Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Categorical Imperatives

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:45:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it possible to justify a Categorical Imperative, and if so, how?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:57:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:45:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is it possible to justify a Categorical Imperative, and if so, how?

I mean, you can read Kant. I personally think that it is not. Categorical Imperatives often clash (Famous Nazi asking you about a child example comes to mind)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's a categorical imperative?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:57:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:45:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is it possible to justify a Categorical Imperative, and if so, how?

I mean, you can read Kant. I personally think that it is not. Categorical Imperatives often clash (Famous Nazi asking you about a child example comes to mind)

I've tried, believe me. However a lot of the explanations I've tried to read are dense with jargon and excessively elaborate prose. They're also long and boring, and I feel like I would be reaaallly wasting my time reading it since I'd most likely reject it in the end. It's much more efficient to have people who actually believe in it, offer their justification succinctly.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:06:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:57:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:45:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is it possible to justify a Categorical Imperative, and if so, how?

I mean, you can read Kant. I personally think that it is not. Categorical Imperatives often clash (Famous Nazi asking you about a child example comes to mind)

I've tried, believe me. However a lot of the explanations I've tried to read are dense with jargon and excessively elaborate prose. They're also long and boring, and I feel like I would be reaaallly wasting my time reading it since I'd most likely reject it in the end. It's much more efficient to have people who actually believe in it, offer their justification succinctly.

I reject the conclusion therefore the arguments are irrelevant.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:08:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:06:26 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:57:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:45:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is it possible to justify a Categorical Imperative, and if so, how?

I mean, you can read Kant. I personally think that it is not. Categorical Imperatives often clash (Famous Nazi asking you about a child example comes to mind)

I've tried, believe me. However a lot of the explanations I've tried to read are dense with jargon and excessively elaborate prose. They're also long and boring, and I feel like I would be reaaallly wasting my time reading it since I'd most likely reject it in the end. It's much more efficient to have people who actually believe in it, offer their justification succinctly.

I reject the conclusion therefore the arguments are irrelevant.

Are you talking about yourself or is this an attempt to be an @$$hole and strawman me?

I made this thread so that people like you can help me see the logic behind it, not so you can attack me out of some ridiculous vendetta.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
Are you talking about yourself or is this an attempt to be an @$$hole and strawman me?

I made this thread so that people like you can help me see the logic behind it, not so you can attack me out of some ridiculous vendetta.

*whew* I was actually about to post something similar and I'm glad I didn't...
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:10:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
Are you talking about yourself or is this an attempt to be an @$$hole and strawman me?

I made this thread so that people like you can help me see the logic behind it, not so you can attack me out of some ridiculous vendetta.

*whew* I was actually about to post something similar and I'm glad I didn't...

It would be okay if you said it, because I would know you're not trying to be a jerk. Mestari on the other hand has been doing this stuff for quite a while now...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Challenge ME to a Debate.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could defend it
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:05:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:03:52 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Can't you just talk about things on the forums without having to challenge everyone to a debate...? -.-

The Fool: Can you respond to me without have to include hate!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

Or just read Groundwork where he explains it in a much denser form. Regardless, your typical high schooler will not be able to understand it and is really of the less accessible philosophical texts.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:09:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:03:52 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Can't you just talk about things on the forums without having to challenge everyone to a debate...? -.-

The Fool: its a long proof, and people here will keep interupting thier two cent, constantly throughout, chopping up, flow and consistency of the argument, making it a pain in the azz.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:11:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

It is. I'm capable of understanding what's written,....I just realize that it could be explained in a far clearer manner ALWAYS, but they deliberately dress it up in obnoxious languange and peculiar speaking styles. I'll give you an example:

"So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for the future it will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does not on his part deny the influence on the{13} human organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive science." (http://www.gutenberg.org...)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I can make and un interrupted article I would give and argument for objective Moral. But all I get is hate messages interrupting.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:11:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

It is. I'm capable of understanding what's written,....I just realize that it could be explained in a far clearer manner ALWAYS, but they deliberately dress it up in obnoxious languange and peculiar speaking styles. I'll give you an example:

"So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for the future it will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does not on his part deny the influence on the{13} human organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive science." (http://www.gutenberg.org...)

The Fool: but that is problem. Ike its not dressed up. Its because the meaning of the words are not familiar to you..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:11:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

It is. I'm capable of understanding what's written,....I just realize that it could be explained in a far clearer manner ALWAYS, but they deliberately dress it up in obnoxious languange and peculiar speaking styles. I'll give you an example:

"So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for the future it will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does not on his part deny the influence on the{13} human organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive science." (http://www.gutenberg.org...)

which could easily be reduced to..."The volitionist accepts that there are forces which help determine a human's actions, but even after analysis of these forces, the action is still not fully explained, and there's a missing factor that can't be explained, which the volitionist calls freewill."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The_Fool, why couldn't the quote just have said that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:26:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:19:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:11:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

It is. I'm capable of understanding what's written,....I just realize that it could be explained in a far clearer manner ALWAYS, but they deliberately dress it up in obnoxious languange and peculiar speaking styles. I'll give you an example:

"So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for the future it will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does not on his part deny the influence on the{13} human organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive science." (http://www.gutenberg.org...)

which could easily be reduced to..."The volitionist accepts that there are forces which help determine a human's actions, but even after analysis of these forces, the action is still not fully explained, and there's a missing factor that can't be explained, which the volitionist calls freewill."

THe Fool: Kant is saying your free will, is you ability to Reason over your desires.

A people wan't The Good the difference is the ignorance about how to go about achieving it." Socrates..

Kant is saying that Freedom is your ability to achieve the good, through Reason and knowledge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:26:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:19:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:11:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:02:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You will not be able to fully comprehend the categorical imparitives without understanding the Critique of pure reason first. That is the foundation for which he launches his other works from.
Its not jargon if you understand what the words mean.

It is. I'm capable of understanding what's written,....I just realize that it could be explained in a far clearer manner ALWAYS, but they deliberately dress it up in obnoxious languange and peculiar speaking styles. I'll give you an example:

"So far the Determinist. The believer in Free-Will—for the future it will be briefer and more convenient to use the term "Volitionist" or "Indeterminist"—does not on his part deny the influence on the{13} human organism of those forces on which the Determinist lays stress. What he denies is that any of them singly, or all of them collectively, can ever furnish an adequate and exhaustive account of human action. He affirms that after analysis has done its utmost there remains an unexplained residuum beyond the reach of the instruments or the methods of positive science." (http://www.gutenberg.org...)

which could easily be reduced to..."The volitionist accepts that there are forces which help determine a human's actions, but even after analysis of these forces, the action is still not fully explained, and there's a missing factor that can't be explained, which the volitionist calls freewill."

THe Fool: Kant is saying your free will, is you ability to Reason over your desires.

A people wan't The Good the difference is the ignorance about how to go about achieving it." Socrates..

Kant is saying that Freedom is your ability to achieve the good, through Reason and knowledge.

then how does he justify the categorical imperative? To me it seems like a total meaningless assertion, but of course I don't know enough about it to say that. So, how do you justify the categorical imperative?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:36:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean to say Rationality on the bottom line..

What I mean by Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency.

Knowledge:
accumilated uncontradictory usefull(applicable) information.

Desires/motivations:
emotions

Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

The Good/Ends: Satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

All sentient being have worth.(universal,objective)

Worth=worth

Conclusion:
Treat people according to worth.. Aka Treat people as ends not only means.

The foundation of objective morality. Straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:38:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:36:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I mean to say Rationality on the bottom line..


What I mean by Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency.

Knowledge:
accumilated uncontradictory usefull(applicable) information.

Desires/motivations:
emotions

Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

The Good/Ends: Satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

All sentient being have worth.(universal,objective)

Worth=worth

Conclusion:
Treat people according to worth.. Aka Treat people as ends not only means.


The foundation of objective morality. Straight from the hill!

That explains it, but doesn't justify it
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:38:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:36:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I mean to say Rationality on the bottom line..


What I mean by Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency.

Knowledge:
accumilated uncontradictory usefull(applicable) information.

Desires/motivations:
emotions

Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

The Good/Ends: Satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

All sentient being have worth.(universal,objective)

Worth=worth

Conclusion:
Treat people according to worth.. Aka Treat people as ends not only means.


The foundation of objective morality. Straight from the hill!

That explains it, but doesn't justify it

The Fool: what part do you want more justified.. lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:44:15 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must reiterate: what is a categorical imperative?

sorry, should I have written "THE categorical imperative"?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:44:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:38:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:36:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I mean to say Rationality on the bottom line..


What I mean by Rationality:
Is to act in coherence with logical consistency.

Knowledge:
accumilated uncontradictory usefull(applicable) information.

Desires/motivations:
emotions

Reason:
Rationality+knowledge+emotions

The Good/Ends: Satisfaction of our desires. Aka positive emotional affect. aka worth/value

All sentient being have worth.(universal,objective)

Worth=worth

Conclusion:
Treat people according to worth.. Aka Treat people as ends not only means.


The foundation of objective morality. Straight from the hill!

That explains it, but doesn't justify it

The Fool: what part do you want more justified.. lol

Everything! It's all assertions..."Treat people according to worth. as ends not means" - why? Says who? what if I don't?

"do only that which can be universalizable" - why? says who? what if I don't?

"All sentient beings have worth" - why? says who? How'd you figure that out?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:49:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:45:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:44:15 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must reiterate: what is a categorical imperative?

sorry, should I have written "THE categorical imperative"?

The Fool: its irrelavent what that is. I just gave a proof of Moral objectivity. Who cares about the word of definition of the Categorical Imperative? LOL
I have read all text of kant. I am giving you the proof with the most easiest language I can.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:51:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:49:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:45:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 11:44:15 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must reiterate: what is a categorical imperative?

sorry, should I have written "THE categorical imperative"?

The Fool: its irrelavent what that is. I just gave a proof of Moral objectivity. Who cares about the word of definition of the Categorical Imperative? LOL
I have read all text of kant. I am giving you the proof with the most easiest language I can.

don't simplify your language for me. I just want you to justify it. I even made a debate about this so that I could know Kant's justification. My opponent did what you're doing now, and only defined what the Categorical Imperative was without explaining why it was true and should be followed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault