/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3219210]

Should I read Decartes' Discourse on Method or Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?

Looking to read some philosophy, and those are the two that I have on hand.

[Anonymous No.3219212]

Either one, but probably Descartes

[Anonymous No.3219218]

Why not both? Descartes' Discourse is pretty readable and follows a logical progression. I haven't looked at Kant yet, though.

[demiurge No.3219229]

critique of pure reason. dump discourse and get the meditations.

[Anonymous No.3219242]

>>3219229
Just looked at my copy, and it has Meditations as well. Should I go with that?

and
>>3219218
I'm only going to read one right now because I have a lot of other things to read. I want to move on to some other stuff as well.

[demiurge No.3219250]

>>3219242
yeah. read meditations first. that's softcore 80s philosophy, digest it, consider the arguments. then read kant's prolegomena, just download it from earlymoderntexts.com/f_kant.html when you're done with that do the critique.

the critique is the porn equivalent of that torture-snuff shit in videodrome... so much structure... but he's pretty good. remember to write on the margins.

[Anonymous No.3219253]

Kant was one of the worst writers ever. If you want to get a feel for him try some secondary literature.

[Anonymous No.3219262]

Since nobody in the other thread bothered to answer, someone wanna tell me why a categorical imperative isn't just arbitrary bullshit?

[Anonymous No.3219281]

>>3219262
Th categorical imperative isn't just whats good or bad, its the necessary conditions for a group of people to work effectively together indefinitely.

[Anonymous No.3219283]

>>3219281

Why is it necessary, and how can it work indefinitely? How can we collectively decide on which moral path to take?

[demiurge No.3219288]

>>3219283
how about you read the book dipshit

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3219292]

>>3219250

>videodrome and kantian porn analogies

its safe to say you've downgraded yourself at least 2 stages from gey as fuck, keep it up demifruge

[Anonymous No.3219296]

>>3219288

So, it can't be explained in words? Did you not understand it yourself?

[demiurge No.3219331]

>>3219296
it obviously can be explained into words, there's a fucking book on it. any attempt to explain is just gonna be met with a bunch of annoying questions that kant thought up a couple hundred years before you and adressed in HIS GODDAMN BOOK. this is the gist: you can extrapolate morality from reason, the categorical imperative follows from a) only do those things everyone could do, b) don't use people as a means to an end, c) act as if your moral reasonings are law.

you can direct any nitpicking to kant's grave --->

>>3219292
t'es mechante, dede

[Anonymous No.3219412]

>>3219331

If these 'annoying questions' can't be answered easily, there's something wrong with Kant's thinking, so you shouldn't have trouble if what he was saying is sound.

>morality from reason

Is not necessarily a workable moral system. Reason can only get us so far.

Why are
A, B, or C not arbitrary value judgments?

[demiurge No.3219426]

>>3219412
>If these 'annoying questions' can't be answered easily

sure they can, someone named immanuel answered them. you being too lazy to read != kant being wrong.

>there's something wrong with Kant's thinking
>only simple shit is correct hurrrr durrr

fuck off ya simple cunt

[Anonymous No.3219440]

>>3219426

Please answer the questions. If you don't understand the issue, don't act like you know that it's not bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3219463]

>>3219292

Just curious, does this mean he is more or less gay?

[Arrogant No.3219465]

>>3219210

What are you expecting to get out of either one?

If you can answer that, you can probably get a better response, and maybe some better insight for when you do decide to read.

[demiurge No.3219469]

>>3219463
i'm pretty certain he means more gay.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3219486]

>>3219463

yeah i see what you mean, fairly ambiguous.
so like, two stages below gey as fuck puts you considerably lower on the gayness scale. so less.

compare that to about 2 stages above gey as fuck, which puts you at around the gayness level of cross-dressing yoga instructor with a tattoo on his lower back reading "i bet you won't", which is where this beautiful human being>>3219465 is at right now

[Arrogant No.3219653]

>>3219486

intimidated by the better are we?

[Anonymous No.3219730]

>>3219210
OP you really should read Hume between Descartes and Kant. A fair bit of Kant's work is in direct response to Hume who's ideas tear apart all previous metaphysical claims.

[Anonymous No.3219986]

>>3219412
>If these 'annoying questions' can't be answered easily, there's something wrong with Kant's thinking

Maybe you would be better served reading popular science books or advice literature in that case.

Regardless, I have read the 'critique of pure reason' and I am currently reading the 'critique of practical reason/metaphysics of the virtues'.
A common misunderstanding seems to be that Kant is a dogmatist when he is not. He does not just toss transcendental claims around which where derived from his buttocks.

He does root his claims in empiricism. It does seem to be a bit similar to Descartes meditation in a sense.
Kant does start of at human praxis and attempts to systematically remove the aspects which are part of perception or experience to reach what of it must be part of reason.

What tipped him of in short seems to be something along the lines of: 'If Hume was right, why do we have some ideas for which his system can not account for. If all ideas are derived from perception, why do we have some ideas which are not.' He seems to conclude, that some aspects must be rooted in the reason of man, prior to all experience.

His argument against consequential approaches to moral deeds is, that I never can define the morality of a deed based on its outcome, since I never can overlook all of its consequences.

So, he concludes, what is the framework which underlies the morality of any action? That is where the categorical imperative occurs. If I can not know the rightfulness of my action from estimating the consequences, what is it reason does, when it does decide on the rightfulness of an action?

The question is, would my action still stand, if everyone would act upon the way I handle it this time? And there is the categorical imperative: If the maxim of my action was to be general law of action, could I want people to act according to it.

[Anonymous No.3219991]

>>3219986

>He seems to conclude, that some aspects must be rooted in the reason of man, prior to all experience.

I don't see how that follows

>what is it reason does, when it does decide on the rightfulness of an action?

Why is reason of necessity the rubric we rely on to determine rightfulness?

Why is the notion that your maxim works under a general law of action necessarily of any importance?

[Anonymous No.3220027]

>>3219991
It is a bit of a contrafactual conditional in regards to Hume. In short it is something like: "If Hume's categories 'perception' and 'ideas' are supposed to account for everything, why do they not."(I am also posting in the Hume thread, so some things might double.)

It is like going into a room with 10 items with a person who claims that he can tell you the story for every item where he got it from.
He does that for 8 items and then says: "You see, I told you where I got all of them", and you are like: "What? Where the heck did the 2 remaining items come from?".

Why reason leads the way does seem to be a bit in an Aristotelian tradition. It was something like: "If man was only supposed to be happy, he would have been better of with instincts then reason, so what is the reason for?" I did not read it that thoroughly since I was not that interested in that part, but he does explain it in the book, if it is convincing is up to the reader I guess.

The notion is of importance since he actually does try to derive a easy to use principal, I believe. If my urges and my reason are in conflict, how do I determine what to do?
I can not decide based on the consequences, since I can not know them, so he hands me a test that I can apply.

Could I want to lie once? Yes, certainly.
But could I want that all people lie all the time?
No, certainly not, because communication would go to shit.

It might be that Kant presupposes that one feels any urge to do 'right' at all and wonders how to determine what to do to begin with. So, of course, if someone just gives a shit and does what ever, that can't be helped, but that does not harm the theory either in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.3220036]

>>3220027

It's a workable system. I'm not denying that. But it's absurd to say it's anything but 'arbitrary bullshit'. There's no inherent reason to go with a categorical imperative over any other approach to ethical thinking

[Anonymous No.3220066]

>>3220036

[Anonymous No.3220105]

>>3220066
the categorical imperative is the german academic version of slave morality. i'd probably prefer utilitarianism to deontology, although they are both slave moralities.

[Anonymous No.3220114]

>>3220105

[Anonymous No.3220141]

[Anonymous No.3220142]

>>3220105
And how is it that you determine the utilitarian value of an action?

[Anonymous No.3220149]

>>3220114
it really is.
>>3220142
don't know.