Re: Kant on human differences

On Aug 18, 10:25 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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-****,
theyjust
> > >>> 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, theworld
> > >> consists of revealed truths and revealed truths only.
> > >> That's what you are suggesting? Isn't it?
> > >No, theworldjustis,waitingto beidentified.
>
> > 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 theworldas it is?
> > In theworldas it is, as it can be observed,noethics 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 theworldjustto be found, isjusta
> > (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 youjustmaking arbitrary statements, as it appears, or do you
> have a desire to learn?

"The world just is, waiting to be identified.", _that_ is the
arbitrary (and rather stupid) statement when ethics is concerned.

JH