'

i gave you a statement from someone who is generally regarded as a foremost authority on kant - and the statement is not exactly complimentary

i did not read the kant issue so i cannot comment on it specifically

however any book on kant will point out multiple ways in which his arguments are questionable, wrong or even incoherent

the prevailing view is that he made major contributions to the field, brought up interesting points, was influential, not that he was right about everything - about some things he appears to be completely wrong and hardly anyone will deny that

i think you are confusing modern perception of kant with medieval scholastics' view of Aristotle
Why? The statement is accurate, and you can check for yourself. If you find that I am in error, then show me your references.
the prevailing view is that whoever makes a positive assertion has to prove it
My opinions are quite different from Rand's. Not even closely related. Rand, for example, considered Kant to be the most evil person who ever lived. He hardly deserves that title.
still your views are over the top in a randial style

i am not sure what substantial differences between your worldview and rands are
I already proved my point. I quoted from Kant, and he was a sexist, racist, war-mongering fascist. To date, anyone who has come here claiming that Kant was a genius has failed to prove their assertion. Frankly, I wouldn't have trusted the man with bording my dogs, much less with writing a moral code for humanity.

My position is very far removed from Rand's. Not even close to the same ball park.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla » Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:36 pm

ForgedinHell wrote:I already proved my point. I quoted from Kant, and he was a sexist, racist, war-mongering fascist.
you quoted no such thing

was his 'racism' and 'sexism' central to his philosophy or were they just examples of how many of his beliefs were the norm of his time
much less with writing a moral code for humanity.
god you are so stupid

you said you are a lawyer

are you sure you did not mean a paralegal school dropout

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:40 pm

Kayla wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:I already proved my point. I quoted from Kant, and he was a sexist, racist, war-mongering fascist.
you quoted no such thing

was his 'racism' and 'sexism' central to his philosophy or were they just examples of how many of his beliefs were the norm of his time
much less with writing a moral code for humanity.
god you are so stupid

you said you are a lawyer

are you sure you did not mean a paralegal school dropout
You are resorting to childish insults now? Does that make you feel better here as you make a fool out of yourself?

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:43 pm

Kayla wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:I already proved my point. I quoted from Kant, and he was a sexist, racist, war-mongering fascist.
you quoted no such thing

was his 'racism' and 'sexism' central to his philosophy or were they just examples of how many of his beliefs were the norm of his time

Definitely. Had he believed in some sort of universal morality where everyone is to be treated fairly, then he could not have asserted his position that war is good and that it builds character. In fact, why would anyone who believes in non-violent treatment for everyone, conclude that learning how to kill in war builds character? Why would such a skill be needed?

Now, go run along now child. I really don't have time for those who believe childish insults substitute for cogent thought.

much less with writing a moral code for humanity.
god you are so stupid

you said you are a lawyer

are you sure you did not mean a paralegal school dropout

User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Recidivist » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:18 am

Kayla wrote:was his 'racism' and 'sexism' central to his philosophy or were they just examples of how many of his beliefs were the norm of his time
If Kant's beliefs were only a result of the zeitgeist, then ForgedinHell's are the same.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:17 am

Recidivist wrote:
Kayla wrote:was his 'racism' and 'sexism' central to his philosophy or were they just examples of how many of his beliefs were the norm of his time
If Kant's beliefs were only a result of the zeitgeist, then ForgedinHell's are the same.
everyone has lots of beliefs that the result of the zeigeist that are not questioned and that may well turn out to be seen as stupid or even outright malevolent in a few centuries

you , i, forged, everyone

it does not mean all of our beliefs are merely mindless synthesis of what is around us

we are not helplessly swimming in the seas of zeitgeist we are part of it we are part of making it

yes kant makes casual sexist and racist statements but they are not philosophically interesting - he does not even try to back them up

but his philosophy can stand (or not - that is a matter of debate) without any references to this sexism or racism, it is not really part of his philosophy

was he wrong in arguing that reality is shaped by our capabilities in perceiving it - what we see are not things in themselves but our interpretation of them?

maybe or maybe i totally misunderstood that whole part of kant

but his sexism and racism - and heck even supposed warmongering - has no relevance to these questions

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:23 am

ForgedinHell wrote:
You are resorting to childish insults now? Does that make you feel better here as you make a fool out of yourself?
the insult was deserved

i have never actually met or come across the writings of anyone who thinks kantian ethics is good moral code for humanity

many people think that he makes many good points and that with some adjustments it can be a really good ethical theory

but no one treats kant the way the medieval scholastics treated aristotle

i have no idea where you are getting the idea that kant is widely regarded as an infallible moral authority or a even a paragon of human virtue

if you think kants metaphysics is wrong that is ok there are interesting things to discuss there

you can even argue that what he wrote is meaningless drivel - and this view is not entirely devoid of merit

we can talk about his deontological ethics and whether his example about lying makes any sense even in terms of his own ethics

we can do all these things without having to get into his sexism racism or supposed warmonger and I do not even see what they have to do with those things

PlumHedon
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:52 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by PlumHedon » Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:16 am

ForgedinHell wrote:Amazingly enough, the sad, pathetic, imbecile for the ages, named Kant, is a hero of many on this forum. In addition to his repeated gibberish writings, some of his more immoral idiocy is set forth in the following quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race." (I'm white, but that is not the reason I'm so perfect, it's because I have blue eyes. Kant missed the blue-eyed part, the dumbass.)

It is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life." (Telling a lie to save another's life would seem the morally right thing to do, but apparently hurting feelings by lying to someone is worse than chopping their head off.)

"The negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling." "The blacks are very vain but in the Negroe's way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings." (I guess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)

He also had much to say about women, including that they were not possessed of "certain high insights," were "timid," and "not fit for serious employment." (Obviously, he never met Margaret Thatcher.)

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning, is the exclusion of context. For example, the fashion in which Kant talked of blacks is indeed by today's standards: just awful, and he was wrong. However, it is not that he knew that blacks were actually human beings like us, and refused to accept that because he was a horrible man - he simply, from his subjective experience, and being conditioned by the times he lived in did not know. What would have made Kant a racist, is if he hated them, regardless of his ignorance. But it seems he didn't.

I guarantee you, if you were raised in his time, you would be spouting the same nonsense as he would, maybe even worse, who knows. Because they did not hold the understanding of the world and people we do today. This was a long time ago, remember.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:17 am

PlumHedon wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Amazingly enough, the sad, pathetic, imbecile for the ages, named Kant, is a hero of many on this forum. In addition to his repeated gibberish writings, some of his more immoral idiocy is set forth in the following quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race." (I'm white, but that is not the reason I'm so perfect, it's because I have blue eyes. Kant missed the blue-eyed part, the dumbass.)

It is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life." (Telling a lie to save another's life would seem the morally right thing to do, but apparently hurting feelings by lying to someone is worse than chopping their head off.)

"The negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling." "The blacks are very vain but in the Negroe's way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings." (I guess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)

He also had much to say about women, including that they were not possessed of "certain high insights," were "timid," and "not fit for serious employment." (Obviously, he never met Margaret Thatcher.)

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning, is the exclusion of context. For example, the fashion in which Kant talked of blacks is indeed by today's standards: just awful, and he was wrong. However, it is not that he knew that blacks were actually human beings like us, and refused to accept that because he was a horrible man - he simply, from his subjective experience, and being conditioned by the times he lived in did not know. What would have made Kant a racist, is if he hated them, regardless of his ignorance. But it seems he didn't.

I guarantee you, if you were raised in his time, you would be spouting the same nonsense as he would, maybe even worse, who knows. Because they did not hold the understanding of the world and people we do today. This was a long time ago, remember.
The fundamental flaw in your position is that there were people living during the time of Kant who were not racist, sexist, war mongers and anti-semites. Excusing his imbecile thinking because others shared in it does not make any sense. Especially since there were much smarter people around at the time who saw through such racist garbage.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:44 am

ForgedinHell wrote:
PlumHedon wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Amazingly enough, the sad, pathetic, imbecile for the ages, named Kant, is a hero of many on this forum. In addition to his repeated gibberish writings, some of his more immoral idiocy is set forth in the following quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race." (I'm white, but that is not the reason I'm so perfect, it's because I have blue eyes. Kant missed the blue-eyed part, the dumbass.)

It is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life." (Telling a lie to save another's life would seem the morally right thing to do, but apparently hurting feelings by lying to someone is worse than chopping their head off.)

"The negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling." "The blacks are very vain but in the Negroe's way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings." (I guess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)

He also had much to say about women, including that they were not possessed of "certain high insights," were "timid," and "not fit for serious employment." (Obviously, he never met Margaret Thatcher.)

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning, is the exclusion of context. For example, the fashion in which Kant talked of blacks is indeed by today's standards: just awful, and he was wrong. However, it is not that he knew that blacks were actually human beings like us, and refused to accept that because he was a horrible man - he simply, from his subjective experience, and being conditioned by the times he lived in did not know. What would have made Kant a racist, is if he hated them, regardless of his ignorance. But it seems he didn't.

I guarantee you, if you were raised in his time, you would be spouting the same nonsense as he would, maybe even worse, who knows. Because they did not hold the understanding of the world and people we do today. This was a long time ago, remember.
The fundamental flaw in your position is that there were people living during the time of Kant who were not racist, sexist, war mongers and anti-semites. Excusing his imbecile thinking because others shared in it does not make any sense. Especially since there were much smarter people around at the time who saw through such racist garbage.
That's true. There were people around at the time who thought that public executions were a disgusting spectacle. These people went against the mob mentality. There must have been those in ancient Rome who were revolted by the Arena. It's the ones who go against ingrained and accepted views that drive progressive social evolution. Even today most people are basically warmongers. It wasn't long ago that 'great white hunters' were driving animals like gorillas to extinction. The general feeling was that gorillas were dangerous beasts that needed to be wiped out. Anyone who thought otherwise was considered a bit whacko. Eventually right seems to win out over ignorance through an arduous process of education, along with law-makers who were prepared to listen or think for themselves. That said, I can't find any hard evidence that he was all the things you say he was.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw Kant in three minutes. :lol:

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:59 am

ForgedinHell wrote:... Especially since there were much smarter people around at the time who saw through such racist garbage.
Name them. I pointed-out to you that Einstein also had a misogynistic view of women, does this make his thoughts less to you? Gandhi expressed racist views, does that make his actions bereft of meaning to you? I pointed-out to you that your use of the word "douchebag" as an insult could point to you being of a low opinion about women, does this mean all your views are to be ignored?

You are knocking-up a strawman with respect to Kants ethics and the way philosophy understands him, based largely upon no experience of philosophy or philosophy departments. And please don't come the 'lawyer' with me as its obvious to anyone who has studied Philosophy that you haven't.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:01 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: That said, I can't find any hard evidence that he was all the things you say he was.

ayn rand said it

therefore it is true

qed

User avatar
hammock
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Location: Heckville, Dorado; Republic of Lostanglia

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by hammock » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:06 am

ForgedinHell wrote:Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?

Wow, Hercule Perot, that's quite a "needle in the haystack" feat: Finding any dead white man at all who was racist and sexist, from the 18th century! Damn, that old misogynist KKKant sure as hell would be unable to hide himself amidst the "tiny" number of both famous and everyday like-minded "bastards" of European descent born before 1910. What senior patient out there needs a Nurse Ratched, anymore, to give him a wicked enema when there now seem to be card-carrying members of a Thought Patrol Retro hanging around to either bore or laugh him into bowel evacuation.

One tidbit of an idea tossed to such amusing, foaming-mouth vultures for free:

Our spitting, gnashing, snarling, hissing fit over a dastardly figure selected from the past for the cover of this month's edition of "Thought Patrol Retro" is Abraham Lincoln. This evil son of a bitch demonstrates to the historically naive how a "Great Emancipator" should not be confused with a non-racist.

From an 1858 speech: "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

And in 1862: “You can tell the President of Hayti that I shan’t tear my shirt if he sends a n#gg#r here!”

And this, folks, is merely the beginning of our tearing down of this near felonious hero-facade constructed over the last century and a half to cover up the politically incorrect sins of this great villain...


As if such items as this would be revelation to anybody other than the "messed-up dood" of the latest Generation Dumbass, who believes the Earth having a moon was a recent discovery. Thank you for the additional assistance in this area, Colorado.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by chaz wyman » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:10 pm

ForgedinHell wrote:Amazingly enough, the sad, pathetic, imbecile for the ages, named Kant, is a hero of many on this forum. In addition to his repeated gibberish writings, some of his more immoral idiocy is set forth in the following quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race." (I'm white, but that is not the reason I'm so perfect, it's because I have blue eyes. Kant missed the blue-eyed part, the dumbass.)

It is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life." (Telling a lie to save another's life would seem the morally right thing to do, but apparently hurting feelings by lying to someone is worse than chopping their head off.)

"The negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling." "The blacks are very vain but in the Negroe's way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings." (I guess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)

He also had much to say about women, including that they were not possessed of "certain high insights," were "timid," and "not fit for serious employment." (Obviously, he never met Margaret Thatcher.)

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
It is easy to criticise an historical figure for holding endemic views that have fallen out of fashion. It is not as easy to understand a person within his historical context and to express views which were ahead of his time, are still insightful and give due credit.
As you clearly do not understand the historical context in which these so-called quotes were made, perhaps you can provide primary texts in which they were written so that their immediate context can be examined?

NO?- did you get them from your local neighbourhood Randroid?

oh sorry - have you been banned for being a twat?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests