|
simonesimone2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
haaaaaaaaaaa!!
philosoisgrt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Lol good clip
kidkitna (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm not gunna get into the mix of arguing about why people should like Kant's ethics as I just read Critique of Practical Reason and have read his metaphysics of knowledge. All I'm going to say is that I love Nietzsche and you really can't like both of them!
lostm0ments (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Kant was a genius. If you fail to understand his logic, it does not mean your ill-minded in any manner or form. Only that you require more cognitive thought.
Fushapan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Many of the errors metaphysicians make, says Kant, is because people conflate phenomenon with noumenon.
1) Substance is a simple object that cannot be reduced to others
2) The Ego is a simple object of experience/thought
3) The Ego is a substance (spirit)
The error is we confuse with how we appear with how we are in-itself, so the argument is fallacious (says Kant).
Fushapan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Noumenon is an idea to keep a critical check on us, to make sure we don't confuse what we bring to experience with actual things in the world (space, time, natural laws).
ralph435z (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The distinction is between things as they are for us, and things as they are in abstraction of all possible experience.
So, who believes that there can be a real which is outside of any possible experience? What does it mean for something to be real?
I think calling the noumenal "reality" is just importing pre-critical metaphysics of substance into Kant, which misses the entire point.
What it means for the noumenal to be regulative is that we can no longer say its existence is "reality".
Fushapan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No, phenomenon is the reality manifested in our sensibilities and shaped by the Categories of the understanding. Noumenon is reality-in-itself, however it serves merely as an idea b/c we cannot ever access it (we lack intellectual intuition).
Kant makes it clear he is not an Idealist. He makes this distinction between things as they appear for us and things-in-themselves.
One can see in Kant's transcendental arguments for the Ideality of space/time that objects do not originate from us.
RageAndLove1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hehe Nietzsche wins
ralph435z (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Reality for Kant is phenomenal. Noumenal "reality" isn't reality at all, although it can for practical purposes (in ethics).
A maxim can't be universal - a maxim is a subjective principle. A principle of action, when it holds for all rational wills, is not a maxim but a law. |
