[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:

View post   
>> No.17437396 [View]
File: 43 KB, 474x682, download (19).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17437396

I'll admit, Kant isn't the be-all, end-all of philosophy, as much as I wish he was.
However, anybody who reads and understands A Critique of Pure Reason has a full skillset to fucking body any reddit-tier science-ism follower. You just have to not use any of kant's terminology or his name because their programmers have discovered the bug and placed ad-hoc subroutines for any buzzwords.
Any other philosophers that provide such an efficient and thorough head-and-shoulders lead over midwits?
Thomas Hobbes comes to mind.

>> No.17413437 [View]
File: 43 KB, 474x682, download (19).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17413437

>>17411329
I DON'T LIVE WITH IT BECAUSE MY MAD FUCKING BRAIN GAINS ARE A PRIOI CONCEPTIONS

>> No.17373862 [View]
File: 43 KB, 474x682, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17373862

Are deontological ethics the best form of ethics?

Other systems seem to be very vulnerable to egotistical corruption i.e. consequentialists only doing something good for praise or attention while the deontologist will do it because they feel it's right.

What's wrong with deontological ethics?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]