/lit/ - Literature

>>17447270
Schiller improves upon it.

I sympathize with his intent, but he pre-arrived at his ethical maxims and _then_ thought of ways to universalize them, even though by the same sophistic devices one can universalize pretty much any maxim.

>>17447270
>Aryan
So the closest system to Bronze Age Eurasian steppe nomads?

>>17447270
I know you are uneducated.

Kant spend his life being a racist and calling negroes subhumans

he spend a minority of a his time pushing for humanism an making a mental gymnastics for it

>>17447299
He didn't choose his maxims and then universalize them. He chose his maxims because they could be universalized.

>>17447371
Kant thought everyone was born white but they became black afterwards, starting from the penis. His was probably really melanized so he likely assumed he narrowly escaped from being black.

>>17447435
So you say.
Almost anything can be universalized with the Kantian bag o' tricks.

>>17447506
i bet kant decided to be a permanent retarded virgin because his childhood friends made fun of him for his weird dick. lmfao. like a chocolate banana.

Kantism only achievies its true power combined with Buddhism

>>17447756
Seems stupid.

>>17447698
Yes, which is why it's easier to derive moral maxims indirectly by identifying the immoral ones (i.e. those which fail to universalize).

>>17447299
No, his ethical system is very simple: if everyone does action X, is the effect good or bad?

without him the West would be chink/poo tier by now

>>17447928
That's precisely what universalization means in the context of Kantian ethics.

>>17447928
>if everyone does action X, is the effect good or bad?
Oh cool. X = "Lying to prevent someone being murdered." Effect seems good to me.

>>17447928
>is the effect good or bad?
Depends upon the subject. This barely solves anything that isn't already common sense for those who aren't literal sociopaths or psychopaths.

>>17447928
> if everyone does action X, is the effect good or bad?
I can't think of a single such thing.

Everyone always telling the truth was refuted by that one Seinfeld episode for example.

Where do I start with Kant? I am an ignorant retard who doesn't know anything about philosophy but I care for people.

>>17448225
>I am an ignorant retard who doesn't know anything about philosophy
You don't. Start with Plato and Aristotle and work your way there slowly as you start to feel like you're understanding what's being said

>>17447928
>if everyone does action X, is the effect good or bad?
The sophistic devices and contrivances enter the picture when Kantian deontologists decide whether a universalized effect is good or bad. They've already decided what they want to be agreeable when universalized and then play their sloppy little games to show how it's agreeable. But then suddenly they turn into rigorous schoolmasters when someone plays the same games with maxims that offend Kantian taste.

>>17448225
start with jerking off and end with a family that loves and respects you even though many of the choices that you made along the way were fucking retarded. dont read philosophy of any sort.

>>17448225
Critique of Pure Reason but i'd go with what the other anon said and just read the five dialogues from Plato. Not that you need it to understand Kant but you'll probably get filtered either way if it's the first thing you read.

>>17448189
Think again. If everyone started lying, then the entire system of communication begins to topple over. You'll surely regret that!

>>17448240
>>17448262
Thanks lads.

>>17448307
Once you start to feel like pic related after reading the various metaphysical arguments and counter-arguments from the Greeks to the Christians and the rationalists, and get an idea of what all of their arguments hinge upon (this can really only come with experience and time to think the things you've read over), then you move onto Kant.

>>17448279
Everyone always saying the truth seems to be just as unbearable. Unless there is some special clause that whatever one then says must be true by definition, which means there wouldn't be very much said, then what it really means is that everyone always says what they think. And I can't think of a worse existence.

>>17448206
But it isn't common sense that all we can infer from reason alone concerning morals is the form of moral statements.

>>17448279
>Think again. If everyone started lying, then the entire system of communication begins to topple over. You'll surely regret that!
No, you let me choose X, and my X wasn't "lying"; it was "lying to prevent someone being murdered." This is the Kantian trick I call qualifier minimization.

>>17448279
If everyone started truth-telling, innocent people would be murdered, and I'd surely regret that.

>>17448425
/thread
kaboom

>>17448425
If everyone could only tell the truth then after the initial killings no one would be able to lie and get into killable situations to begin with.

>>17448448
>If everyone could only tell the truth then after the initial killings no one would be able to lie and get into killable situations to begin with.
wut? sounds like that infamous Kantian cope, bro.

>>17448448
>*wild shut-in psychopath appears*

>>17447270
This little goblin didn't come up with anything "aryan"

>>17448225
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
ITT: people misusing Kant's categorical imperative and thinking "weird man bad." Kant is based.

>>17448490
wild shut-in psychopath increased its defense!

>>17447270
Refute by Elizabeth Anscombe. You cannot be your own judge.

>MUH AUTONOMY

>>17448329
What's the point of getting into metaphysics?

>>17447270
I spent my entire undergrad education just trying to think of valid arguments against his philosophy. He’s just too strong.

>>17447928
There are more formulations of the categorical imperative which you seem to be neglecting.

>>17449741
Explain.