Kant's Critique of Practical Reason

>>9636460
Except it's really easy. Universal happiness is not the main goal to personal happiness, therefore no one will realistically strive for it.

You don't have to defeat it, just disregard it and move on.

truth is an error

>>9636481
that is untruthful.

>>9636460
Something friend/target comes over something axe murderer something open door, do I lie guys????

I think the primary criticism of the Enlightenment project in total is its inappropriate application of systematic epistemology to the moral sphere. Morality had never been conceived as an independent system of thought of duties and consequences prior to a rough origination from shattered Protestant sentimentalism. In fact, it was never considered at all! Aside from ethics - a very divorced area of thought and practice from that of contemporary moralism.

Anywho, those Enlightenment fuckers thought they could deduce from first principles a systematic, coherent system of thought that derived its justification from its own consistency. They thought they could discover morality as if it were a matter of proper frame of reference and reason. The problem is that, divorced from lived experience as an agent deriving moral legitimacy from those positions in the world, the new quasi-I feels open to adopting a system of morals from its own framework of consistency. This results in the infamous battles between deontology and utilitarianism, ultimately boiling down to shrilling counter-assertions about fundamentals. Eventually leading into intuitionism and then, at an inverse apical, emotivism, where personas of the world proceed according to ends no longer subject to moral scrutiny i.e Weberian managerialism; and the new quasi-I feels isolated, threatened, and unable to sustain a historical continuity due to the lack of ability to hold any individual position safe from his own designs.

In short, read some Nietzsche.

>>9636468
t. never actually read Kant and didn't understand the shitty stanford and wiki articles
>>9636470
This is the correct answer - you aren't obliged to accept the categorical imperative - it is a product of Kant's fiction.

There has never been a valid criticism of Kant that isn't a complete misreading of Kant. Like >>9636468 for example, the categorical imperative is not about happiness. really basic misreading of the fundamental aspects of the argument.

>>9636592
I did read him actually but dropped him after he claimed math is intrinsical to the human brain, rather than a language we teach each other.

>>9636594
Except I'm addressing the implied rhetoric behind the law rather than the law itself, not my fault that Kantists are so obsessed with their view of "reason" that anything outside that frame is seen as "misunderstanding".

If the path to happiness differs per individual, universalizing that ethic (even in theory) is a flawed and irrelevant thought experiment.

>>9636623
So for what reason did you make a trash post that displayed profound misunderstanding of Kant? The notion of the categorical imperative is simple and you fail to understand it.
>I dropped him after he claimed math is intrinsic to the human brain rather than a language we teach each other
So you're telling me that you can't grasp a simple concept yet you are ready to claim with absolute certainty that the idea that mathematics is intrinsic to the human mind is absurd, and that it is merely a language we learn? Are you fucking kidding me? Why are subhuman sub 100 IQ apes so attracted to philosophy of language? Get the fuck out of this board.

>>9636643
>bringing up up "happiness" again.

return to

A R I S T O T L E

>>9636460
Stupid question: does Kant anywhere deduce the categoriacal imperative in its first formulation?
I've been searching for it quite a while, but all he says is, it's derived from a synthetic judgement a priori and it expresses "the property the will has of being a law unto itself". But where does the exact formulation come from? Is it derived from the idea of freedom or the idea of the will or both?

>>9636623
I don't even like Kant but please commit suicide

>>9636460
It's a bad thought experiment because it doesn't state how specific the universal law must be.

>>9636460
uh simple bud it's predicated upon the existence of god and the soul
no god, no soul, no categorical imperative

>>9636460

Wow, you guys got pretty mad about that one? Maybe I spoke out of turn, but I don't really think I did. After all you've done, yeah, you're fucking cunts. I forgive you, but yeah, tell a man he's not worth the air he breathes, and he'll call you a cunt. That's how you're acting.

>>9636623
kill yourself

>>9636460
Hegel did.
Starting from abstract rights, we come up to the universal concepts that are included in every system of rights. This is however general, abstract and objective, but that's why it is still empty of content, i.e not realized in the world. The next step is the confrontation of the subjective will of an subject with the general will towards the Good. In order to do this, you apply a self-test, which is a reformulation of the categorical imperative. Oh the self-test is cool, but it has too many dangers involved. It lacks content. It is an empty principle that might be a good start to align particular wills towards the general will. But also a good way to lose control of the right and the morality. So in morality, we use our reason to subjectively will the general. For only then the subject might act free, i.e not a slave to your inclinations, but negating these deterministic instincts and consciously will the good. It is our duty said Kant. But you need more than that, the duty is laid inside the subject's will. So the general good cannot be realized yet in morality. The concrete and logical step to bring the Abstract Rights and Morality towards a higher unity are institutions that will lead to The Ethical life (settlichkeit). Not only does that include the objective value of moral behaviour in the world, it also is subjective in the way that it will develop along its own particular path depending on the history and context of that institution. With these institutions we have externalized the duty towards the good, and with thus the concrete realization of the concept of the good, that we were trying to chase with the catgorical imperative. Only with these institutions, such as the State and its courts, can we make sure that Abstract Right and morality, are translated into specific actions in the here-and-now. And only then can we have an Ethical Life, and finally become free.

That's what we have been doing the last 200 years. Building and balancing different institutions. To be ethical is to be loyal towards the institutions that are the development of the actualizing concepts from abstract right and the good. But over time institutions start to get inter-related, with supra-institutions as well as alternative ones. So there is no overview anymore, nowadays. That is why the ethical sphere has become diffused. We don't know what to be loyal to. A company might prefer to be loyal to the institutions of Panama or Switzerland instead of its own country. Or a dutchman might be struggling between the EU or it's national state of law. These are just simple examples, in reality the struggle between institutions is even more complex.

>>9638350
That's bullshit. Kant said it himself, but nevertheless it's bullshit. Kant ethics are of a strictly formal nature like >>9638466 said. He neither needed god nor the immortal (spiritual) soul to justify it, nevertheless he did. Kant is making some realy strange faults (not only in his ethics but also in the rest of his philosophy) and I'm not sure why he's making them - is it due to censorship (you couldn't say everything you wanted in his times, and Kant nearly lost his authorisation to teach over his critisim of religion) or are they genuine (real) faults and he was just so much ahead of his time he didn't realise it himself - we'll never know.

>>9638466
It's true, Kant's ethics are empty and without content. Nevertheless, I don't like Hegel's excessive focus on history. Moral's and Sittlichkeit's content isn't something which developes in time - they're either absolute or they don't have a content at all. Otherwise, they would be immoral on closer inspection (because after every step further all former ethics would be tainted in the view of the new generation).

File: 1467098362831.jpg (49KB, 300x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x392px

>>9636570
>In short, read some Nietzsche.

>>9638350
>uh simple bud it's predicated upon the existence of god and the soul

So there is no problem then since those things exist. Since you said it was so simple do you want to try giving it another shot? Put some effort into this time please.

>>9638466
good post dude thanks this helped me.
but how does this complete Kant? it's just the same issue all over again.
>We don't know what to be loyal to.
we should be loyal to the most moral institution. the same problem repeats itself! right?