Ethics is just applied Metaphysics Metaphysics is just applied

>>956067
>Ethics is just applied Metaphysics
You lost me at the very first step

you are wrong about this

>applied

what does that even mean

>>956072
but ethical conclusions are derived from things like free will, personhood, responsibility, divine creation

>>956118
arguments in ethics often include considerations of metaphysics. but this isn't sufficient to say that ethics is just applied metaphysics. just as arguments in metaphysics sometimes include considerations of physics, but metaphysics is certainly not just applied physics.

File: KantBeer.jpg (28KB, 195x277px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 195x277px

>>956067

>Perception is just applied Thought

>Thought is just applied Appetite

You'd best get critiquing, anon.

File: rer.jpg (55KB, 1022x547px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1022x547px

>>956201
>pure reason

>>956212

Can you explain what you're laughing at?

>>956212
Typical Humefag response

Appetite is just apllied burger flipping.

Philosophy is literally dead.

>>956258
*Raughing

>>956297
burger flipping is applied philosophy

File: 1448642230990.jpg (30KB, 306x391px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 306x391px

>>956067
>appetite
>not being

>>956258

I'm assuming the answer to this is "no," then.

>>957885
Kant presumes that "pure reason" is not only the "true self" but also even possible.

You can't detach yourself from the constraints of your personality and value system. If you did that, you wouldn't be doing anything at all. You would remove all drive, all valuation, all reason to act in accordance with any law, let alone give yourself any law.

Schopenhauer had it right, at least in that he acknowledged the reality of this. Only difference is, this is what he thinks we ought to do. Just attain ultimate ambivalence toward life and die slowly and quietly.

>>956118
No. What you said have importance in some instances but not all, it's not in any way "derived" from free will, person-hood, responsibility and divine creation.

File: skulls outline.jpg (14KB, 653x238px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 653x238px

>>957945

> Kant presumes

But he's got quite intricate arguments in defense of his positions.

> that "pure reason" is not only the "true self"

Not exactly. "Pure reason" is a general term for the a priori faculties of the human mind, all of which result from the "true," fundamental, transcendental self, but not all of which characterize that transcendental self in-itself. It's too broad of a statement to say "pure reason is the true self, according to Kant." For example, the faculty of sensibility, with its a priori forms of space and time, is a part of "pure reason," even though space and time only characterize the phenomenal world, and thus the "true" transcendental self is not a spatiotemporal being; in contrast, the faculty of rationality ("reason," not in a general sense, but more strictly defined) is also a part of pure reason, but characterizes both the phenomenal world *and* characterizes the "true," fundamental, transcendental self.

> but also even possible.

Kant argues that after we reflect upon experience, we can remove all the empirical data given a posteriori in it, and can be left with pure reason's a priori forms; Schopenhauer essentially agrees, acknowledging that such a method is possible (strictly speaking, is "thinkable"), though he drew different vastly different conclusions for ethics, and to a lesser extent for aesthetics.

> You can't detach yourself from the constraints of your personality and value system.

Kant agrees - as long as "personality" means "transcendental self" rather than "empirical self." And Schopenhauer would agree with Kant that an individual human can philosophically observe, reflect upon, his/her own personal character in separation from the actual behaviors that spring from that character.

The main difference between Kant and Schopenhauer, as I see it, is Kant affirms that the "true" self, the soul-in-itself, possesses a rational form, while Schopenhauer denies it any intrinsic intelligence and intelligibility.