[ 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

View post   
File: 29 KB, 620x400, immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277139 No.16277139 [Reply] [Original]

>JUST FOLLOW THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE BRO

>> No.16277144
File: 611 KB, 946x933, 5FAC1645-5FF2-428A-9CCF-BBE469FD0FEF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277144

>just follow my weightless kisses bro

>> No.16277145

>>16277139
Which is?

>> No.16277152

What's your answer to the killer at the door problem?

>> No.16277197

>>16277152
Kant himself has said that refusing to answer is the solution.

>> No.16277207

>>16277152
There are many ways you can act in which you adhere to the categorical imperative. Telling the murder the location of your friend is not one of them.

>> No.16277234

>>16277152
Shotgun?

>> No.16277820
File: 785 KB, 720x1560, Screenshot_20200827-165627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277820

>>16277152
You avoid or remove the killer

Categorical imperative just means in an argument or circumstance you follow the question or frame of thought as far as you can, and that you don't switch topics and avoid a frame of thought when trying to win someone over. The categorical imperative is designed to help you logically win if you have the knowledge necessary, not make you autistically and automatically lose.

So the categorical imperative in the case of a killer at the door would be to respond with a revolver so you can win. The imperative is in this case a physical bout with death, so you face it and defeat it.

Pic related is another dumb example of people missing the point.

>> No.16277827

>>16277820
The category* not the imperative

>> No.16277843

>>16277139
I don’t really feel like it

>> No.16277847

>>16277139
Can you explain why I should follow the categorical imperative without appealing to egoist principles?

>> No.16277854

>>16277847
Just don't be a dick about it

>> No.16277879

>>16277847
You asked “why” thus you betray your valuation of reason. Since you value reason, it follows you should do what is reasonable in all circumstances. What is reasonable is what conforms to the categorical imperative.

>> No.16277894

>>16277879
you’d have to actually show that following the categorical imperative is most “reasonable,” whatever that means

>> No.16277951

>>16277847
To put it another way, is it possible that an action be most preferable and beneficial to myself, while not conforming to the categorical imperative? If so, then what reason is there to follow the categorical imperative deontologically?

>> No.16278025

>>16277894
Well, I’m pretty sure that was Kunt’s whole project but I never read him beyond the Groundwork and a few excerpts from the first Critique. I don’t really like the imperative but wanted to defend it how I understand it to be defended

>> No.16278046

>>16277820
>el goblino de konigsberg
Kek