Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Kant became an idiot.

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:46:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity " these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction. " To think that no one has thought of Kant"s categorical imperative as dangerous to life! ""

"'Duty'" impersonal and universal " phantom expressions of decline, of the final exhaustion of life" each one of us should devise his own virtue, his own categorical imperative" Kant"s categorical imperative should have been felt as mortally dangerous" What destroys more quickly that to work, to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice" as an automaton of duty? It is a recipe for decadence, even for idiocy" Kant became an idiot."

- Nietzsche
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:52:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
DDO formatting issues makes this hard to read.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:46:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity " these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction. " To think that no one has thought of Kant"s categorical imperative as dangerous to life! ""

"'Duty'" impersonal and universal " phantom expressions of decline, of the final exhaustion of life" each one of us should devise his own virtue, his own categorical imperative" Kant"s categorical imperative should have been felt as mortally dangerous" What destroys more quickly that to work, to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice" as an automaton of duty? It is a recipe for decadence, even for idiocy" Kant became an idiot."

- Nietzsche

I'm devising for my own virtue that says that I should not devise my own virtue.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:50:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm devising my own virtue that says nobody (else) should devise their own virtue! Did I just contradict Kant? He didn't give me any rules saying how to devise my virtue, other than to do it because his virtue said I should do it.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:38:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:46:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity " these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction. " To think that no one has thought of Kant"s categorical imperative as dangerous to life! ""

"'Duty'" impersonal and universal " phantom expressions of decline, of the final exhaustion of life" each one of us should devise his own virtue, his own categorical imperative" Kant"s categorical imperative should have been felt as mortally dangerous" What destroys more quickly that to work, to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice" as an automaton of duty? It is a recipe for decadence, even for idiocy" Kant became an idiot."

- Nietzsche

The irony here is that Nietzsche did actually become an idiot, and it is likely to a large degree for this reason: that he could not comprehend or accept Kant's insight into the nature of morality regarded as such. Morality is necessarily formal and formalizing. It posits an ideal. His critiques of various forms of moral dogmatism were deep, but never aimed to address their underlying principles at their idealizing root; his critique was, rather, that moralists did not adopt their dogmatic values fully enough. Nietzsche's kind of relativistic philosophy, which simultaneously rejects the universal ideal while never fully escaping it, ends up trying to embed the universal into the particular, which is a recipe for madness. The ideal as the actual; not rejecting the ideal but also not accepting the Kantian formalism which would separate it from what is.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:49:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Basically, Nietzsche did not even properly reject Kant's formal imperatives, rather he only attempted to keep their universalizing form while somehow also making value immanent to history and subjective life. As opposed to Kant's purification of practical rules as a posited ideal, Nietzsche saw some great figures living such great lives that they would somehow retroactively morally justify the suffering and enslavement of the rest of the population. He was essentially attempting to square the circle by making the transcendental simultaneously immanent, and this all to aggrandize his nice experiences reading Goethe in bed with a sore stomach. Is this not schizophrenia at its core?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 10:53:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:46:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity " these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man find his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction. " To think that no one has thought of Kant"s categorical imperative as dangerous to life! ""

"'Duty'" impersonal and universal " phantom expressions of decline, of the final exhaustion of life" each one of us should devise his own virtue, his own categorical imperative" Kant"s categorical imperative should have been felt as mortally dangerous" What destroys more quickly that to work, to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice" as an automaton of duty? It is a recipe for decadence, even for idiocy" Kant became an idiot."

- Nietzsche

Don"t hold back now, tell us what you really think.

Well if everyone goes by their own chosen set of morals then everybody is in the right, and no one is incorrect about what they think is good or evil. It"s good for me to kill this person and take his belongings and enslave his women and maybe sell them. I am correct according to my own judgements of what is good for me, (until proven otherwise of course). Of which I could modify my good and evil rules for me to suit my desires and or needs.

But if there is to be a peaceful coexistence betwixt humans, then an agreement of sorts is required. And if one is in a agreement, could be the kingdom of England and if the sovereign of England calls on you, and you are a subject, yes, it is your duty to respond favorably because that is a part of the agreement of the sovereign and the sovereign"s subjects. If the proper authorities place a stop sign where you don"t think there should be one, then as an agreed user of the roadways, is it your duty to stop at that stop sign?

The duty or moral is relative to the agreement. If Kant says it"s universal, then he"s wrong. It could be his school of thinking was promoted to bring the working classes into line. The catholic church used to do that for the sovereigns of their days of influence on the peasantry, but as more of Europe became rebellious to the influences of the Vatican something had to be done to show why people should be like this or that. But don"t hold me to any of that working class stuff, its mostly speculation.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 1:39:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:52:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
DDO formatting issues makes this hard to read.

You Kant read this?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 1:41:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 1:39:42 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 4/24/2016 8:52:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
DDO formatting issues makes this hard to read.

You Kant read this?

Indeed.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:51:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
In response to Berkeley and Hume, Kant asserted that the unprimed cognition which remains when perceptual content is subtracted has intrinsic structure that exists prior to content; it comprises the a priori categories of perceptual or "phenomenal" reality. Unfortunately, subtracting perception according to Kantian rules yields more than unprimed cognition; it also yields noumena, absolute objects or "things-in-themselves". On one side of the result is a perceptual isomorphism between the mind and phenomenal reality; on the other yawns a chasm on the far side of which sits an unknowable but nonetheless fundamental noumenal reality, which Kant evidently regarded as the last word in (sub-theological) reality theory.

However, Kant's chasm is so deep and wide, and so thoroughly interdicts any mind-reality isomorphism, that it precludes causal efficacy and for that matter any other comprehensible principle of correspondence. This implies that noumena are both rationally and empirically irrelevant to cognitive and perceptual reality, and thus that they can be safely eliminated from reality theory. Whatever Kant had in mind when he introduced the concept of a noumenon, his definition essentially amounts to "inconceivable concept" and is thus an oxymoron. Whatever he really meant, we must rely on something other than Kantian metaphysics to find it.

RIP