Re: Kant on human differences

Michael Gordge schreef:
> On Aug 17, 4:12 pm, jos horikx <jhor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On 17 aug, 08:42, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> ...

>>> You're the one who ought be embarassed, talking about the WHAT
>>> (metaphysics) instead of the HOW (epistemology) i.e. identify HOW Kant
>>> arrived at his evil anti-human trash.
>>> All you're asking Kantians to do is to explain themselves away which
>>> they easily do by INVENTING yet another lot of horse-****, they just
>>> adopt and apply the second or third or fourth or fifth definition of a
>>> concept.

>> While every sound person knows that, in the last resort, the world
>> consists of revealed truths and revealed truths only.

>> That's what you are suggesting? Isn't it?

> No, the world just is, waiting to be identified.

That's a weird point of view when ethics are concerned.

How can, what you want on a ethical field (that is: where
instrumentalism or utilitarianism and all kinds of hypothetical
imperatives are _not_  the point) be found in the world as it is?
In the world as it is, as it can be observed, no ethics can be found
at all: how do you make the (empirical) distinction between ethics and
the rest of all behavior when you do not have already some a priori
norm to do so?

The idea that things are in the world just to be found, is just a
(very simple) idea. Its called "realism". Realism cannot be a
realistic point of view when ethics are concerned, because of the
reasons given above.


JH