ForgedinHell wrote:Morality does come from feelings though. You really think Kant didn't first feel what was right, and then spent loads of wasted time writing an intellectual justification for what he felt? That's one of the reasons philosophy is so lame. It is supposed to give insights on morality, and it encourages people to do the one thing that is going to cause people to be moral idiots -- to stop feeling and start thinking. Philosophers have missed the mark for centuries, while popular writers have hit the mark. Why do you think that is? It's because the writers rely on their emotions more on moral issues. I don't even trust people who are out of touch with their feelings.
No, morality does not come from feelings. What you're talking about is a kind of worldly meaning of morality which is really useless.
Morality is a supreme principle of law. The importance and validity of morality relies on its universality and necessity.
Here are two arguments from Kant:
(i) If we ground morality in experience, we give up universality and necessity.
(ii) We cannot give up universality and necessity.
Therefore, morality cannot be grounded in experience. (and what you mentioned, feelings.)
Empirical principles are not at all fit to be the ground of moral laws. For the universality with which these are to hold for
all rational beings without distinction - the unconditional practical necessity which is thereby imposed upon them - comes to
nothing if their ground is taken from the special constitution of human nature or the contingent circumstances in which it is placed.
-- Immaneul Kant
You need to think about those arguments from Kant before you make conclusions.
I really suggest you read philosophers' books and use your brain to think over every thought you have about morality.
LOL. You really, seriously think Kant proved anything by those two assertions? Tell those two assertions to any trained scientist, and after they get done laughing at you, they will explain to you that those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. That's the problem with philosophy. It places nonsense, not just on stilts, but on a podium.
If you really think all thoughts of Kant are just non-sensical gibberish, then please explain to me why it is.
Could you please tell me what's wrong with the above two arguments of Kant?
Ethan wrote:
No, morality does not come from feelings. What you're talking about is a kind of worldly meaning of morality which is really useless.
Morality is a supreme principle of law. The importance and validity of morality relies on its universality and necessity.
Here are two arguments from Kant:
(i) If we ground morality in experience, we give up universality and necessity.
(ii) We cannot give up universality and necessity.
Therefore, morality cannot be grounded in experience. (and what you mentioned, feelings.)
Empirical principles are not at all fit to be the ground of moral laws. For the universality with which these are to hold for
all rational beings without distinction - the unconditional practical necessity which is thereby imposed upon them - comes to
nothing if their ground is taken from the special constitution of human nature or the contingent circumstances in which it is placed.
-- Immaneul Kant
You need to think about those arguments from Kant before you make conclusions.
I really suggest you read philosophers' books and use your brain to think over every thought you have about morality.
LOL. You really, seriously think Kant proved anything by those two assertions? Tell those two assertions to any trained scientist, and after they get done laughing at you, they will explain to you that those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. That's the problem with philosophy. It places nonsense, not just on stilts, but on a podium.[/quote]
If you really think all thoughts of Kant are just non-sensical gibberish, then please explain to me why it is.
It looks like from what you asserted, that you have a single argument from Kant, where there is a premise and then some conclusion following it. The statements you offered from Kant were, "If we ground morality in experience, we give up universality and necessity. We cannot give up universality and necessity. This is what I refer to as gibberish because that is exactly what it is. The first statement, "we can't ground morality in experience...." How come? Well, the claim is mde because if we do, somehow universality and necessity will be lost in the process. First problem for Kant is if we are not grounding morality in experience, then we are simply not dealing with reality. Second problem is that nothing logically follows from his statement. I can just as easily write, "We must groud morality in experience to preserve universality and necessity." That statement has just as much going for it as Kant's. The third problem is who gives a damn if we even did throw out something he refers to as universality and necessity? Why can't we have a great system of ethics without those two things?
This is just gibberish. How any thinking person in the modern century believe that such statements are meaningful, much less that they have been proven to be meaningful, is beyond me. In science, we would do something like define morality in a meaningful way, then look for emprical evidence to see what principles support the promotion of morality. kant seems to be well on his way to impressing people who don't give a damn about reality, but such thinkers have no relevance to how people live their lives. Have you ever read the story about the emperor's new clothes? Any one who claims kant was a great thinker, or even a coherent one, has bought into a myth promoted by intelectual rubes.
Could you please tell me what's wrong with the above two arguments of Kant?[/quote]
ForgedinHell wrote:... those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. ...This is what I refer to as gibberish because that is exactly what it is. ... This is just gibberish. ...
lol "That is just gibberish" is not any kind of argument, Forgy! It's just your, I'd say rather bigotted and arrogant, unfounded opinion.
ForgedinHell wrote:... those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. ...This is what I refer to as gibberish because that is exactly what it is. ... This is just gibberish. ...
lol "That is just gibberish" is not any kind of argument, Forgy! It's just your, I'd say rather bigotted and arrogant, unfounded opinion.
Okay then, here is my challenge to you: Prove the statements are true. Go ahead and even tell me what experiment we should set up to prove them true? Furthermore, after you fail those two challenges, here is the third one: prove that what I wrote is wrong and Kant's statement is right, when I reversed his statement. Your failure to answer any of these questions, and you will fail, is why I refer to it as gibberish. You think such silliness passes for knowledge?
ForgedinHell wrote:... those statements are just non-sensical gibberish that prove nothing. ...This is what I refer to as gibberish because that is exactly what it is. ... This is just gibberish. ...
lol "That is just gibberish" is not any kind of argument, Forgy! It's just your, I'd say rather bigotted and arrogant, unfounded opinion.
Okay then, here is my challenge to you: Prove the statements are true.
I doubt I can do better than Kant himself in arguing his point, and I'm not asserting there's any truth in what he says. He might be wrong, but since his ideas are better known and more highly regarded than yours, the burden is on you to explain his error. Why would you expect everyone just to take your word for it that Kant is gibberish?
Go ahead and even tell me what experiment we should set up to prove them true?
mickthinks wrote:
I doubt I can do better than Kant himself in arguing his point, and I'm not asserting there's any truth in what he says. He might be wrong, but since his ideas are better known and more highly regarded than yours, the burden is on you to explain his error. Why would you expect everyone just to take your word for it that Kant is gibberish?
Go ahead and even tell me what experiment we should set up to prove them true?
ForgedinHell wrote:Anyone who thinks Kant was either smart, moral, or made sense, is mistaken.
All those words are subjective opinions, especially the later as nobody ever uses the term "made sense" without purely referring to themselves or a group they are representing. You can hardly "prove" any of them, just argue against them. Also, since Kant wrote extensively, you cannot judge an entire person by abstracts.
Also I think you are mistaking the word "moral" for meaning your moral. In a different moral system whatever you think is wrong might as well be good. You can call him "immoral", but that indicates in turn your opinion and not that he didn't possess moral, in that he doesn't propagate a specific moral system.
ForgedinHell wrote:I already have proved [Kant's] ideas are gibberish.
I must have missed that, Forgy. Can you link to your proofs?
Read my comments on this Forum. I debunked him quite easily. It's easy to do. His statements are such gibberish, you can complete reverse them and make just as much sense. Besides, it is not my burden to disprove his claims, it is your burden, or anyone who supports him, to prove he was correct. Still waiting for that.
ForgedinHell wrote:Anyone who thinks Kant was either smart, moral, or made sense, is mistaken.
All those words are subjective opinions, especially the later as nobody ever uses the term "made sense" without purely referring to themselves or a group they are representing. You can hardly "prove" any of them, just argue against them. Also, since Kant wrote extensively, you cannot judge an entire person by abstracts.
Also I think you are mistaking the word "moral" for meaning your moral. In a different moral system whatever you think is wrong might as well be good. You can call him "immoral", but that indicates in turn your opinion and not that he didn't possess moral, in that he doesn't propagate a specific moral system.
I stand by my statement. The surest proof that philosophy is junk is the very fact that philosophy departments around the globe paint the picture of kant as some intellectual and moral hero. He was no such thing. How can philosophy departments claim they are training people to think critically while at the same time producing graduates who buy into such garbage? The Emperor Has No Clothes, I mean, The Philosophy Departments Have No Clothes.
ForgedinHell wrote:I stand by my statement. The surest proof that philosophy is junk is the very fact that philosophy departments around the globe paint the picture of kant as some intellectual and moral hero.
are you sure they do this?
norman smith - probably the most highly regarded commentator on kant - starts his commentary on the critique of pure reason with 'the critique of pure reason' more obscure and difficult than even a metaphysical treatise has any right to be
this does not sound like uncritical acceptance of kant
my experience with philosophy departments is limited so far - i will have more first hand knowledge once i am done with high school - one more year yay! - but you seem to at least be overstating the case
perhaps you can elaborate on the specific problems you have with kant
ForgedinHell wrote:I already have proved his ideas are gibberish.
in my admittedly limited experience anyone who says ' i have proved this' or 'facts clearly indicate that' have not proven anything and the facts clearly indicate nothing of the sort
saying i have proven x adds nothing to simply saying x unless you are teaching a geometry class or something
similarly saying it is a fact that x adds nothing over and above simply saying x
ForgedinHell wrote:I stand by my statement. The surest proof that philosophy is junk is the very fact that philosophy departments around the globe paint the picture of kant as some intellectual and moral hero.
are you sure they do this?
norman smith - probably the most highly regarded commentator on kant - starts his commentary on the critique of pure reason with 'the critique of pure reason' more obscure and difficult than even a metaphysical treatise has any right to be
this does not sound like uncritical acceptance of kant
my experience with philosophy departments is limited so far - i will have more first hand knowledge once i am done with high school - one more year yay! - but you seem to at least be overstating the case
I'm positive philosophy departments do this. How many articles glorify him in Philosophy Now? How often has he been referred to as one of the top four philosophers of all time? That's a strange claim to make for a racist, a sexist, and a fascist.
perhaps you can elaborate on the specific problems you have with kant
ForgedinHell wrote:I already have proved his ideas are gibberish.
in my admittedly limited experience anyone who says ' i have proved this' or 'facts clearly indicate that' have not proven anything and the facts clearly indicate nothing of the sort
saying i have proven x adds nothing to simply saying x unless you are teaching a geometry class or something
similarly saying it is a fact that x adds nothing over and above simply saying x
I did prove it. I showed that the meaning of his statements, as listed by one of his fans above, are meaningless, and also, one may reverse the statements and make just as much sense. When one can do such a thing, one has shown the original statement is gibberish. Richard Feynman often did the same thing with philosophical statements, also to prove how dopey philosophy was.
