/lit/ - Literature

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

Kant often paid lip service to christianity, but if you read and understand his philosophy you'll see that his ethics and metaphysics is secular. He talks of "a practical postualte of God" and such things but in reality his philosophy works independent of any divinity.

Kant fucked his own mother.

I like the book but I wouldn't say it's that great

How interesting that Kant, of all people, should claim that something is morally wrong on practical grounds.

I can very much rationally will the universalizability of the maxim 'Thou shalt insult the Bible!'

I'm sure he's jsut using hyperbole or something

>>901678
ＳＴoP fuｃＫIＮg ＡＴＴａCＫIng_ｗwW.ＡＮOlａＷLＴａlｋ.Ｓe_RＥpＬａcＥ ＬawL_ＷＩｔＨ_n
pq mpb h vf s tv jcm hixkda fmecfe o qu

Kant never wrote that in any of his published books or essays. Its just some scribble from a loose page preserved in the Konigsberg library, it does not represent Kant because it cant be determined if its Kants view or someone else's.

Kant is bullshit...the basic premise of his philosophy is flawed...so yeah, you should only do something that you think should become universal law...maybe I want to punch people weaker than me....i think punching people than you should be universal law....what now Kant?

>>901677
sＴｏＰ ＦＵCKｉNG_AｔｔaCｋiNＧ WWｗ.aNＯｌａWLTＡｌk.SE RＥＰLACE lａＷｌ_ＷＩTH Ｎ
vq h amr hikqx o mz yi pgoxlapd dsjlsjw woz sxmpm wcnjp

>>901681

Kant was a shit of a man.

But his Kantian system of ethics has been a useful base for later systems, such as Rawls writings.

Of course, the Kantian system itself has more holes in it than a Hissidic Jew in a Somali Pirate Mosque, and is clearly a morality system designed to appeal to sociopaths and asspies.

Kant can take his bible and choke on it. He ruined a woman's life once by telling her that she would be immoral if she went back on her pledge to marry a known asshole who took all her money.

She followed his advice and her life was ruined.

Kant used her as an argument.

That means Kant is a hypocrite as he claims that people should not use each other as tools, as under the Kantian system, you'd discern using and being used as being immoral.

Therefore, Kant is a dick, and the bible suits him, because it is a dick book for dicks.

Sadly you been misinformed. The categorical imprative states that "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" the word "will" is the importat word, Kants clam is that humans, as rational agents, ONLY CAN WILL certain maxims (subjective dispositions), maxims that won't dissolve/annul themself by being logical incoherent when universalized.The maxim "I want to punch people weaker than me" is not ( Kant would say) universalizable.

>>903384

You're full of shit. That can't work under Kant's system.

Wow that guy's name BEGS to be used as a pun.

Indeed I ... Kant resist...


Look, the point is. If you want to universalise 'punching', you have to not only want to punch one guy, but want everyone to punch everyone, including you.

In other words, too many punchings for one world.

You would die.

>>903417

I like the way you put it better.

>>903384
Well...just because you want to will it as a universal law doesn't mean that its necessarily and ethical law. In order for it to be ethical you have to attempt a process of 'deontological reasoning' where you imagine a world comprised by that principle, where everyone acted in this fashion. A world where stronger people continually punched weaker people doesn't actually make logical sense, it wouldn't work, society itself would break down. A world where everyone told the truth, however, is imaginable. A world of truth is an ethical world, a world of weenie-punching is unimaginable. (The weenies would hide in their houses all the time!)

>>903419
Too many punchings for one world...this also dramatizes the dilemma quite well.

>>903415
>Kant used her as an argument.

No he didn't. That's the most far-fetched attempt to attack Kant's character I've ever seen.

It's really much, MUCH easier to just pick examples from of his racism (he denigrates blacks at least a few times), bizarre reading of his own morality (it is wrong to cut your hair and sell it, one of the worst sins ever is over-eating).

But it's simply retarded to suggest he used the woman as an argument. How exactly did he use her to demonstrate the correctness of his views?

No, it sounds to me like he just believed his own ethical system to the point that he held that breaking a promise even in this instance was wrong and advised her accordingly. Which was bad advice. But not hypocritical advice.

Seeing as the categorical imperative is kind of Kant's interpretation of the Golden Rule, I'm not surprised he'd consider the Bible so valuable.

>>903384

Oh look, it's some faggot who only ever took a course on Ethics and doesn't know that Kant's philosophy consists of way more than his ethics.

Enjoy your Kant-bashing thread, hipsters.

>>903265
Sup, Freud