Immanuel kant

It seems to be a running gag on this site. Maybe because most people don't even realize it's not Kant.

He tried, but ultimately couldn't.

Attached: 1650010900026.jpg (500x367, 19.74K)

Really, Kant

Define “rational” in this context

Led by reason (instead of desire).

Funnily enough, it's the same Plato meant, when he spoke of the "just soul", but that would lead too far...

>Led by reason (instead of desire)
impossible. Without desire, there’s no reason to do anything

I only read his first critique but people always bring up the categorical imperative. He barely spent a few pages on ethics in CPR, so I don't really know how the categorical imperative works.

Oh c'mon, don't be stubborn. You know what is meant by this. Otherwise, I have to assume you don't have the most basic knowledge about Kant. And my time's too precious to explain the basics over and over again, just because there's another kid that goes: noooo, that's not what I think, he must be wrong.

The go-to book for the explanation of the CI is the "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals". Read the CprR only afterwards.

>For example, Mill pointed out that Kant implicitly appeals to the utilitarian principle, which would be a better and more foundational explanation for why actions are moral or not.
This is absolutely retarded, and no serious reading of Kant could reach this conclusion. Regardless of whether he was correct or not, he definitely does not appeal to the utilitarian principle.
> The aim of morality is to guide action, but the aim of action is to satisfy our desires and preferences. Without these preferences, morality doesn’t exist.
This is just begging the question against Kant.

Maybe I'm missing something, I haven't read him. It seems like the Categorical Imperative boils down to vibe-based ethics with a few extra steps since deciding whether or not a rule is good is arbitrary (will things be better if everyone follows the rule all the time).

The CI is not about whether things would be "better" if everyone follows the rule--if that were the CI, then obviously the CI would fail to be the fundamental test of normativity, because it employs a normatively loaded concept of "better". The CI is a test of whether it is coherent to will everyone to follow the rule--that is, would the intention be self-defeating if everyone followed it.

I see. That's a very lose standard though, isn't it? You could create a CI to murder everyone you meet and it wouldn't be self-defeating, because if universally applied it would accomplish its goal of destroying life. It doesn't seem to be an ethical statement at all.

Whether the CI actually yields substantive moral conclusions is very contested. Many non-Kantians gives objections similar to yours. Kant used suicide as an example of something he thought was clearly ruled out, but his argument to this effect is that suicide would be committed out of self-love, and this would be contradictory. (If he's right about that, then I think he could reject your "kill all others" as well.) I don't think many people think Kant's moral arguments as he presented them are good enough.

A good example of a modern Kantian is Christine Korsgaard, who believes that morality actually follows from two principles: first, the use of the CI as a test of our intentions, and second, the inescapable judgment that our own humanity is valuable.

Thanks for the effortposting, it's good.

I kant believe it's your birthday already

if there was a greater man than Wittgenstein we haven't seen him yet...mans was more of a saint than Kant and Augustine

happy bday, "kant" hehehehehehehehe

He never says anything nice about me on my birthday.

that image doesn't portray kant, op

kant was a little goblin whose own mother hated him

Thats the least amusing depiction of kant Ive ever seen

Because it's not him, kek.

Attached: this-is-not-immanueal-kant-it-is-friedrich-jacobi.png (500x669, 346.02K)

Based. Kant was an ugliest goblin ever. Chinaman of koninberg lmao

Immanuel Kant was a BLACK man. His real name was Immonamul Kandabembe!

happy berfday

Attached: kant-portrait.png (177x238, 80.44K)

that is not kant

newfags

>t. cuntian
jesus christ. De las philosoficos prussico, dios mio

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have the hunch that CI has the function of explaining the origin of morality. Why are we moral? Why don't we steal and kill each other to our own benefits instead of doing things that are not beneficial to our survival by being "moral"? Kan't answer is, the principle of morality is something universal and immanent within us, it just often gets side-tracked by hypothetical imperatives. If we wash off the hypotheticals from every human being, then you'll get a human working entirely informed by CI. Just like if you wash off all the sense data from experience, you'll get pure form of intuition which is mathematics. Am I correct?

Attached: ImmanuelKant.jpg (1536x1067, 1.05M)

it's a running gag well beyond this site

I ____

Mein Negger

immaculate cunt

Filtered, so stupid as to be doomed to forever be immoral and irrational.

shame, pity even.

Where do I start with him? The Prolegomena?

Kant invented the concept of '''''''''''''''human dignity'''''''''''''' in order to impose humanism as true. ZOMG EVERYBODY IS CREATED EQUAL FROM NOW ON, BECAUSE.... THEY JUST ARE OKAY CHUDD!!!1111!!1 DEMOCRACY AND RATIONALITY WORK OKAYY BIGOT!!! MY MIND TOLD ME SO!!! I AM LE COPERNICUS OF MORALITY!!!
It's all retroactive though.
So for Kant, after he has been a racist piece of shit for 60 years and publishing his racist rants all over Prussia, he decided that humanism was so trendy that he wanted to be part of it. He created a whole propaganda from his intellectual atheist head and he came up with the categorical imperative and the transcendental idealism.
Of course, he was an atheist, so he is a cunning little bitch and his hypocrisy shows up when he talks about white lies for instance. Kant like any atheist is desperate to be seen a good boy, but since atheism has no morality and no truth, he had to go about virtue signaling. His little trick for lying is this: ''lying is bad my fellow atheists, but hey if you lie to somebody who expects you to lie, then you're still a good humanist boy''.
And all his crappy mental gymnastics was after he seethed hard due to Hume.
All of this because atheists want that Humanism be true, so they have to kill christianity for instance, but they do it by using relativism. then the atheists are fucked, because relativism applies also to humanism, so they have to build a narrative where humanism is true even though relativism is true too.
Also Kant was the useful idiot to come up with a the whole apparatus for the atheist propaganda. He jumped in the bandwagon about ''''''''maths'''''''.
Kant was a piece of shit and did not understand a single line of maths. He was like the atheists today , the punk ass bitch who raves '''''''I FUCKIN LOVE SCIENCE NOW ZOMG''''''''' even though he never did a single scientific experiment and never studied maths ever.
So this kunt said ''omg newton is like my idol now'' and guess what his little atheist gymnastics is a vain attempt to justify newton as the guy who got it right.
look I am going to be clear. The atheists rejected god and the theist scholars. Instead they replaced god with something else: society. They replaced religions with ''''''''''ideology'''''''''. The priests in atheism are the ones who ''''''''''study society''''.
And the language of the atheists is maths. So the priests must use maths all the time.
Of course this son of a bitch was later on RKT by other atheists who went all ''oomg einstein is so right guys, he's our new jew idol now'' with the exact same reasoning lol.
Ultimately Kant is part of the atheist canon. But with anything atheist, you know it's created for bugmen by bugmen in order for them to dive deep into self indulgence. Egalitarianism is true because it's just is OKAYYYY. There that's Kant for you.

iirc the categorical imperative is:
>always act as if the maxim behind your actions could become a universal law
and
>always treat people as ends in themselves, not means
The first definition means that you should only do something if it would be okay for everyone to do it, and the second basically means you should treat others nicely. I could be wrong though.

Dude, you could have really used your time to read something and get a little bit more educated. Instead you write a whole lecture composed of bullshit and buzzwords. Honestly, take a shower, hit the weights, get a clue, have sex and above all: take your fucking meds.

Attached: url(211).jpg (1260x560, 98.4K)

...is written with only one "g" in German.

the enlightenment is the stupidest mistake human beings ever have made. the "idea" of reason is a lie, literally the entire project of modernity was based on a lie. not a noble lie (which is a requirement for human community), a stupid lie that opened up space for human hubris and technics to enslave humanity endlessly

even so-called "anti-modernist" or "reactionary" movements spring from this; heck, the nazi's used modern technology and "scientific racism" to slaughter millions of people. whoever's reading this: wake up, you're living a dream

Attached: REASON.png (1158x512, 9.61K)

Alternatives?

there are none, it's too late lol

There are nine different formulations (or "formulas" which is closer to the German name) of the Categorical Imperative which fall under four categories: the universalization formulas (4), the end-in-itself formulas (2), the natural-law formulas (2) and the kingdom-of-ends formula (1).
The most important one is the so-called basic formula, which is:
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law!
Every other formulation is derived from this basic formula of the CI. Thus, there is only one CI but there are different formulations of it.

>the second basically means you should treat others nicely
The end-in-itself formulas mean you shell treat others not only as tools to reach your own goals (or as a "means to an end") but instead you should always act in a way that helps them to reach their own goals, too (or as an "end in itself"). A merchant for example can be totally nice and have fair prices, but as long as he only uses you to make a living he doesn't obey the CI. He obeys it only if he sells things to you because he aims at your own wellbeing, too.

Was Kant a bit of a dumbass? He was trying to gain knowledge while refusing and avoiding getting actual knowledge.

Irrationalism is a decidedly post-Enlightenment phenomenon. Ancients didn't have the idea of reason, as you say, simply because it was so elemental for them. In the Middle Ages, reason was counted as a form of intuition.

the ancients talked about 'logos', which has a miriad of meanings: reason/word/speech/ground/opinion etc. this leaves room for a terminus, in which humans can experience reality directly. the idealisation of reason was such a catosrophe. it's a religion which colonizes and mechanizes every aspect of life and leads to the scientific nihilism ("bro love is just chemicals in your brain bro") which is so prevalent nowadays

now post la creatura

If you prefer to live in a town that stinks like a cesspit because there's no running water and people dump their feces right down on the street; if you prefer to be forced to follow an ancient code that may never be questioned no matter how stupid and antiquated its rules are; if you prefer to die before you become 30 years old either because of the yearly war with the tribe next door that follows a slightly different code or because of a sepsis you got because one of your rotten teeth started to fester... well, why don't you just go for it?

>we are fundamentally irrational beings
Fuck off retard

He has a nice haircut.

Nietzsche gives him a massive compliment somewhere. Somewhere something to the effect of "he had a greater mind than Plato, but lacked the feeling or soul that true philosophy requires" I'll find it and report back

Holy autism

cope

" if you prefer to be forced to follow an ancient code that may never be questioned no matter how stupid and antiquated its rules are"
like the principle of sufficient reason? turning an instrument into a goal? like sheer technocracy?

you reek of whig history and chronocentrism, retard. so glad that all that knowledge allowed "us" to drive people into death camps and propped up a system of control so wide and powerful that we'd literally live in 1984 if any political movement with utopian ambitions seized power