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 »

Arising_uk wrote: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.
Why no evidence for your claims? It's your assertion, your burden of proof, not mine. I merely pointed out that any answer, or non-answer< I would give you would not prove your claim. Prove I have never been around a philosophy department or ever have read Kant. You don't even know what evidence you would need to prove such a claim. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that I could not answer any question on Kant. So? Does that rule out my having read Kant years ago, and having decided he wrote gibberish, to not waste any more time on anything he wrote? Nope. Would it also prove that I had never been to a philosophy department? Nope. Why? Because I could have taken formal classes in philosophy, but not one touching on Kant.

I'm just pointing out how lame your approach is. You still have the burden of proof, and have not proved your assertion. How are you even going to do it?
Ram
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Ram »

ForgedinHell wrote: 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.
It's true that Kant's philosophy wasn't strong enough to counter the rise of Nazism in Germany. Nor was German science, German law, or anything else strong enough for that purpose.

It's not, however, that the Nazis were comfortable with Kant, to the extent that they knew or cared about his philosophy. A famous case in point is that of Adolf Eichmann. At his trial in Jerusalem, he famously claimed to have followed Kant's principles. But the interesting thing was, besides Eichmann's very poor knowledge of Kant, that Eichmann himself recognized that the Final Solution violated Kant's principles. And that since he became responsible for administrating the Final Solution, Eichmann no longer believed he was being faithful to Kant's principles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
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: 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.
It's true that Kant's philosophy wasn't strong enough to counter the rise of Nazism in Germany. Nor was German science, German law, or anything else strong enough for that purpose.

It's not, however, that the Nazis were comfortable with Kant, to the extent that they knew or cared about his philosophy. A famous case in point is that of Adolf Eichmann. At his trial in Jerusalem, he famously claimed to have followed Kant's principles. But the interesting thing was, besides Eichmann's very poor knowledge of Kant, that Eichmann himself recognized that the Final Solution violated Kant's principles. And that since he became responsible for administrating the Final Solution, Eichmann no longer believed he was being faithful to Kant's principles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
It didn't violate Kant's principles. Kant was just a fascist Christian in a Germany full of fascist Christians. For Kant, having wars built character. Hitler was just trying to build up character according to Kant.
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:Why no evidence for your claims? It's your assertion, your burden of proof, not mine.
...

I'm just pointing out how lame your approach is. You still have the burden of proof, and have not proved your assertion. How are you even going to do it?
I beg your pardon!? You are the one who stated that you've read Kant's writings. I just asked you which ones? The burden is upon you. That you then go into this waffle of proof pretty much leads the policeman in me to think you are lying.
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:... For Kant, having wars built character. ...
Of course wars build character, good and bad, as its where ethics and morals come to the fore. Is it necessary for such things? Probably not but to deny that it does do such things is just your 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:... That's why it didn't stop the nazis. ...
Nope, that was the 20,000,000 Soviet dead. What is your opinion of the Judeo-Christian Ethic of America at the time which was not even going to fight the Nazi and only did so because Jap attacked 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:... For Kant, having wars built character. ...
Of course wars build character, good and bad, as its where ethics and morals come to the fore. Is it necessary for such things? Probably not but to deny that it does do such things is just your blinkers.
It doesn't build character. It builds bad memories, often physical wounds and death, and psychological problems like post-traumatic stress. Kant's position that wars were good for building character, which is just a commonly held stupid belief among Christian fascists. Kant's moral theories were quite common for his day, in Germany where he lived, and there is nothing stellar about them. The fact philosophy departments put such ignorance and feeblemindedness on a pedestal, just shows how far philosophy has sunk. It is now not just useless, not just pointless, but dangerous. Bastiat was among the first to voice this opinion, and it was as right then as it is now.
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:... That's why it didn't stop the nazis. ...
Nope, that was the 20,000,000 Soviet dead. What is your opinion of the Judeo-Christian Ethic of America at the time which was not even going to fight the Nazi and only did so because Jap attacked them?
The Soviets didn't stop the nazis, they got slaughtered by them. The second the US entered the war, the world opinion was that Germany was done for. Just check out the financial ratings of German assets when the US finally entered the war. The US invaded Germany, turned it to rubble. Then, we rebuilt it and have been giving it billions in aid ever since.
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:Why no evidence for your claims? It's your assertion, your burden of proof, not mine.
...

I'm just pointing out how lame your approach is. You still have the burden of proof, and have not proved your assertion. How are you even going to do it?
I beg your pardon!? You are the one who stated that you've read Kant's writings. I just asked you which ones? The burden is upon you. That you then go into this waffle of proof pretty much leads the policeman in me to think you are lying.
You made the statement that I have not read him. It is your burden of proof, not mine. I am under no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to assist you. Furthermore, since I have read him, I couldn't assist you in any case. I merely point out how someone like you, who claims to be such a wit because you have studied philosophy, can't even admit you stuck your foot in your mouth when you made such a foolish claim you cannot possibly prove.
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 Soviets didn't stop the nazis, they got slaughtered by them. The second the US entered the war, the world opinion was that Germany was done for. Just check out the financial ratings of German assets when the US finally entered the war. The US invaded Germany, turned it to rubble. Then, we rebuilt it and have been giving it billions in aid ever since.
Never heard of Stalingrad? I don't doubt the economic power of America turned the tide but unlike you I'm not blind to the point that if the Germans had had the Sixth Army we'd probably still be in France and that if Jap had not invaded America you'd still have been trading with the Nazis.
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:You made the statement that I have not read him. It is your burden of proof, not mine. I am under no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to assist you. Furthermore, since I have read him, I couldn't assist you in any case. I merely point out how someone like you, who claims to be such a wit because you have studied philosophy, can't even admit you stuck your foot in your mouth when you made such a foolish claim you cannot possibly prove.
Nope. I asked you the question "Have you read his writings?" and then said I doubted it. You said you had and then I asked "which ones?". Since then you've been doing this verbal fencing and avoiding answering. It can't be a hard question can it?
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:... Kant's moral theories were quite common for his day, in Germany where he lived, and there is nothing stellar about them. ...
Really? And there was me thinking he thought them up himself. Still, I'll take your word for it if you can show me others who had the same theory?

If you think they were so common then why are you promoting him as the 'cause' of the Nazi's rise to power?
The fact philosophy departments put such ignorance and feeblemindedness on a pedestal, just shows how far philosophy has sunk. It is now not just useless, not just pointless, but dangerous. Bastiat was among the first to voice this opinion, and it was as right then as it is now.
Or it shows how much those who haven't studied Philosophy think they can talk about it with an impunity that would not be allowed in other subjects. I'm unsure how much Philosophy courses have changed but in my day Kant was studied in Ethics as an example of a type of Ethical system building that was common at the time. Was he put up on a pedestal as an exemplar to follow? I doubt it as since Descartes the point of Philosophy is to question and doubt not swallow things as 'truth' and as such he was used in his historical position and as a comparison with all the other forms of Ethical system that have been proposed. One thing we did promote tho' was an actual reading of a philosophers works and an attempt to engage with them in ones own thoughts, not just the quoting of anothers opinion, something you do much of. Its not as tho' his Ethics is the only interest in Anglo-American Philosophy in the first place, its his works upon Reason, Logic and Language that still holds the main interest. Although there was a fairly interesting discussion about whether his Ethics and Morals would allow the pre-emptive war that America engaged in with Iraq but I doubt you'd be interested as I guess you thought that a 'just' war.
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:It doesn't build character. It builds bad memories, often physical wounds and death, and psychological problems like post-traumatic stress. Kant's position that wars were good for building character, which is just a commonly held stupid belief among Christian fascists. ...
Tell me what you think is meant by 'building character'?
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 Soviets didn't stop the nazis, they got slaughtered by them. The second the US entered the war, the world opinion was that Germany was done for. Just check out the financial ratings of German assets when the US finally entered the war. The US invaded Germany, turned it to rubble. Then, we rebuilt it and have been giving it billions in aid ever since.
Never heard of Stalingrad? I don't doubt the economic power of America turned the tide but unlike you I'm not blind to the point that if the Germans had had the Sixth Army we'd probably still be in France and that if Jap had not invaded America you'd still have been trading with the Nazis.
Naw, the US was the natural enemy of Japan and Germany and the USSR. If it wasn't for America, you'd probably be speaking German and having to watch porn starring Eva Braun.
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:Why no evidence for your claims? It's your assertion, your burden of proof, not mine.
...

I'm just pointing out how lame your approach is. You still have the burden of proof, and have not proved your assertion. How are you even going to do it?
I beg your pardon!? You are the one who stated that you've read Kant's writings. I just asked you which ones? The burden is upon you. That you then go into this waffle of proof pretty much leads the policeman in me to think you are lying.
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?

Damn, you sure are easy to tease. Does your dog have this much fun teaching you new tricks?
Post Reply