[ 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: 385 KB, 1100x2127, Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay[2].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6283782 No.6283782 [Reply] [Original]

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you.

>> No.6283818

>>6283782

Beat Kant to the punch by 1600 years.

>> No.6283827

>>6283818
I'm not sure you know what "Kant" is

>> No.6283868

>>6283818
That's not really Kant's position at all.

>> No.6283878

Amen

>> No.6283885

>>6283827
I know you're being a fucking kant right now.

>> No.6283890

Dear Lord,

My gf has a smelly kant. What ought I to do?

>> No.6283922

>>6283890
Do unto her as you would will to be a universal law.

>> No.6283933

>>6283827
>>6283868
>>6283885

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I don't see the difference.

>> No.6283945

>>6283933
On the surface they are quite similar.

The difference, of course, is that the Categorical Imperative comes from a human, and so we can always chalk it up to >muh feelings.

"Love one another" comes from Jesus, who at least makes a claim to divine authority, which by the nature of the Christian God is also Absolute authority. God is the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, because he rules over both.

This is why there is no such thing as non-theistic morality.

>> No.6283958

>>6283945

You're saying they have the same idea, but that because Jesus is Christ he cannot have forwarded an ethical principle, only a moral one?

If it changes the game, canon Christianity treats him as both God and man.

>> No.6283980

>>6283933
Well, first of all, there's a significant difference between "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and "Love one another as I [God] have loved you."

Second, the categorical imperative, while it also instructs us to value others, does not carry the assumption that we should necessarily treat them as we personally would like to be treated. Rather, it establishes the maxim that we should treat others as we would like everyone to be treated.

Likewise, Kant often spoke of the Categorical Imperative more as a negative proposition than a positive one. His principles imply we should do nothing but what we would want everyone to do, even if another is not directly effected by our actions.

>> No.6284002

>>6283980

Actually, it does. Exactly how you would wish to be treated, because if you are to act on a maxim that you wish to be universal treatment or law and you yourself wish to be treated well you must treat others to the same condition.

Kant's first phrasing saves it.

>> No.6284045

>>6284002
They're functionally different. Common examples include morally neutral propositions: (e.g. cat ownership: under the golden rule you should give everyone cats on the grounds that you like cats while under the categorical imperative you should refuse to let anyone have cats on the grounds that some people are allergic) and cases of unusual moral standing (e.g. the unrepentant sinner: under the golden rule we should forgive others because we would wish to be forgiven, under the categorical imperative we may reasonably will it to be universal law that sins should be prevented)

>> No.6284453

So does Jesus want me to suck 12 dicks? Not sure how much I like that

>> No.6284457

Let men debate as much as they wish about which object of love is the most perfect—there can never be any doubt that love to one's neighbor is the most perfect love. All other love, therefore, is imperfect in that there are two questions and thereby a certain duplicity: there is first a question about the object and then about the love, or there is a question about both the object and the love. But concerning love to one's neighbor there is only one question, that about love. And there is only one answer of the eternal: this is genuine love, for love to one's neighbor is not related as a type to other types of love. Erotic love is determined by the object; friendship is determined by the object; only love to one's neighbor is determined by love.

>> No.6284485

>>6284453
Stop right there, blasphemer, are you suggesting Jesus, son of the almighty, only sucked 12 dicks? He obviously sucked every dick that ever existed, with hi heart. And while we're not commanded to become like him, this still is the essence of christianity: to suck all the dicks, with your heart.

>> No.6284489

>>6284045
>under the categorical imperative you should refuse to let anyone have cats on the grounds that some people are allergic
Ok now I want to perform some dark ritual to ressurect the body of Kant just so he can point an axe-murderer to your house.

>> No.6284531

why dosent god/jesus/whoever just create the world like a giant rubics cube, where you start off not believing, but believe in him just by chance before you die, so everyone goes to heaven, but while still having a choice?

>> No.6284533

>>6284531
because that's NOT HOW IT WORKS
LOSER

>> No.6284534

>>6284531
er, i mean rube goldberg machine

>> No.6284540

>>6284533
i believe you mean "because thats not logical".

to which comes my second point. god turned water into wine. can he not turn illogical into logical? i mean, he invented logic. it bends to his will. so why dosent he do it?

Is logic, more powerful then god?

>> No.6284544

>>6284540
shut up nerd
the bible is the ONLY WAY
ACCEPT JESUS ACCEPT JESUS
ACCEPT JESUS ACCEPT JESUS
ACCEPT JESUS ACCEPT JESUS

>> No.6284554

>>6283782
Time for buttsex.

>> No.6284578
File: 722 KB, 2880x2160, Monument_Valley_Merrick_Butte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6284578

>tfw fingering your bros gfs buttehole

>> No.6284583

So I hold them hostage and threaten eternal punishment for their disobedience to my will?

>> No.6285248

>>6283782
nigga got that crazy eye

>> No.6286994

>>6284531
Why would God do that? Going to heaven is great, but that alone isn't exactly the point of being a Christian.

Have you considered that your hypothetical model may be inferior to God's?

>> No.6287013

>>6284583
Going to hell isn't so much a punishment as it is a natural consequence of rejecting God, the source of all love, truth and beauty. Any place where God is not has to suck pretty bad.

>> No.6287016

>>6287013
no worse than earth

>> No.6287020

>>6287016
This literal mf

>> No.6287074

>>6287016
Stop thinking of hell as a physical space like Hades. The Bible uses Gehenna, which is a real place. It's the valley where the Canaanites used to sacrifice their children, usually by burning them alive.

Running from God will land you in the unquenchable fires of Gehenna. Does that start to shape it up for you?