Re: Kant on human differences

On Aug 18, 5:03 pm, jos horikx <jhor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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

Are you just making arbitrary statements, as it appears, or do you
have a desire to learn?

MG