Was Kant a Douchebag?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Ram wrote:First, even if Kant were a racist, and a philosopher, it doesn't follow that his racism was logically related to his philosophy. And in fact, countless people have studied Kant's philosophy with interest, without being aware of any racist side in him.

Second, Kant has natural-scientific credentials as well. He is recognized as one of the authors of the standard "nebular hypothesis" concerning the formation of the solar system (aka the Kant-Laplace hypothesis).
Oh, no, of course not. His personal views, like his racism, sexism, etc., no, he would have been able to magically place them in a compartment and just do his pure philosophy. And then, after doing such pure philosophy, isn't it amazing how he did not convince himself that blacks were not inferior? How convincing is a philosophy on ethics when its own creator feels perfectly comfortable being an evil racist?

Yeah, and kant's contributions to real science were so stellar that his name only comes up in philosophy departments?
Ram
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Ram »

ForgedinHell wrote: he would have been able to magically place them in a compartment and just do his pure philosophy
Magic or not, it's just a fact. I repeat: 
And in fact, countless people have studied Kant's philosophy with interest, without being aware of any racist side in him.
ForgedinHell wrote: How convincing is a philosophy on ethics when its own creator feels perfectly comfortable being an evil racist?
It is convincing just as it is, on its own terms. Regardless of any characteristics of the author that are not actually expressed in the text.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Ram wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: he would have been able to magically place them in a compartment and just do his pure philosophy
Magic or not, it's just a fact. I repeat: 
And in fact, countless people have studied Kant's philosophy with interest, without being aware of any racist side in him.

It's actually not a fact at all, I was making fun of you. He was a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, a fascist who thought war built character. Now, for him to hold these beliefs means that there would have been nothing in his moral theory that prevented him from doing so. Therefore, his moral theory is rather immoral, or at best, useless in confronting fascists idiots.
ForgedinHell wrote: How convincing is a philosophy on ethics when its own creator feels perfectly comfortable being an evil racist?
It is convincing just as it is, on its own terms. Regardless of any characteristics of the author that are not actually expressed in the text.
It's not convincing at all. If you say, respect the autonomy of others, while saying, "Gee, some people are too inferior to be autonomous, so we can persecute them," then that's a simpleton's theory of morality. It also happens to be kant's. His theory qualifies the conditions when people are to be treated with respect. That's why it didn't stop the nazis. Kant's philosophy was well-known throughout Germany. But, since Kant only applied it to certain people, those whom were worthy of its application, the nazis could accept Kant and still toss living babies into fires. Had Kant lived his life and his philosophy according to the rule that blacks are equal to whites, women to men, Jews to gentiles, and non-Germans to Germans, his theory may be a moral one, but that's not what he believed, and that's not what his theory states. One cannot separate out the writer's fascist, racist beliefs from his final product. Not unless one is intentionally trying to reqrite history, and make the claim that Kant's position was other than it actually was. In such a case, how many philosophy classes teaching students about Kant are engaged in outright fraud? 100%?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:...

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
I think this more of your hyperbole. That people discuss Kant upon a philosophy website is because of his influence upon philosophy. That you think Kant a 'moron' and think that your hindsight is of any philosophical value just goes to show how little you understand about reading philosophy and points to you having read pretty much none. Funny how Albert Einstein cited Kants work on mathematics, language and logic as an early influence, but then Albert also said that, "Very few women are creative" and "As in all other fields, in science the way should be made easy for women. Yet it must not be taken amiss if I regard the possible results with a certain amount of skepticism. I am referring to certain restrictive parts of a woman's constitution that were given her by Nature and which forbid us from applying the same standard of expectation to women as to men.". Phew! Those physicists eh! What morons.

Pretty much any 17th male thinker would have held what we consider sexist and racist views, so for example Isaac Newton invested in a company that traded slaves and died a virgin because he believed carnality and domestic relations with women destroyed learning, should we discount his thoughts because of this? Gandhi uttered racist comments, does that make all his thoughts pointless? Americas space program and ballistic defence was developed by the Nazis, should you give it all up?

I note elsewhere that you repeat the old variation of Kants murderer problem and not lying to the Nazi about the Jews in the attic. From this you claim that his deontological(duty to you) ethics is immoral but there are numerous philosophical arguments that show that under his ethics he could lie to the Nazi or murderer. But lets say the Kantian can't and he's now stuck between two choices that challenge the categorical imperative, lie or hand over, I think the Kantian would follow his duty and tell the truth and then fight, even if it kills him, his family and the Jews as that would be his ethical duty. I guess you being some kind of utilitarian consequentialist would find this pointless but thats the point of the deontological(duty bound) ethic, you do it despite the consequences as its right. Lets put it this way, we take your approach and lie to the Nazi and then later find out that these Jews were murderers or rapists, have we done a moral act? Should we then call the Nazi? You also say elsewhere that morals and ethics are about feelings, do you included the Nazis feelings in this? As if so then they were acting morally and ethically.

p.s.
I note you've not responded to the quote from your avatar?
p.p.s
Oh! And the irony that you use 'douchebag' as an insult does not escape me but I think it will you.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:... Yeah, and kant's contributions to real science were so stellar that his name only comes up in philosophy departments?
Whats 'unreal' science?

You an astronomy graduate as well? Still, if true its more likely that they don't teach the history of their subject to undergraduates any more because they haven't got the time. That and that they are likely to piss-off and become lawyers so whats the point.

For those astronomy grads who can't use wiki as a first reference. Check the history section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:...
The only person on here who offered any defense for him claimed that Kant wrote that our brains create reality. ...
Thats not what Jonathon.s nor Kant said.
... The man was a douchebag, an idiot, a rube, and the fact he is a hero of philosophy just proves how utterly worthless and destructive philosophy is as a discipline.
Or that you've not actually bothered to read Kant and are just repeating others opinions to suit your own bias's and blinkers.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:... And yet, what do we discover when we actually read his writings? ...
Have you actually read his writings? I doubt it. More goggled others opinions of them.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Arising_uk wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:... And yet, what do we discover when we actually read his writings? ...
Have you actually read his writings? I doubt it. More goggled others opinions of them.
I have read his writings. Drivel. People like Kant are exactly why Feynman referred to philosophy as being "dopey."
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Arising_uk wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:...
The only person on here who offered any defense for him claimed that Kant wrote that our brains create reality. ...
Thats not what Jonathon.s nor Kant said.
... The man was a douchebag, an idiot, a rube, and the fact he is a hero of philosophy just proves how utterly worthless and destructive philosophy is as a discipline.
Or that you've not actually bothered to read Kant and are just repeating others opinions to suit your own bias's and blinkers.
Think about it. Philosophy departments misrepresent the guy as caring about everyone, when he was fascist as hell. Intentionally lying about the man to make him into some sort of hero is an intellectual travesty, and it pollutes virtually every philosophy department. Philosophy has basically turned itself into a secular religion where the son of god is now named Kant and his sermon on the mount is universal ethics crap that even he did not believe in. You can buy into the horse manure, but I am sticking with the actual facts, the actual truth, regardless of the liars I tick off.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:I have read his writings. Drivel. ...
Pray tell which of his works have you read front-to-back?
People like Kant are exactly why Feynman referred to philosophy as being "dopey."
Once again you just quote others opinions.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:Think about it. Philosophy departments misrepresent the guy as caring about everyone, when he was fascist as hell. ...
I've been in a philosophy department and your description is bullshit. Gleaned from your extensive interweeb search of others opinions I guess.
Intentionally lying about the man to make him into some sort of hero is an intellectual travesty, and it pollutes virtually every philosophy department. Philosophy has basically turned itself into a secular religion where the son of god is now named Kant and his sermon on the mount is universal ethics crap that even he did not believe in. You can buy into the horse manure, but I am sticking with the actual facts, the actual truth, regardless of the liars I tick off.
The actual fact is that you've never been near a philosophy department, never read any of those that are called philosophers and all your thoughts about philosophy have been gleaned from others opinions upon the interweeb and forums such as this. I prefer the goat to you and thats bloody saying something!
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Arising_uk wrote:
The actual fact is that you've never been near a philosophy department, never read any of those that are called philosophers and all your thoughts about philosophy have been gleaned from others opinions upon the interweeb and forums such as this. I prefer the goat to you and thats bloody saying something!

Okay, prove it then. Go on, use your psychic powers to prove I have never read kant, never been to a philosophy department. Is this what you learned in philosophy? That speculating about things you cannot possible prove is the way to win an argument? Is this the nonsense you learned studying philosophy? Boy, how impressive.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

ForgedinHell wrote:Okay, prove it then. Go on, use your psychic powers to prove I have never read kant, never been to a philosophy department. Is this what you learned in philosophy? That speculating about things you cannot possible prove is the way to win an argument? Is this the nonsense you learned studying philosophy? Boy, how impressive.
Easy, tell me which of his books you've read and we'll have a discussion about them. Better still, get them off your library shelf and we'll have a detailed discussion about them.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Arising_uk wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Okay, prove it then. Go on, use your psychic powers to prove I have never read kant, never been to a philosophy department. Is this what you learned in philosophy? That speculating about things you cannot possible prove is the way to win an argument? Is this the nonsense you learned studying philosophy? Boy, how impressive.
Easy, tell me which of his books you've read and we'll have a discussion about them. Better still, get them off your library shelf and we'll have a detailed discussion about them.
LOL. You call that proof? If I don't answer, it could be because I have no interest in answering. Does that prove anything? Or, I could ask someone who is a philosophy professor all about Kant, and even give them access to my account, and answer all questions regarding Kant, including whether he was a bedwetter. Now, would that prove I actually did read Kant? No. So, where is your proof then? Is it really true that someone studies philosophy, including the alleged genius named Kant, only to make irrational claims based solely on speculation on a philosophy site?

Prove your speculative claim. I have no obligation to assist you in your endeavor.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Arising_uk »

Why so coy?

You evade any of my questions and all of the issues I raised with you because you pretty much talk other peoples opinions and think this entitles you to have an opinion upon the subject of philosophy.

You are a classic Yank internut weeb. Still, get your professor here then as it'd be more interesting than your guff.
Post Reply