On Aug 18, 12:00 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 6:06 pm, jos horikx <jhor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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 youjustmakingarbitrarystatements, 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.
>
> If you dont identify FIRST that which exists in the world, as it
> exists, and that which exists to keep you alive, then what use are
> ethics?
That is exactly the point! Well done, you grasped it!!
That is the very reason that Kant first wrote his first critique (on
empirical issues and epistemology) and then his second (and third).
The main field of metaphysics is _not_ epistemology but ethics.
Because humans posess reason they can surpass the world of sense
experience and empirical knowledge (and create a world of his own).
So, what we first have to do, is to explore the world as it appears to
us in order to find out about what fields ("faculties", as you like)
we can have empirical knowledge about in the first place, and that
sets us free to explore all other fields (like ethics or art) using
(human) reason alone. All the empirical stuff have become nothing more
than mere data so to say, or at least theories. One has to make the
right distinctions, but once made, you cannot redo them. Some things
are of an empirical nature, others are not. Ethics is not.
That, by the way, is the very reason to distinguish between the
categorical imperative and various hypothetical imperatives.
JH
|
