Timeline for Has Kant's application of the Categorical Imperative failed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2014 at 15:11 | comment | added | LTedeschi | Does anybody have any thoughts on the questions I asked? | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 13:15 | comment | added | Anon | Interesting way of putting it. I do not see the argument here respectfully, because I am operating under this philosophical structure: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… -- The reason why, is because while I agree with Kant that the good intention can be argued as a good in itself, I would say that those who are only ignorant of philosophy could ever exercise this good intention, as the content of what is objectively good has not been demonstrated in the secular domain, and philosophers understand this. Thus I cleave to the absolutism of G-d. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 13:08 | comment | added | LTedeschi | Your comments are useful. I do not remember Kant ever clearly explaining why I should employ universality in this behavior. But a lot of this is irrelevant to the questions I asked. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 13:00 | comment | added | virmaior | For Kant, it would be impossible for the rules of chess to be what should govern the universe, because he thinks reason should govern the universe and its rules are invariant. The CI is merely reason applied to the concept of a being with reason, a body, and a will. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 12:29 | comment | added | Anon | Thank you for taking the time to respond. I think you are in agreement with my point in my op, although perhaps I could have stated it better. I agree that in 1, it is not ultimately categorically imperative. However; if by some magic, tomorrow, the rules of chess normatively(?) governed the universe, then not moving the pawn backwards would be ultimately categorically imperative. Thoughts? | I had not known that Kant had made a distinction between the two hypothetical imperatives, so I respectively have little to say upon them. Do you have any further thoughts; I'd love to hear them. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 12:19 | comment | added | virmaior | Moreover, Kant distinguishes two subtypes of the hypothetical imperative in one of the points that greatly distinguishes him from Aristotle -- (a) hypothetical imps linked to specific tasks (e.g. the chess ones) and (b) hypothetical imps linked to happiness. But there's no sense in which either contains a categorical imperative which is what you state. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 12:18 | comment | added | virmaior | The point blank part is accurate about how the CI obligates. If you play chess, you are bound by hypothetical imperatives involved in playing chess (note the corollary between hypothetical and if), but you are not bound by those hypothetical imperatives if playing chess is not your end. You are categorically bound to the CI -- meaning there's no if as to when one is bound. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 12:07 | comment | added | Anon | Thank you for your comment. The whole idea of the categorical imperative from the way I have been taught, that you have to do something, point blank. The rules of chess at no point offer any player the option of moving his chess pawn piece backwards. Doing so apodictically violates the rules of chess. Thus if you play by the rules of chess, you simply can not exercise a hypothetical imperative with moving the chess piece backwards. What do you think? | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | virmaior | Where are you getting the notion under 1 in Kant at all? The entire idea of the categorical imperative is that you are obligated by reason itself regardless of circumstances and outside of the declaration of any divine entity (see his Religion within the bounds of reason alone for more on how these are not divine commands). It is precisely hypothetical that you cannot move a chess piece backwards -- under the hypothesis that you want to play chess and not say reset the board. But the categorical imperative (if it can work) is for all conduct and founded on reason. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:46 | history | answered | Anon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |