Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:56 am

Charm wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:01 pm
Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/
Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..
From your post it would appear you have not understood [not necessary agree with] the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.

Kant did not reason his way to morality and expect reasoned-absolute-moral-maxims to be enforced on people. It is not like the theological morality model where God said so and if one do not obey and comply, one will be punished and be burnt in Hell.

Kant relied on reason to abstract absolute moral laws as guides only and they are not to be enforced. Kant was deliberating in the Philosophy of Morality not on politics and the legislative where laws are enforced.

Note this;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813
Whatever moral maxim is universalized, it is only to be a guide only.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:47 am
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:11 am
Have you read what the author [Kant] wrote to understand [not necessary agree] his original intentions within the full context of this overall theme?
I don't think you have, if yes, you did not get the correct theme.
You don't seem to understand Kant's CI in its full context at all.

I have spent a LOT of time on Kant's philosophy so I know what I am talking about.
Point is do not be misled by the term 'Imperative' or the specific casuistry cases misinterpreted by many.
Your first assumption in a question form is right. I did not read Kant.

However, your argument rests on unknown facts to me. You have to present arguments, not say that "there is a text out there that explains why you are wrong, -1-." This, what you said and how you said it, is not an argument.

I started with a "Only do those things that you think should be universal." I did not read the book, and did not have to, to understand this statement.

This statement is what Kant proposed. I said, this can never be fully realized. And I stated the argument why. You come back and tell me NOT that my argument is wrong, but that there is a book out there that says differently.

Well, say what the book says. This is not a forum where we argue by saying there is a book out there. You state your claim, and try to prove it or defend it against criticism. I criticized the statement by Kant, and to defend against my criticism, you must present an argument, not some vague reference to a book that says something.
Note you wrote this earlier,
-1- wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:37 am

Same here. Categorical imperative is a doctrine that whatever you do, you must choose those things to do that you want to be universal.

This is not a joke. The words in it have precise meaning, and they lay down in a precise, unambiguous way what the author meant. If you find one or more, but one is enough, instances when this a priori can't be true, then the entire expression and meaning can be and must be declared false.

...
Therefore the Categorical Imperative fails because there is at least one instance where it CAN'T be made to work. It is a priori impossible in logical ways.
My point is if you have read Kant's philosophy thoroughly and understood his theories you will not be making the above [seemingly so sure] conclusion.
Thus I refer you to his book.
You are still not making an argument!!

You should read Lenin's "Empiriocriticism", Levesque's "Canadian Diplomacy In The Second Half of The Twentieth Century" and Istvan Fekete's "Tuskevar". These will explain my point.

You see how irrelevant it is to refer people to read books instead of getting to the nitty-gritty of the argument?

If YOU had read Kant, which you claim you did, you probably [but not necessarily] understood what he had said. The argument he had presented is likely a two- or three step argument. If you can't reproduce the APPLICABLE and RELEVANT passages that refute my claim, then you probably are biassed, and are enamoured with Kant's work without really having internalized his thoughts. If you had internalized his thoughts, you would be able to repeat his counter-argument which you can't, won't. If you could, you would. But you, having allegedly read his book, still can't. So what is the point in reading his book? If you can't summarize his argument, then is there really a real argument?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:56 am
Charm wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:01 pm
Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/
Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..

From your post it would appear you have not understood [not necessary agree with] the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.


Kant did not reason his way to morality and expect reasoned-absolute-moral-maxims to be enforced on people. It is not like the theological morality model where God said so and if one do not obey and comply, one will be punished and be burnt in Hell.

Kant relied on reason to abstract absolute moral laws as guides only and they are not to be enforced. Kant was deliberating in the Philosophy of Morality not on politics and the legislative where laws are enforced.

Note this;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813
Whatever moral maxim is universalized, it is only to be a guide only.
You are very, very quick in accusing us with an unsustainable argument that we, your opponents, simply don't understand Kant, while you do.

This is sort of meaningless, unless you present arguments proving this.

You keep on skirting away on the demand that we read Kant. IF we were to read Kant,would we get th same insight as you do? If yes, why can't you just write down that insight? If it is logical, and makes sense,then it is not needed to read the book, we just understand and agree with the logic and reason of the argument. You COULD do that, provided that there is such an argument. The more you avoid writing that that argument, and the more you parrot we ought to read the book, the more I get the feeling that either or both of these are true:
1. Kant did not present an argument that refutes mine and others'.
2. You did not understand Kant's argument, because if you did, you'd repeat it for sure (instead of directing us to read).

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:26 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:56 am
Charm wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:56 pm

Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..

From your post it would appear you have not understood [not necessary agree with] the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.


Kant did not reason his way to morality and expect reasoned-absolute-moral-maxims to be enforced on people. It is not like the theological morality model where God said so and if one do not obey and comply, one will be punished and be burnt in Hell.

Kant relied on reason to abstract absolute moral laws as guides only and they are not to be enforced. Kant was deliberating in the Philosophy of Morality not on politics and the legislative where laws are enforced.

Note this;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813
Whatever moral maxim is universalized, it is only to be a guide only.
You are very, very quick in accusing us with an unsustainable argument that we, your opponents, simply don't understand Kant, while you do.

This is sort of meaningless, unless you present arguments proving this.

You keep on skirting away on the demand that we read Kant. IF we were to read Kant,would we get th same insight as you do? If yes, why can't you just write down that insight? If it is logical, and makes sense,then it is not needed to read the book, we just understand and agree with the logic and reason of the argument. You COULD do that, provided that there is such an argument. The more you avoid writing that that argument, and the more you parrot we ought to read the book, the more I get the feeling that either or both of these are true:
1. Kant did not present an argument that refutes mine and others'.
2. You did not understand Kant's argument, because if you did, you'd repeat it for sure (instead of directing us to read).
I read Kant and if I don't agree he claims I do not understand it...I mean that is the problem isn't it...something is considered right or wrong by other's if and only if they understand it...but all readings of philosopher's are merely subjective interpretations of it that while extending from the philosopher itself contain a degree of randomness or separation from the philosopher's mind itself considering all subjectivity contains a degree of randomness.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:27 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:56 am

From your post it would appear you have not understood [not necessary agree with] the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.


Kant did not reason his way to morality and expect reasoned-absolute-moral-maxims to be enforced on people. It is not like the theological morality model where God said so and if one do not obey and comply, one will be punished and be burnt in Hell.

Kant relied on reason to abstract absolute moral laws as guides only and they are not to be enforced. Kant was deliberating in the Philosophy of Morality not on politics and the legislative where laws are enforced.

Note this;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813
Whatever moral maxim is universalized, it is only to be a guide only.
You are very, very quick in accusing us with an unsustainable argument that we, your opponents, simply don't understand Kant, while you do.

This is sort of meaningless, unless you present arguments proving this.

You keep on skirting away on the demand that we read Kant. IF we were to read Kant,would we get th same insight as you do? If yes, why can't you just write down that insight? If it is logical, and makes sense,then it is not needed to read the book, we just understand and agree with the logic and reason of the argument. You COULD do that, provided that there is such an argument. The more you avoid writing that that argument, and the more you parrot we ought to read the book, the more I get the feeling that either or both of these are true:
1. Kant did not present an argument that refutes mine and others'.
2. You did not understand Kant's argument, because if you did, you'd repeat it for sure (instead of directing us to read).
Note I wrote 'it would appear' i.e. not conclusive.

I have already argued why you misunderstood Kant, i.e. the Category Imperative are not laws that are enforceable.

Note Kant's full argument is the whole of the Critique of Reason which is too tedious to reproduce in a discussion like this.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Charm » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:07 pm
Charm wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:01 pm
Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/
Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..
All morality is a means of being through which we give structure to our actions, and hence ourselves, through our ability to apply or eliminate boundaries at the intellectual, emotional or physical level.

This structuring of the self and the environment through the self, by this application of limits in turn results in the structure inherent within all being.

In simpler, more common terms, the golden rule is an act of creating, maintaining, or destroy the fabric of being through the limits which form it.

People are reasonable whether they intend it to be that way or not..."I do "x" because "y" feels good" is still an act of reasoning...however base it may be.
I was trying hard to grasp the ways in which people structure their relationships, and politically involved, I was talking to a democrat on a democrat form, and I was hammering away on the key board, and my wife, now ex found the word I was looking for: FORM... This is an ancient word in philosophy, is still widely used, and has appeared quite correctly used in our Declaration of Independence.. In addition, we have the words Morph, and morpheme as cognate words.. No word I know of better expresses what you are trying to say.. As my wife asked: Are you in some form of relationship with that person.. Absolutely, technically yes.. We have these forms, these social forms as a way of taking sides, but we also have physical form related to all that can be conceived of with numbers, which is another form, and one Pythagoras thought more real than reality.. While people form conceptions of reality, they tend to believe their conceptions are more real than the reality conceived.. As Schopenhauer said: The world is my idea.. Forms is a better method of explaining what you mean as you explanation is entirely too complicated to make sense without an explanation.. So; Forms are a structure, and every form is a form of relationship.. When a form is no longer useful to the understanding of reality, people no longer relate through it.. There may have been few who actually related through the form we think of as the Ptolemaic universe, but some did... Regardless, we use forms not only to conceive of the world and reality with concepts and ideas, but also to conceive of spiritual notions that cannot be conceived of in any true sense at all.. One good example of a form is marriage.. Marriage is a relationship built around a spiritual notion called love... As all forms of relationship, it has a purpose, and a cause; and it is recognized as a form of relationship socially and legally.. As with all forms of relationship, we can look at the relationship through the form, but also look at the form through the relationship... Because what Jefferson said is true, that it is not for light and transient causes that we replace our forms... You simply do not find healthy relationships in rotten forms, or find relevant forms in around failed relationships.. A good form supports a healthy relationship.. It is impossible to conceive of humanity without forms even if you are mostly informal as I am.. And we are entering a revolutionary time when our old forms must be trashed and replaced by new and vibrant forms.. It is because we so seldom change our national social forms that this seem strange or impossible.. Looking at history as a whole, we see this happens all of the time even if such changes may take hundreds of years to come about..

So; as an aside, I would suggest you refer to your structures as form because it will give you a better and more elegant method of conceiving of morals, and all other issues.. As a moral exercise, read the preamble of the constitution.. There is stated the goods they hoped to achieve, but did not.. But this agrees with Aristotle that governments are created with the object of good.. My point is, that what you see it the spiritual motivation for setting up a social form, so the form was not born whole as an abstraction.. First the spiritual good is conceived of as a form, and then the social form to achieve that good was created.. What for example is the spiritual good for which law as a social form is created??? Justice is the good, and law is the form by which that good is supposed to be achieved.. All forms have a purpose.. At a minimum they involve two people who must both gain from the relationship.. Any way, something to consider..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Charm » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:08 pm

Essentially Kant was applying reason to ethics, and we all do that to an extent.. We see this with Socrates trying to define the Good... But; Reason always argues against Good, and Morality.. These social goods are based upon a spiritual connection, really emotionally based, and perhaps instinctual.. It doesn't mean we cannot grasp it in
some detail; but it must be contrasted with reason as an individual activity aimed at individual good.. Morality as it does, existing for a common good will never be achieved through reason.. What is needed is to consciously avoid reasoning people out of moral behavior.. Morality is not encouraged, but is actively discourage.. If people risk their lives to save others, then many will think they are stupid..

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:38 am

Charm, why do you end your sentences with two periods, instead of just one? That practice is disconcerting. Have you ever read a book or a newspaper- or magazine article? Can you find any example where a nominative sentence is not ended with a single period? Or with a triplet of them, for effect.

I used to see this practice in forums where much less literate and educated people participated, where it went, nobody cared. But here we all try to be literary.

If I may ask you, please, to do as the Romans do, and don't end your sentences with two periods. It reeks of illiteracy.

No, I did not mean to be mean. It just came out that way.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8173
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:41 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:38 am
Charm, why do you end your sentences with two periods, instead of just one? That practice is disconcerting. Have you ever read a book or a newspaper- or magazine article? Can you find any example where a nominative sentence is not ended with a single period? Or with a triplet of them, for effect.

I used to see this practice in forums where much less literate and educated people participated, where it went, nobody cared. But here we all try to be literary.

If I may ask you, please, to do as the Romans do, and don't end your sentences with two periods. It reeks of illiteracy.

No, I did not mean to be mean. It just came out that way.
Calling them periods is disconcerting. What's wrong with 'full stop'?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:27 am
(1) Note I wrote 'it would appear' i.e. not conclusive.

(2) I have already argued why you misunderstood Kant, i.e. the Category Imperative are not laws that are enforceable.

(3) Note Kant's full argument is the whole of the Critique of Reason which is too tedious to reproduce in a discussion like this.
(1) Does this mean that according to you, it is impossible for Kant to refute his critics?

(2) Sorry. but no, you did not argue. You CLAIMED that I misunderstood Kant, but provided no evidence to that claim. Then you told me to read the book.

(3) Does this mean you yourself don't understand Kant?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:52 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:41 am

Calling them periods is disconcerting. What's wrong with 'full stop'?
You need a periodontist. To alleviate your anxiety about periods.

"Full stop" to me means "I shut up now." But no, I don't shup after each period.

"Full stop" can be viewed as backward. It comprises Anglo words. "Period" is Roman-based; much more elegant and erudite-sounding.

It is difficult to criticize someone who uses two periods to close each sentence with the use of "full stop". "Why do you use two full stops after each sentence?" It does not sound right. "Full stop" is an integral action-word; it can't be divorced that easily on a conceptual level from the sentence it concludes. "Period", in and by itself, is an entity, while "full stop" is not. So it is easier to isolate the concept to focus on it if you use the word "period" than if you used "full stop".

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8173
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:02 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:52 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:41 am

Calling them periods is disconcerting. What's wrong with 'full stop'?
You need a periodontist. To alleviate your anxiety about periods.

"Full stop" to me means "I shut up now." But no, I don't shup after each period.

"Full stop" can be viewed as backward. It comprises Anglo words. "Period" is Roman-based; much more elegant and erudite-sounding.

It is difficult to criticize someone who uses two periods to close each sentence with the use of "full stop". "Why do you use two full stops after each sentence?" It does not sound right. "Full stop" is an integral action-word; it can't be divorced that easily on a conceptual level from the sentence it concludes. "Period", in and by itself, is an entity, while "full stop" is not. So it is easier to isolate the concept to focus on it if you use the word "period" than if you used "full stop".
Ridiculous.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by -1- » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:10 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:02 am
-1- wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:52 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:41 am

Calling them periods is disconcerting. What's wrong with 'full stop'?
You need a periodontist. To alleviate your anxiety about periods.

"Full stop" to me means "I shut up now." But no, I don't shup after each period.

"Full stop" can be viewed as backward. It comprises Anglo words. "Period" is Roman-based; much more elegant and erudite-sounding.

It is difficult to criticize someone who uses two periods to close each sentence with the use of "full stop". "Why do you use two full stops after each sentence?" It does not sound right. "Full stop" is an integral action-word; it can't be divorced that easily on a conceptual level from the sentence it concludes. "Period", in and by itself, is an entity, while "full stop" is not. So it is easier to isolate the concept to focus on it if you use the word "period" than if you used "full stop".
Ridiculous.
I know. But I hope to think it is also insightful, worked out to the last detail, and therefore worthy of consideration.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:03 pm

Charm wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:07 pm
Charm wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:56 pm

Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..
All morality is a means of being through which we give structure to our actions, and hence ourselves, through our ability to apply or eliminate boundaries at the intellectual, emotional or physical level.

This structuring of the self and the environment through the self, by this application of limits in turn results in the structure inherent within all being.

In simpler, more common terms, the golden rule is an act of creating, maintaining, or destroy the fabric of being through the limits which form it.

People are reasonable whether they intend it to be that way or not..."I do "x" because "y" feels good" is still an act of reasoning...however base it may be.
I was trying hard to grasp the ways in which people structure their relationships, and politically involved, I was talking to a democrat on a democrat form, and I was hammering away on the key board, and my wife, now ex found the word I was looking for: FORM... This is an ancient word in philosophy, is still widely used, and has appeared quite correctly used in our Declaration of Independence.. In addition, we have the words Morph, and morpheme as cognate words.. No word I know of better expresses what you are trying to say.. As my wife asked: Are you in some form of relationship with that person.. Absolutely, technically yes.. We have these forms, these social forms as a way of taking sides, but we also have physical form related to all that can be conceived of with numbers, which is another form, and one Pythagoras thought more real than reality.. While people form conceptions of reality, they tend to believe their conceptions are more real than the reality conceived.. As Schopenhauer said: The world is my idea.. Forms is a better method of explaining what you mean as you explanation is entirely too complicated to make sense without an explanation.. So; Forms are a structure, and every form is a form of relationship.. When a form is no longer useful to the understanding of reality, people no longer relate through it.. There may have been few who actually related through the form we think of as the Ptolemaic universe, but some did... Regardless, we use forms not only to conceive of the world and reality with concepts and ideas, but also to conceive of spiritual notions that cannot be conceived of in any true sense at all.. One good example of a form is marriage.. Marriage is a relationship built around a spiritual notion called love... As all forms of relationship, it has a purpose, and a cause; and it is recognized as a form of relationship socially and legally.. As with all forms of relationship, we can look at the relationship through the form, but also look at the form through the relationship... Because what Jefferson said is true, that it is not for light and transient causes that we replace our forms... You simply do not find healthy relationships in rotten forms, or find relevant forms in around failed relationships.. A good form supports a healthy relationship.. It is impossible to conceive of humanity without forms even if you are mostly informal as I am.. And we are entering a revolutionary time when our old forms must be trashed and replaced by new and vibrant forms.. It is because we so seldom change our national social forms that this seem strange or impossible.. Looking at history as a whole, we see this happens all of the time even if such changes may take hundreds of years to come about..


You have to keep in mind that form follows function and function follows form:

All form exists through a boundary of movement as function. Take for example the human body as a form. This form is composed of many micro movements which result in the form itself as a boundary of these movements.

Another example, one I quote as the most common, is the line. The line exists as an observation of continuous movement as direction considering it is composed of infinite parts as unlimited boundaries. The line as a form exists because of its continual relation of further lines with this act of relation observing movement as an approximation of some unity where this unity is observed under a continual multiplicity (which is movement itself).

All function exists through a boundary of form as stability. The continuity of a movement, which exists relative to another movement, is the means in which a form takes place. For example the human body again; the continuous generation of cells in let's say the finger nail manifests the nail as a boundary of movement as specific cells with these specific cells existing through specific forms as specific movements (one cell differs from another, or atom from atom, because of the means in with the particles move or relate to eachother.

Using the line example again the line as continual direction through a continual manifestation of parts which compose the line, we observe the line as directional in the respect it is continual movement...however this continual movement ad-infinitum observes the line as an observation of constant movement.





Now how this applies to morality:


A friendship may be base around a common bond of work where the work is the limit through which the friendship exists. The friendship may exist through helping or guiding someone in there actions with this continual act of help/guidance (even just providing jokes to relieve pressure) existing as a constant nature of change considering the act of help may very from one day to the next (same with the knowledge being taught or the jokes); however this continual manifestation of help/tutoring acts as the continual change between the individuals which is summated under the boundary of friendship as a constant form of change between relative parts (in this case the person as a part).







So; as an aside, I would suggest you refer to your structures as form because it will give you a better and more elegant method of conceiving of morals, and all other issues.. As a moral exercise, read the preamble of the constitution.. There is stated the goods they hoped to achieve, but did not.. But this agrees with Aristotle that governments are created with the object of good.. My point is, that what you see it the spiritual motivation for setting up a social form, so the form was not born whole as an abstraction.. First the spiritual good is conceived of as a form, and then the social form to achieve that good was created.. What for example is the spiritual good for which law as a social form is created??? Justice is the good, and law is the form by which that good is supposed to be achieved.. All forms have a purpose.. At a minimum they involve two people who must both gain from the relationship.. Any way, something to consider..
Respectable points, however they are address above. Form and function result in the limit with the nature of multiple limits existing as structures with the structures themselves acting as limits. This alternation is the constant limit which manifests itself as a universal constant and gives precendence and grounding to the nature of morality embodied under the Golden Rule.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

Post by Charm » Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:06 am

physical forms follow a function.. Moral forms are not true forms.. Transcendent forms are not true forms.. We are governed by moral ideas, and these ideas are really ancient.. Just for example, When Abalard said Ius (justice) is the Genus, and Lex (law) is the Species; he was relating a moral form to a physical form- Genus and Species... He was comparing apples with oranges.. Justice is a moral form, and transcendent concept.. Law is a social form, and like all social forms, a moral form stands behind them, so to speak the way love stands behind marriage.. But; what you are seeing is people trying to give social expression to their moral sense of the good and the virtuous.. In this way, as government are created with the object of good, those goods are spelled out in the preamble of our constitution for all to see.. Since the government has not measured up to its object, I would say it has failed, and people only need to understand that failure to revolt.. Just as when a marriage has no love, people need to break the broke thing, and move on..

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest