Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:50 am It is unfortunate many posters here condemned Kant as a "useless" philosopher without understanding the overall theme of Kant's philosophy and his mission & vision for humanity.

Kant's overall mission and vision for humanity is targeted to be realized in the future [next 100, 150 or more years].

I am optimistic Kant's overall project [albeit idealistic] can contribute as a guide toward perpetual peace within humanity in the future, given the trend of the exponential expansion of IT, AI and technology.

Although not mentioned by Kant, the above is against the background of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution up to Human Beings and the future.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 6:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:50 am It is unfortunate many posters here condemned Kant as a "useless" philosopher without understanding the overall theme of Kant's philosophy and his mission & vision for humanity.

Many? I could sort of imagine Atla''s posts being framed that way, but.....

As for what you say otherwise, it seems to me you are mixing your ideas with Kant's. He no specific plan in terms of years:

Kant's overall mission and vision for humanity is targeted to be realized in the future [next 100, 150 or more years].

He certainly made suggestions about legal and moral ideas and practices that he thought would lead to better human relations and reduce things like war. I think your are overstating his position also. I don't think Kant thought one could elminate evil, given human nature.

I don't think Kant was particularly confident that technology would improve human nature, though the following sentence is extremely unclear, so it's hard to know what you mean:

I am optimistic Kant's overall project [albeit idealistic] can contribute as a guide toward perpetual peace within humanity in the future, given the trend of the exponential expansion of IT, AI and technology.

So, in general, I find your OP to seemingly be a defense of Kant and a praising of Kant, but when you describe him, it actually sounds like your are describing your own project with your own focus, which isn't Kant's'.

This sentence also is confusing:

Although not mentioned by Kant, the above is against the background of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution up to Human Beings and the future.

Obviously these things weren't mentioned by Kant. The above you listed may be in the background for you reading Kant, but it's not in the background of Kant. I mean, I know you know this, but the wording is so confusing and it's part of the odd blending of your ideas and how you see Kant COULD be used, rather than Kant's work itself.

Obviously using Kant's ideas in your project and your vision is peachy, but the way things are presented here is a muddle of his ideas, which are very vaguely referred to and your own project, which unlike his is more like a time-lined project and mission. The whole post oddly conflates your use of Kant with Kant's work.

I think there also if a lot of swingroom to respect Kant as a thinker, perhaps agree with parts of his positions and not others, to recognize that he had a huge impact in what philosophy later could think about and explore, without agreeing with some, many, or most of his positions. Perhaps someone thinks that one or more of his core conclusions are false or problematic, or partially false. This doesn't mean one just thinks of him as useful, even in those specific arguments he makes in support of that position, let alone things he argues/says in other parts of his work. This ain't binary and also conclusions and not the only things he accomplished.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 6:59 am This sentence also is confusing:

Although not mentioned by Kant, the above is against the background of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution up to Human Beings and the future.

Obviously these things weren't mentioned by Kant. The above you listed may be in the background for you reading Kant, but it's not in the background of Kant. I mean, I know you know this, but the wording is so confusing and it's part of the odd blending of your ideas and how you see Kant COULD be used, rather than Kant's work itself.

Obviously using Kant's ideas in your project and your vision is peachy, but the way things are presented here is a muddle of his ideas, which are very vaguely referred to and your own project, which unlike his is more like a time-lined project and mission. The whole post oddly conflates your use of Kant with Kant's work.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:46 pm Kant's vision for humanity? As an autist he didn't know the standard humans very well. Maybe that's why he thought that prescriping a quasi-solipsism for humans could be a good idea. Surely they would still follow the "rules", just like his autistic self would, no? And the quasi-solipsism wouldn't result in a loss of empathy either, so it wouldn't contribute to the rise of philosophies such as Nazism.