Immanuel Kant (3 of 3)

...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Mrcropper
• immanuel
• kant
• reason
• virtue
• peikoff
• OPAR
• philosophy
• ethics
• morality
• catagorical

[Akatam0t0ma]

Isn't Kant's nominal world, as your describe it, akin to Plato's theory of Ideas?

[MrCropper]

@Akatam0t0ma "Isn't Kant's nominal world, as your describe it, akin to Plato's theory of Ideas?"

Yes. It has been said that everyone since Aristotle is either and Aristotelian or a Platonist. If that's true, Kant was a Platonist, and not a very original one at that.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Marx was, at an early age, heavily influenced by Hegel (not Kant), but Marx would eventually break from Hegel and form his own philosophy predicated on the MATERIAL World, not on any arbitrary conceptions. Even if he was incorrect in his assertions, Marx was attempting to use the material world as the basis of his ideology. There are, when you look for them, actually several similarities between Marx and Rand.

[MrCropper]

"There are, when you look for them, actually several similarities between Marx and Rand."

Only if you've been brainwashed by academia.

Marx was a Kantian regardless of how well you yourself understand the issues.

[sameemazahra]

what I did'nt like was mentioning islam in the same flow with kant..

kant and islam are very different and u cannot put them in the same category

may b u didnt mean that still one should not touch a huge topic in such a way that it makes another impression

I am not saying that because I am a muslim but only because I am a student of philosophy and I believe that a a philsopher should try not to create confusion nd shud say only that for which s/he has grounds

[MrCropper]

"kant and islam are very different"

See my video, "German Jihaad"

[bigbob2242]

Aright, real good video.

[SoveriegnLeviathan]

Kant never said we cannot know anything. He said that we cannot know anything outside this world. The only thing we can know are things in space and time which the categories provide us.Thus anything transcendental like God cannot be proven, but could be conceived. Secondly, his morals are on the basis that you do something without a motive behind it. Like you do not give to the poor to expect a certificate from them.

[TheClambo]

P.s. Fascism and Islamic Extremism derive from Kant through Marx? What the hell are you on? Even if you could trace some scrap of influence, trying to lay the blame for Islamic Extremism at the feet of Kant (or Marx!) while advocating an incredibly American ethical model is nothing short of hilarious!

[TheClambo]

In which case I suggest you open your eyes to see the incredible damage that free-market capitalism has wreaked upon the world: not just in the form of the recession, but more in the form of the damage it has done to developing nations abused by superpower corporations whose ethics revolve around personal and utilitarian gain.

You knob.

Sincerely,

Someone who isn't a capitalist, doesn't have too much respect for Kant, and is terrified of what your ethics are doing to the world.

AKA Jordan

[TheClambo]

Or maybe you actually think that all of the evils of the twentieth century are Kant's fault and wouldn't have happened if someone of Kant's influence had offered an opposite philosophy at the same point in history instead of him (in which case your pretentious scapegoating suggests you could seriously benefit from reading Girard or even Zizek). And maybe you actually think that the best way to do ethics is by looking for gain (perhaps you're a utilitarian liberal capitalist).

[TheClambo]

3. You are actually just trying to demonstrate that your discursive setting, in capitalist consumerist individualist America, can fully produce an interpretation through a void of subjectivity.

4. Thus your actual purpose is to argue for Foucauldian historicism.

Damn you're clever.

[TheClambo]

Hmm...

Here is my theory:

1. You are actually quite clever, and so you realise the assumptions you are making (primarily, that it is obvious that gain should be relevant to morality).

2. Since you haven't presented any argument for this presupposition, you must be doing something clever and rhetorical in your use of this presupposition.

[RedCelt69]

I'm also not a fan of Kant. I am also, however, not an expert, so remain open to being better educated about Kantiasm.

Keeping that in mind, when you say that (in relation to the Good Will) an act isn't a moral act if you benefit from it... my understanding is that you're wrong on that. It doesn't matter whether or not you benefit from it... the will exceeds all. So it isn't the ethics of self-denial or self-ignorance.

Or I could be wrong.

[Septimondo]

@MrCropper So the man who attempted to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism is the same person who closed the door to both? lol It's funny how you randroids like to bash someone neither you nor your goddess know anything about.

[BK0073]

MrCropper, seriously!!!!! how did you link communism, fascism, Islam and Karl Marx to Kant? Is it possible bc you r raised in a society where Marx is profiled as evil, without even being actually exposed to his writings/theories?

As you mentioned, you are not the right person to lecture about these topic.

Sorry to say this, but your ignorance is kind of "dangerous"

[Akatam0t0ma]

@MrCropper:

Also, I find your claim of Kant's role in inspiring contemporary Islamic totalitarianism a bit bizarre, since most if not all of the totalitarian aspects in Islam, which can easily be drawn from its very own holy texts, were present many centuries before Kant.

All that being said, I find the idea of a dichotomy between Aristotelians and Platonist's interesting, and I think I will give it a bit more thoughts in the future.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@MrCropper:

If Kant's nominal world was indeed his own version of the Platonic ideal world, I think you might be overstressing a bit Kant's role in 20th century totalitarianism.

I've recently started reading Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies", and even though I haven't got too far in it yet, I can see that much of the flaws you ascribe to Kant in this video Popper already points out in Plato.