Any other Kantians here?
>>7393068
That's not Kant
>>7393068
Kant does not even know why he thinks that empiricism is bad.
>>7393068
>2016
I really dig his ethics as a supplement to Catholic philosophy.
>>7393083
OP here. His ethics are the reason I'm a Kantian. I am autistically committed to realizing the Kingdom of Ends.
>>7393085
I've read only Groundwork and supplementary material on Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy thus far. He really needs a supplement axiom in his philosophy.
>>7393083
I don't think that they're compatible. As I understand it, Kant places the source of all ethics in the individual rather than in God. The categorical imperative is just a logical-moral consequence of the individual trying to promote himself in society - if the individual wants to be treated well he must treat other individuals in exactly the same way, for if the categorical imperative is abandoned by anyone then every individual becomes a danger to every other. This "rational self-interest" as Rand put it is far from the self-sacrificing love of God as a spiritual gift given from above for us to share in. In ancient Catholic terms Kant is a Pelagian because he thinks that the human will is of itself sufficient to will a good act, whereas the Catholic Church teaches that we can't even think of doing a truly morally good act without God's grace, due to original sin. This accords with experience too. Without God's grace whenever we try to do something "good" we never fail to mix some pride and self-seeking in with it, e.g. we open the door for someone and then praise ourselves for having good manners.
>>7393085
Read Aristotle. He shows how the Kingdom of Ends is something that makes up reality itself, and is not just the construct of an individual mind.
>>7393096
I'm not going to read Aristotle. All I need is Kant.
>>7393095
I agree partially, hence why I think he works as a good supplement, especially with the focus on duty as a categorical imperative. It also sheds light on what action to take in a specific situation.
That being said I can't claim with certainty that I understand him sufficiently. Let's say that what I got out of him sheds light on my personal views.
>>7393098
>reading Kant without reading Aristotle
Man you dumb
>>7393101
Well in the practical order the categorical imperative often just takes the form of "do unto others as you would do unto yourself", i.e. love your neighbour as yourself.
The problem is the implication that the human mind and will is able to think and do the good of its own power. The kind of good that the human will does of itself is really just pride. Kierkegaard was fond of quoting the phrase that "the virtues of the pagans were glittering vices", i.e. the seemingly admirable sense of justice, self-control, determination, courage, etc., of the ancient pagan heroes and philosophers was all underpinned by a hubristic lust for power or honour, not by charity/love which Aquinas says is the form of all the virtues.
>>7393095
>he thinks that the human will is of itself sufficient to will a good act
In NO WAY does he think this, retard. Kant objects to the sentimentalists (Hume et al.) who argue that an innate sense of fellow-feeling guarantees that morals and ethics can be deduced from the human will. Kant relies on reasoning and logic alone. He says don't do such and such action because it is beneficial for you, or for the other person, or because your god or your prime minister says it's a moral action. Do it because LOGIC demands it. He is asserting that a natural law of sorts does exist, but not in nature or from within the numunal realm of divine wisdom, but from within each thinking person's capacity to reason and act according to strict logic.
>>7393105
All I need is Kant.
>>7393108
You misunderstand me. I meant that Kant thought that the human mind could discover the good of its own accord and then that the human will had the power to act upon that known good of its own accord. When I said that Kant suggests that the human will can will the good of its own power I do not mean that it can do so completely without the use of the intellect like in a blind sentimentalism, I mean that metaphysically he thinks that the human will has the power in itself to do good just as he thinks that the intellect has the power of itself to think to do good. The Catholic position is that God brings goodness to the mind and strengthens the will with the power to do it, and that without the Spirit of God we cannot even conceive of a truly good intention, nevermind carrying it out.
>>7393108
>He is asserting that a natural law of sorts does exist, but not in nature or from within the numunal realm of divine wisdom, but from within each thinking person's capacity to reason and act according to strict logic.
But this is the problem. The Catholic position is that, due to the effect of original sin, human nature is damaged in such a way that it cannot of itself discern and act in accordance with true logic/reason. It needs to be washed and reborn by the Logos, the Divine Word or Reason itself, before it can act in accordance with logic/reason.
Anybody here interested in the notion of Kant's (autistic) philosophy serving as a precursor to and supplementer of the later Computational Theory of Mind?
>>7393125
And, again, this follows our experience. You say
>but from within each thinking person's capacity to reason and act according to strict logic.
Implying that everybody that thinks can actually do this, but our experience shows that all men, whether they are elite intellectuals or simple-minded men, have a tendency to act against reason and their own conscience. The idea of Kant that he can just form a moral hypothesis and that it would be perfectly understood and acted upon by "all thinking men" is really a fantasy far more incredible than anything in the gospel. The only people that believe this will end up as sanctimonious, philosophical prigs who consider themselves above the common masses because only they understand the sublime categorical imperative. Like a gnostic sect.
>>7393129
Yes, but I think Descartes is the one to look to first for that, and then Hume.
>>7393124
>>7393125
As a Catholic Kantian (yes boys, we exist) I'd posit that the near-undeniable fact that heightened self-awareness, intelligence and capacity to reason is synonymous with an increased likelihood to suffer depression, self-doubt and an ineffable guilt suggests that God is in fact tempting us to live by way of a Kantian logico-ethical system (which, by the way, is not contradictory of religious assertions regarding ethical behaviour) but is reminding us that we should not be confuse ourselves and believe that because of this God-given capacity to reason we are somehow superior to or detached from divine rule. Human reason in this sense is a sort of internal tower of babylon, and should not be built too high lest God decide to punish this act of hubris (as he did with Nietzsche) by knocking it over and condemning the sinner to madness. In other words (as a Catholic Kantian I often find that I have to patronize those I'm communicating with, alas) the reason intelligence correlated to depression is because intelligence often tempts man into thinking its existence proves the non-existence of our Lord, when in fact God sowed the seeds of the rational mind but realizes its potential to lead rational individuals away from His light and grace.
>>7393139
eww don't talk to me again thanks
>>7393137
Irrational, unethical pleb detected. Literally get on my level.
>>7393141
>Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence.
>In all thy ways think on him, and he will direct thy steps. Be not wise in thy own conceit: fear God, and depart from evil: For it shall be health to thy navel, and moistening to thy bones.
Proverbs 3:5-8
Here you have a warning against the use of human reason without recourse to God. The saints always have a distrust of themselves; they never set up their minds as an alternative god that can known good and evil itself (read Genesis, this is precisely the cause of original sin and all our suffering), but pray to God for enlightenment on this.
The fact that we have a rational mind of course suggests that we are by nature ordered to act in accordance with reason. The problem is that our mind is weak and full of conceit and reasons incorrectly
>For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell . . .
We are supposed to live in a logico-ethical system, but that logico-ethical system is the divine law itself in the Mind of God, and its the Spirit of God that gives us the power to fulfil it.
>>7393149
> but that logico-ethical system is the divine law itself in the Mind of God
This is the point to stress. This divine Logos is God, it is principally in His Mind, not in our own minds. We aren't given our rational nature by God and then asked to use that rational nature to construct its own logical and moral principles. No; we are given our rational nature and then that nature is empowered by God so that it can participate in the logical and moral principles that inhere in God, the Logos, the reason and purpose of all things.
Yesterday I made friends with a chubby, pretty average looking girl and I thought she'd make for good "practice" before I attempt to get with a hotter girl, since I haven't had a gf before
then I remembered I should never look at people as a means, only an end and I felt bad
then I remembered Kant died a virgin
>>7393224
Awesome post bro! Gonna repost this on facebook for all the dudes to see haha!
>>7393224
>then I remembered I should never look at people as a means, only an end and I felt bad
this is false
you can look at people as means, but never forget that they are more than this.
>>7393107
I don't want to come across as a meme poster, but that Kierkegaard quote seems rather stirnerian. Are there other such parallels between the two? I must admit I haven't read much of Captain Kierk, but (paraphrased) some Anon here said he is basically arriving at the same conclusion of Stirner's unintentional egoism and tries to overcome it with christian thought.
If this is utterly wrong, please go ahead and tell me so. I am not gonna be getting around to actually reading more than secondary sources on Kierkegaard in a while, but don't want to run around with a crooked impression in my head until then.
Also, sorry if I am getting off-topic here.
>>7393258
Kierkegaard had a strong individualist philosophy if that's what you mean, but neither Kant not Kierkegaard were egoists in the sense Striner was.
Kant tries to give a universal morality, but not to overcome Christianity. After all he saw it as a positive thing and I think he was a pious man himself.
>>7393271
I don't mean Kierkegaard was an egoist, but that he saw it as the consequence of not-being-christian, or rather the state to overcome by being christian.
>>7393108
>Do it because LOGIC demands it. He is asserting that a natural law of sorts does exist, but not in nature or from within the numunal realm of divine wisdom, but from within each thinking person's capacity to reason and act according to strict logic.
exactly and sincerely, kant should have meditated a bit, instead of going full speculation and relying on logic, logic which has been tremendously undermined by its lack of result wrt its own posited goals.
kant is the best answer to hume and yet this rationalist fails miserably.
