Is "categorically imperative" an incorrect use

>>9977283
my dairy desu

>>9977283
Why would you say it like that? Just drop the '-ly' already.
It will only work if you stucture it differently. For example: "imperatives, (. . .) that command categorically."

>>9977951

>It is categorically imperative to always tell the truth

>>9977675
Shove it up your ugly ass tbqf

>>9977953
I'm sorry I was being retarded. That would technically work indeed.
The K-Meister himself never formulates it like that thought. I would play it save and say: Under the categorical imperative one ought to always tell the truth.

>>9977953
I don't think this works. It should just be "Honesty is a categorical imperative"

>>9977283
if it’s categorical, why do you even need to mention it?
Just say it’s imperative. Adjectives are permanent structures, so saying something is categorical is pleonastic, unless you want to emphasise it.

>>9978738
Kant makes the distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives, so in it's absolutely necessary to mention it in this context.

>>9977283
"categorical imperative" is an adjective modifying a noun
"categorically imperative" is an adverb modifying an adjective
both are correct

>>9977967
Kant didn't write in English

>>9978897

Hmm... Well, I couldn't find any instances of the -ly formulation. Although, yes, it's grammatically correct, I wonder if the change from adjective to adverb modifies the meaning of the concept.