Was Kant a Douchebag?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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:No, you were saying I hadn't read any. I merely pointed out that you could never prove such a claim, not only because it's false, but because you are stuck on a forum that makes it virtually impossible to prove such things. So why write them?
No I didn't, I said I doubted it. Its why I asked you which of his works you have read. Is this such a hard question to answer?
Damn, you sure are easy to tease. Does your dog have this much fun teaching you new tricks?
So far you're not teaching anything apart from how those who don't bother to read a philosopher always appear to have much to say about them.

Can't to address at least one of my other questions? How about the one that mentions the irony of you using "douchebag" as an insult when criticizing others for sexism?
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:No, you were saying I hadn't read any. I merely pointed out that you could never prove such a claim, not only because it's false, but because you are stuck on a forum that makes it virtually impossible to prove such things. So why write them?
No I didn't, I said I doubted it. Its why I asked you which of his works you have read. Is this such a hard question to answer?
Damn, you sure are easy to tease. Does your dog have this much fun teaching you new tricks?
So far you're not teaching anything apart from how those who don't bother to read a philosopher always appear to have much to say about them.

Can't to address at least one of my other questions? How about the one that mentions the irony of you using "douchebag" as an insult when criticizing others for sexism?
Strange then how no one here has been able to come forth and state, "This is what Kant said about topic X. And Kant was right." You know why? Because he was a docuchebag who didn't know anything.
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:... Strange then how no one here has been able to come forth and state, "This is what Kant said about topic X. And Kant was right." You know why? ...
I do, because 'right' is exactly a term under discussion in Ethics. Although many in Philosophy do think his duty ethics 'right' and just as many disagree. Me, I think Ethics in the sense of building systems based upon reason a waste of time, as the history of philosophy has shown and its why we pretty much don't do it any more but just discuss the ones that have been built, one because all the probable ones have already been built by the past-philosophers and two because I don't think of Ethics and morals in this way. My take is that all have ethics and morals, its impossible not to have them regardless of background and upbringing and ones ethics and morals are arrived at from the treatment one receives by those who raise you before you can truly reason. After that its a matter of life testing you to see which morals you actually hold and by your death you will know what kind of moral person you were. Some are lucky that they life a life of comfort where little is morally tested, its why I understand what Kant meant by war building character.
Because he was a docuchebag who didn't know anything.
Irony still escapes you?
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:... Strange then how no one here has been able to come forth and state, "This is what Kant said about topic X. And Kant was right." You know why? ...
I do, because 'right' is exactly a term under discussion in Ethics. Although many in Philosophy do think his duty ethics 'right' and just as many disagree. Me, I think Ethics in the sense of building systems based upon reason a waste of time, as the history of philosophy has shown and its why we pretty much don't do it any more but just discuss the ones that have been built, one because all the probable ones have already been built by the past-philosophers and two because I don't think of Ethics and morals in this way. My take is that all have ethics and morals, its impossible not to have them regardless of background and upbringing and ones ethics and morals are arrived at from the treatment one receives by those who raise you before you can truly reason. After that its a matter of life testing you to see which morals you actually hold and by your death you will know what kind of moral person you were. Some are lucky that they life a life of comfort where little is morally tested, its why I understand what Kant meant by war building character.
Because he was a docuchebag who didn't know anything.
Irony still escapes you?
Your "blank state" theory on ethics has been discredited by science for quite a long while now.
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:Your "blank state" theory on ethics has been discredited by science for quite a long while now.
Who was talking about a 'blank state'?

I'm unsure which 'science' you are talking about but I'll guess Biology, if so then you'll have to tell me which field as there are a few that claim ethics and morals as their subject. On the whole I find reductionist explanations fairly unhelpful when it comes to discussing the philosophical issue of why we should behave in a certain moral way, not least because there appear to be many exceptions, but am willing to accept you may have a point once you tell me what it is?
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:Your "blank state" theory on ethics has been discredited by science for quite a long while now.
Who was talking about a 'blank state'?

I'm unsure which 'science' you are talking about but I'll guess Biology, if so then you'll have to tell me which field as there are a few that claim ethics and morals as their subject. On the whole I find reductionist explanations fairly unhelpful when it comes to discussing the philosophical issue of why we should behave in a certain moral way, not least because there appear to be many exceptions, but am willing to accept you may have a point once you tell me what it is?
Your comments were consistent with he blank slate theory. It's not my fault you cannot comprehend this. The science I was referring to was neuroscience. Common sense should also win the day on this one: If people were blank slates, then how could we ever learn anything in the first place?
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:Your comments were consistent with he blank slate theory. It's not my fault you cannot comprehend this. The science I was referring to was neuroscience. Common sense should also win the day on this one: If people were blank slates, then how could we ever learn anything in the first place?
I've not proposed a tabula rasa ethical theory at all, not least because such things have been discussed in Philosophy since Locke and funnily enough Kant points out 'innate' categories with respect to epistemology and reason.

Which bit of neuroscience? Mirror neurons? If so what are you claiming that 'science' proves about them with respect to ethics and morals?

I note you've still avoided answering the question about which works of Kant you've actually read?
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:Your comments were consistent with he blank slate theory. It's not my fault you cannot comprehend this. The science I was referring to was neuroscience. Common sense should also win the day on this one: If people were blank slates, then how could we ever learn anything in the first place?
I've not proposed a tabula rasa ethical theory at all, not least because such things have been discussed in Philosophy since Locke and funnily enough Kant points out 'innate' categories with respect to epistemology and reason.

Which bit of neuroscience? Mirror neurons? If so what are you claiming that 'science' proves about them with respect to ethics and morals?

I note you've still avoided answering the question about which works of Kant you've actually read?
I've already explained, it is your burden to prove I haven't read any Kant, since you are the one who made the claim. I have no obligation to assist you in anyway.

Mirror neurons? Yes, there are mirror neurons, and spindle neurons, and all sorts of things in the human brain. There are chemicals that have been associated with our moral development, etc. Morality has a biological basis, and it has to do with human survival. That doesn't mean people have to stop there. The view from nowhere keeps popping up in ethical ideas, which is inconsistent with a biologically-driven morality. The biology may give us our start, but we are not limited to it.
User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by John »

ForgedinHell wrote:I've already explained, it is your burden to prove I haven't read any Kant, since you are the one who made the claim. I have no obligation to assist you in anyway.
Surely is someone begins a debate by claiming that Kant is a load of rubbish and they are asked which of his works they are basing that on it seems pretty reasonable to state what they are?
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla »

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:
i am curious as to how you came across these quotes

did you actually read kant and came across them as you were reading

or did you go to some objectivist website that had the sillier bits all there ready for you?


the problem with a lot of criticism of kant - or just about anything else for that matter - lies in the bizarre notion that you cannot pick and choose

the bible - you must either accept it all or reject it all

writings of kant - you must either accept it all or reject it all

instructions from ikea - you must either accept them all or reject them all
"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race."
many of kants ideas were thoroughly conventional

many of anyones ideas were and area thoroughly conventional

is there a point here

i am aware of no one who claims that kant was right in everything
it is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life."
if not for this example kant's ethics would not be particularly controversial

maybe we can just reject this example as a bad one and proceed to judge kants ethical theory without refernece to it?
"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." (Iuess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)
At how great a distance from this perfection are the civilized nations, and especially the commercial nations of Europe? At what an excess of injustice do we not behold them arrive, when they discover strange countries and nations? (which with them is the same thing as to conquer). America, the countries inhabited by the negroes, the Spice Islands, the Cape, &c. were to them countries without proprietors, for the inhabitants they counted as nothing. Under pretext of establishing factories in Hindostan, they carried thither foreign troops, and by their means oppressed the natives, excited wars among the different states of that vast country; spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole deluge of evils that afflict mankind, among them.

-from 'perpetual peace'


maybe kant was ahead of his time after all
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 »

Kayla 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:
i am curious as to how you came across these quotes

did you actually read kant and came across them as you were reading

or did you go to some objectivist website that had the sillier bits all there ready for you?


the problem with a lot of criticism of kant - or just about anything else for that matter - lies in the bizarre notion that you cannot pick and choose

the bible - you must either accept it all or reject it all

writings of kant - you must either accept it all or reject it all

instructions from ikea - you must either accept them all or reject them all
"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race."
many of kants ideas were thoroughly conventional

many of anyones ideas were and area thoroughly conventional

is there a point here

i am aware of no one who claims that kant was right in everything
it is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life."
if not for this example kant's ethics would not be particularly controversial

maybe we can just reject this example as a bad one and proceed to judge kants ethical theory without refernece to it?
"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." (Iuess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)
At how great a distance from this perfection are the civilized nations, and especially the commercial nations of Europe? At what an excess of injustice do we not behold them arrive, when they discover strange countries and nations? (which with them is the same thing as to conquer). America, the countries inhabited by the negroes, the Spice Islands, the Cape, &c. were to them countries without proprietors, for the inhabitants they counted as nothing. Under pretext of establishing factories in Hindostan, they carried thither foreign troops, and by their means oppressed the natives, excited wars among the different states of that vast country; spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole deluge of evils that afflict mankind, among them.

-from 'perpetual peace'


maybe kant was ahead of his time after all
If you seriously think that Kant is a great moral leader, as he is portrayed in philosophy classes throughout the globe, then your sense of morality is off track. Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, rmpant nationalism, war mongering, these are immoral beliefs, not moral ones.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla »

ForgedinHell wrote:If you seriously think that Kant is a great moral leader, as he is portrayed in philosophy classes throughout the globe, then your sense of morality is off track. Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, rmpant nationalism, war mongering, these are immoral beliefs, not moral ones.
which philosophy classes are these

at least in books about his philosophy he is generally portrayed as a philosopher with many visionary ideas and some wonky ones all expressed in a way more obscure than is needed

it is absurd to judge someone for holding many of the beliefs of their time

i am not even sure where you are getting war mongering

you may want to find some source of information about kant other than ayn rands vapid rantings
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 »

Kayla wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:If you seriously think that Kant is a great moral leader, as he is portrayed in philosophy classes throughout the globe, then your sense of morality is off track. Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, rmpant nationalism, war mongering, these are immoral beliefs, not moral ones.
which philosophy classes are these

at least in books about his philosophy he is generally portrayed as a philosopher with many visionary ideas and some wonky ones all expressed in a way more obscure than is needed

it is absurd to judge someone for holding many of the beliefs of their time

i am not even sure where you are getting war mongering

you may want to find some source of information about kant other than ayn rands vapid rantings
Didn't Philosophy Now dedicate an entire issue to Kant? Any mention of him being an ignorant, hateful, fascist scumbag? I doubt it. If you doubt me, then just look at the comments above where people have even written that Kant was one of the four greatest philosophers who ever lived.

War mongering comes from Kant's claim that war builds character. It's a ludicrous claim. War causes death, the loss of limbs, brain damage, horrible nightmares, etc., it does not build character. It's actually quite a sick, sadistic view of life.

None of my information on Kant comes from Rand. I don't even like Rand, so why would I care what her opinion is on Kant?
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Kayla »

ForgedinHell wrote:Didn't Philosophy Now dedicate an entire issue to Kant? Any mention of him being an ignorant, hateful, fascist scumbag? I doubt it. If you doubt me, then just look at the comments above where people have even written that Kant was one of the four greatest philosophers who ever lived.
the moon is made of blue cheese

therefore you are right

i am not sure how else to respond to your effusion of illogic
War mongering comes from Kant's claim that war builds character.
specific references please
None of my information on Kant comes from Rand. I don't even like Rand, so why would I care what her opinion is on Kant?
your opinions are exactly the same as hers

i guess you arrived at them independently
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 »

Kayla wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Didn't Philosophy Now dedicate an entire issue to Kant? Any mention of him being an ignorant, hateful, fascist scumbag? I doubt it. If you doubt me, then just look at the comments above where people have even written that Kant was one of the four greatest philosophers who ever lived.
the moon is made of blue cheese

therefore you are right

i am not sure how else to respond to your effusion of illogic

Let's see, you asked about philosophy departments promoting Kant. True, I did not refer to classes per se, but rather mentioned the official magazine publication associated with this site. 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. The intellectual substance of your point was addressed. You are now putting form over substance, which is nothing to be admired.
War mongering comes from Kant's claim that war builds character.
specific references please

Why? The statement is accurate, and you can check for yourself. If you find that I am in error, then show me your references.
None of my information on Kant comes from Rand. I don't even like Rand, so why would I care what her opinion is on Kant?
your opinions are exactly the same as hers

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. Of course, Rand never met Satyr, so they may explain some of our disagreement.
i guess you arrived at them independently
Post Reply