/lit/ - Literature

Objective morality (as opposed to "formal" morality) physically exists. We demonstrate this by two ways, the Continental (through Hegelian dialectic) and the Analytic, through etymology.

By dialectic (abstract, negative, concrete)
ABSTRACT: All morality is relative.
NEGATION: Morality is objective (evolutionary morality, psychology, natural law theory).
CONCRETE: Morality is objectively relative to each particular context and society and therefore, absolute morality is only objective in considering all moral systems together rather than in particular (morality becomes more objective the more particular moralities and ethics are considered together, not just only Aristotle, Bentham or Kant individually but Aristotle AND Bentham AND Kant)

Analytically, by etymology, English 'morality' comes Late Latin mōrālitās (“manner, characteristic, character”), from Latin mōrālis (“relating to manners or morals”), from mōs (“manner, custom”). equivalent to moral + -ity. Therefore, positively, morality relates to custom and manner rather than normatives of good and evil.

So objective morality exists, only in the Universal. Unfortunately, that then leads to other questions, about the nature of the Divine Itself. It then becomes a battle between classical and German theology... Aristotelians, Augustinians and Thomists against Kantians, Hegelians and we-know-who.

Theistic imperative: "Act as if you were God."
Panentheistic imperative: "Act as if all, including others and yourself, were encompassed by God."

Critically, what would we the implications of each imperative, in particular as ethical/moral guidelines?

>"Being is evidently not a real predicate."
How did he come to this conclusion? Is it accurate? Yes I have read his reasoning, but while I can understand the argument that existence in itself does not add anything to a concept, but I'm not sure this is really what Anselm is trying to say in his argument. He is not principally referring to existence in itself as a property but to existence in concreto as opposed to existence merely in the understanding, and Kant even admits that what exists in concreto is superior to that which is a pure concept of the understanding, namely, in that "through pure concepts of the understanding, apart from any conditions of sensibility, it is impossible to represent any objects" (B596, A568), if I understand him correctly. For Anselm, for that than which nothing greater can be conceived to be truly so called, it must exist in concreto, not merely as a pure concept of the understanding, and while existence in itself may not be predicated of anything—I am not sure that Anselm's argument depends on the contrary being true—surely existence in concreto or existence in the understanding could be predicated at least of existence, even if existence is merely a relation between subject and object. It would thus be predicated of the relation, that is, either x (as an existent) could relate to y as something which is immediate to y, or x could relate to y as something of which y may only conceive. Not only this, but if x and y are immediately related in that x, since it exists in concreto, is therefore sensible to y, then is not x as a concrete object not now superior to x as a mere object of thought, making it superior not in quantity (as the object is not in Kant's example of money), but in quality, namely, in its utility? A hundred real dollars are surely more useful to me than a hundred imaginary dollars, not superior in themselves but in their relation to me—and existence is a relation. In the same way, a concrete God is superior to an imaginary one.
Or maybe I'm just stupid. This objection seems too simple to me to be plausible. Surely Kant would have considered such an objection, right? Or if it was plausible then surely someone would have already proposed it in the literature by now, right? Is there anyone who has? I feel like I have to be missing something.

>>12994913
Greek science man says things be like it do; convincing.
German science man revolutionizes metaphysics while simultaneously solving the issue of metaethics; flimsiest shit ever.

>>12294060
always look for the ugliest painting; most portraits were done on commission, and you want to look nice in a commissioned portrait.

>the "good" Berkeley
Ouch

>>11770074
Could someone summarize his philosophy for me?

Was it autism?

How can one man be absolutely correct about epistemology/metaphysics and yet completely shit the bed on moral philosophy?

I guess autists don't do so well when human affairs are in question...

>>11079028
>Kant is shit on in most phil depts
>t. never been in a university philosophy class
I had to read Kant for classes in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political theory, and I know someone who did an animal rights course and even that had Kant readings in it. I wrote half my philosophy papers on Kantian metaphysics/ethics and I graded with honors.

>Emmanuel Kant: Drank a *lot* of coffee. When he didn't have a cup for a while he became distraught and would cry "I am drowning!"
This was the sign for his servants to bring him a new cup of coffee molto pronto.
When he saw it arriving he would cry "Land! My dear friends, I see land!!"

I want to bully him. What a fucking dork. Doesnt help that his moral theory is terrible.

>>11022387
Truth, he would get BTFO if he ever bothered to pick up the first critique.

>>11006895
Read more Kant. Making a universal law is different than simply doing something, and Kant was explicit about that. This is how the state can morally retain things like the power of legislation and a monopoly on violence.

>>10988383
He was making huge strides in math and science before he read Hume and decided to give up on all that and solve the epistemological gap. He was literally one of the smartest people to have ever put pen to paper.
>Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics,[41] but he made significant contributions to other disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."

>In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms.[42]

You know, I thought I loved philosophy, and I still do, but I can't stand reading Kant. It's just so fucking unpleasant, you have to extrapolate from the past shit he said and apply it to the context like every single second. This is an actual chart of the system that Kant uses. It has honestly made my spring vacation a total joke. I have avoided actually reading classic literature like Heart of Darkness, like I thought I would be reading, and finishing up Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, because I don't like to get too distracted from my homework of reading Kant. I can say pretty confidently and unequivocally, fuck Kant.

>>10646894
>Beethoven was Flemish
Not a problem, because Mozart was better in nearly every regard.

>The only German that approached having literary value was Thomas Mann and he had to flee Germany because of it.
When I imagine you saying this, I imagine some anglo shit-head who reads Rudyard Kipling thinking it's high art (which is a meme anyway), and pretentiously sipping some gay drink, like Darjeeling, and utterly incapable of differentiating true intelligent and skilled writing from half-baked pop-high-art.

>>9997727
I'd punch Kant