Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:27 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am
Kant's Categorical Imperatives [CIs] are ideals [Pure] and not meant to be applied to the real world
So why try to apply them to the real world then?

And if they are ideals...for whom or what are they 'ideal'?

If they merely demonstrate a certain degree of internal consistency but no connection to the real world, then they are indistinguishable from fantasy.
Ideals "not meant to be applied" meant not to be expected in the real world.
Ideals are impossible to exist as real in the real world.
Example a perfect circle has certain geometrical attributes but there is no way humans can produce a perfect circle in practice.
The concept of a perfect circle merely exists theoretically to be used as a standard guide for the practical to conform to as near as possible to that standard to qualify as a circle.

Just like perfect circles, CIs are ideals but we do not expect them to exist in the practical world.
The CIs are therefore theoretical ideals to be used a a guide for practical ethics.

I have demonstrated in the other thread, based on the principles of the CIs, how we can abstract an ought, i.e. "no human can kill another human' from the empirical "is".
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245
This 'ought' is not meant to be enforceable as a law within jurisprudence and legislature.
This ought is merely to be used as a guide for humanity imputed into an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to facilitate humanity to strive towards as close as possible to ZERO killing of human by another human.

Yes, the ideal sound like a fantasy but when justified theoretically [e.g. ZERO killing of another human] can be very useful to improve the moral quotient of the majority of humans.

Btw.. don't think the above in terms of the present and expect immediate results. The construction and implementation of the moral model will take time to produce results in 50, 100 or > years if we start now.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:23 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:04 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:56 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 pm


You are not doing philosophy. You are just expressing your personal opinions. And if you wish to worship at the shrine of St. Kant.. well that is fine with me.
What have you contributed to the thread?
Nothing.
I do not give a flying flamingo what you think of Kant as I am pretty sure you are utterly ignorant of anything he wrote.
Yes I am ignorant .. and stupid.. but not so stupid as to believe stuff that isn't true nor to try to make sense of nonsense.
If you do not take the trouble to find out it won't matter if you are not stupid, you will remain ignorant.
But the worst of this is that I had not even made any particular judgement on the contents of Kant's work, and had you been following the thread, you would have not been ignorant of that too. SO your objection was misdirected.
Maybe that makes you stupid in any event.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:29 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:17 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:19 pm
So, in what way EXACTLY do you think KANT is out of date?
In every way possible? Ubermensch has no relevance,
That's Nietzsche you ignoramous. The phrase does not appear in Kant twat!
Only glaringly ignorant people would find Kant interesting, glaringly ignorant about basic science.
Only glaringly ignorant people think Kant is Nietzsche.
Last edited by Sculptor on Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:29 pm

So many idiots , so little time to waste.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:39 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:29 pm
That's Nietzsche you ignoramous. The phrase does not appear in Kant twat!
Only glaringly ignorant people would find Kant interesting, glaringly ignorant about basic science.
Only glaringly ignorant people think Kant is Nietzche.
You are right forgive me for offending your frail ego! Isn't it spelled Nietzsche ..you ignorant, you idiot?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:45 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:39 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:29 pm
That's Nietzsche you ignoramous. The phrase does not appear in Kant twat!
Only glaringly ignorant people would find Kant interesting, glaringly ignorant about basic science.
Only glaringly ignorant people think Kant is Nietzche.
You are right forgive me for offending your frail ego! Isn't it spelled Nietzsche ..you ignorant, you idiot?
No the point in question is spelled K A N T.
You stupid Kunt.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:59 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:00 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:10 am
I've already looked into pretty much all of science and built from there, and no one gives a damn about business here, but thanks.
Ever taken an IQ test? ..it's about 98 or something? Maybe even lower?
My conventional IQ is only about 145, but I seem to also have some kind of savant cognition (ability to parallel think with the unconscious on purpose), this is an extremely rare and far better ability.
Last edited by Atla on Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 am

Yeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.


Obviously the thing-in-itself is just an assumption nothing more, since we can't ever know 'what it's like' or whether it's even there. But I don't see any convincing argument why we shouldn't make this assumption.
And if we don't assume it then why stop there, maybe all of our experiences are illusions as well etc. so we end up with not being able to say anything about anything.
Your earlier point was Kant's philosophy is useless, e.g. the Categorical Imperative are not applicable to the real world.

Kant's reason for throwing in the noumenon [empirical related thing-itself] is to understand the basis of knowledge [a priori and a posteriori] thoroughly without a doubt except for the noumenon.

The empirical is supported by reason, but there are reasons without empirical basis, Kant assumed and assigned the thing-in-itself to such reasoned ideas based on pure reason. One of such ultimate thing-in-itself is God, a transcendental illusion.

Now that God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real, such a proof is very practical to wean off theism and cut off the grounds of all theistic driven evil and violent acts committed in the name of a supposedly real God.

The illusory thing-in-itself is also manifested the Categorical Imperatives which are ideals and illusion, but they are very useful as guides to the practical ethics to improve the moral and ethics competence of humans. Kant provided very sophisticated and refined arguments to justify this in reconciling 'ought from is' morally and apply ought back to 'is' ethically.

To top it all, all the elements of the Philosophy of Kant are to support his vision and mission of Perpetual Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... cal_Sketch

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.
It is just that such a subject is not ABC and unfortunately Kant is not a good writer thus difficult for most to grasp his ideas.
It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (like God or the thing-in-itself).
And while we have no reason to assume a God, we have all the reasons to assume the thing-in-itself.
God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real
Surely you must realize that this is nonsense?
Yes our beliefs about God are proven illusory, there is no sign of God. Which doesn't mean that God can't be real.
Last edited by Atla on Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:13 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:45 pm
No the point in question is spelled K A N T.
You stupid Kunt.
Wauw, you really have a very intelligent focus on relevant things, don't you?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:59 pm
My conventional IQ is only about 145, but I seem to also have some kind of savant cognition (ability to parallel think with the unconscious on purpose), this is an extremely rare and far better ability.
I see, what do you use this immensely high IQ for?

..and the relevance of Kant? Why don't you answer that?

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:26 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm
I see, what do you use this immensely high IQ for?
Trying to solve the mistery of existence.
..and the relevance of Kant? Why don't you answer that?
Answer what? Where did I claim that I see Kant as relevant?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant

Post by Sculptor » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:18 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:59 pm
My conventional IQ is only about 145, but I seem to also have some kind of savant cognition (ability to parallel think with the unconscious on purpose), this is an extremely rare and far better ability.
I see, what do you use this immensely high IQ for?

..and the relevance of Kant? Why don't you answer that?
You said above;"Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!"
When I asked why outdated you confused Kant with Nietzsche.
Why would anyone waste time on a person who does not know the difference between Kant and Nietzsche?
Whether or not Atla knows the relevance or not, he'd be wasting his time telling you.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:09 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:18 pm
Why would anyone waste time on a person who does not know the difference between Kant and Nietzsche?
Whether or not Atla knows the relevance or not, he'd be wasting his time telling you.
You are not very bright, I don't remember the difference because I don't waste time on them, no matter who said what doesn't make Kant less outdated and irrelevant.

Only if Kant had relevance I would spend more time on him and thereby remember who said what ..OMG!!!

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:10 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:26 pm
HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm
I see, what do you use this immensely high IQ for?
Trying to solve the mistery of existence.
..and the relevance of Kant? Why don't you answer that?
Answer what? Where did I claim that I see Kant as relevant?
Sounds like an extremely low RQ and as I said, IQ is nothing without RQ.

You implied it by saying that it was because I didn't understand him, and you understood him. So much for high IQ.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:25 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am
...

The empirical is supported by reason, but there are reasons without empirical basis, Kant assumed and assigned the thing-in-itself to such reasoned ideas based on pure reason. One of such ultimate thing-in-itself is God, a transcendental illusion.

Now that God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real, such a proof is very practical to wean off theism and cut off the grounds of all theistic driven evil and violent acts committed in the name of a supposedly real God.

The illusory thing-in-itself is also manifested the Categorical Imperatives which are ideals and illusion, but they are very useful as guides to the practical ethics to improve the moral and ethics competence of humans. Kant provided very sophisticated and refined arguments to justify this in reconciling 'ought from is' morally and apply ought back to 'is' ethically.

To top it all, all the elements of the Philosophy of Kant are to support his vision and mission of Perpetual Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... cal_Sketch

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.
It is just that such a subject is not ABC and unfortunately Kant is not a good writer thus difficult for most to grasp his ideas.
It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (like God or the thing-in-itself).
And while we have no reason to assume a God, we have all the reasons to assume the thing-in-itself.
I did not prove the negative, i.e. God does not exist.
I proved the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, thus an impossibility to be real.

It is just like insisting 'a square-circle exists' as real, which is obviously a non-starter.

According to Kant, the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion and the only effective utility to assume it is for the purpose of morality within one self.
  • “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
    I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”
    ― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
Note Kant stated "the moral law within me" which imply he is not referring to any external 'ought' to be enforced or imposed on society.

Theists has a critical reason to insist God exists as real but it is merely an assumption based on crude ['pure'] reason - thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is fundamentally psychological.
God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real
Surely you must realize that this is nonsense?
Yes our beliefs about God are proven illusory, there is no sign of God. Which doesn't mean that God can't be real.
As stated above,
If the idea 'God exists' is a non-starter, it is an impossibility to be real.
There is no means for the absolute God to be real at all.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Richardmc and 6 guests