From the Critique of Practical Reason Kant writes:
"But the moral law commands the most punctual obedience from everyone; it must, therefore, not be so difficult to judge what it requires to be done, that the commonest unpractised understanding, even without worldly prudence, should fail to apply it rightly." Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
Kant says “that moral law commands the most punctual obedience from everyone.”
Now consider the categorical imperative which demands that we act only in accordance “to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
I might read Kant’s two statements as an incipient call for a state order, a legislative body of morality. After all, any obedience the moral law commands cannot be enforced without a state. It’s a state that also enforces and stipulates duties and obligations which might be understood as moral laws. Can the welfare state be a vision of Kant’s state? Or a socialist state?
A new online reading group is starting on Kant's Second Critique, i.e. the Critique of Practical Reason.
No prior experience with Kant is necessary.
The Critique covers topics such as morality, happiness, freedom, immortality, God, the soul, and moral education.
Sign up for the first session on July 7 here – https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/gxnslsycckbkb/
Reading Schedule:
Week 1: Preface and Introduction
Week 2: Book I (Analytic) - Chapter I
Week 3: Book I (Analytic) - Chapters II and III
Week 4: Book II (Dialectic)
Week 5: Doctrine of Method
There are numerous editions (and free translations available online), but this collection contains all of Kant's Practical Philosophy in translation:
https://preview.redd.it/t7cv8my0om871.jpg?width=1038&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b2fd8f294031aac0425550a2d61deb98d7638e8
Would just like to read that part in context.
I used to think I understood this quote for years before I started actually understanding it
Felix seemed interested in philosophical books, so I thought this would be something he’d want to check out. For more information: about the book, about the author.
I could understand freedom being the keystone to Practical Reason, as freedom is required in order for an agent to make decision to abide by their sense of moral obligation. I don't really understand how the concept freedom is also so central to reason, which to me at least, would have seem to have nothing to do with freedom. You don't choose whether two plus four is six.
So I've been at this for an hour and a half and I don't get it.
The full quote which I got here is:
>Inasmuch as the reality of the concept of freedom is proved by an apodeictic law of practical reason, it is the keystone of the whole system of pure reason, even the speculative, and all other concepts (those of God and immortality) which, as being mere ideas, remain in it unsupported, now attach themselves to this concept, and by it obtain consistence and objective reality; that is to say, their possibility is proved by the fact that freedom actually exists, for this idea is revealed by the moral law.
What it says on the tin. I'm interested in finding well-known or interesting essays on his argument for the subjective necessity of postulating immortality and/or the argument that we need the possibility of perpetual self-improvement. I've been looking around a bit but I'm fairly new to Kant scholarship and don't know where to start, so I would appreciate any recommendations! Let me know if I haven't been specific enough, and thanks.
I remember distinctly in one of Zizek's talks he mentions a mysterious passage in the Second Critique where Kant says that if we were able to peer into the noumeal realm and directly confront our transcendental freedom, it would be a horrifying experience as our freedom could be exposed as a mere illusion. I think he brings this up in the context of the trauma of the Real, as analogous to the impossibility of confronting the core of our desire. Does anyone know where he brings this up? I've been looking through multiple videos and I haven't been able to find it yet. Any help would be much appreciated.
I have to read it for a club activity, and I have searched everywhere but I could only find suggestions for "Critique of Pure Reason". What is the best (optimal or academically preferred) translation available?
I'm interested in reading this book, particularly in the context of contemporary political philosophy/political theory - that is both with an eye to Rawls, and to Adorno and Habermas, and their slew of critics. Would reading Rawls's work on the book itself make sense? Or would a more historical/explicatory work better situate me? Or both! Thanks.
Think the year 1500s. I don't believe for a second that king henry VIII of England was an outlier. Sure, he was noble, but I don't believe people weren't cheating in the past. I also don't believe that these people of the past WOULD NOT cheat if they could get away with it. I guess it's just unpopular to view the past as a dystopian or something. I just find it odd that people see the past as a rosy landscape. Even if you say 'but that's the dark ages'. The 1940's weren't these romantic eras either where people (now) died lovingly with hands together till death do you part.
Finally, I just find it odd when people say 'if you are marrying people in an exchange, you are a terrible person. Whatever happened to marriage for love' as if that's a bad thing. I think it's better to marry someone you love, but I don't condemn people who marry for practical reason. But it has to be under a circumstance where coercion, abuse etc isn't a thing. Of course, it gets tricky, but generally, you aren't a bad person if you are honest about why you marry.
I just find the people in the west talking about marriage for love etc cringy when they are condemn any opposite behaviours like it's something new.
I guess the main thing that got me thinking about this was that I find it odd that the people who call themselves conservatives think its liberals coming up with this supposed new concept that marriage is just an exchange. I guess it's just kind of funny that the script is flipped. Conservatives were the one in the past who viewed marriage as an exchange.
Dear All,
I come from an Engineering background but I was always passionate in Art/Humanities. Over the past few year due to several episodes of existential crisis and one case burnout I've found myself drawn more and more into philosophy. Now I know what you're going to say, that philosophy won't make my problems go away or give me answers ... and I know all that. I just enjoy reading and learning again, even so that I might change my field so that there's some inter-disciplinary Research or do a PhD or whatever.
So I've started reading. I did Aristotles' physics and Nicomachean Ethics; which was surprisingly nice. I briefly went through the history of the classics with Copleston's "A History of Philosophy". I went through Descartes' meditations, Summaries on hobbs and Bacon; which were easy. Spinoza's Ethics was .... difficult but I managed somehow and I went through lock and Leibniz's sections in Russel's HoP. Now I've arrived at Kant, specifically the critique of pure reason; which is by far the most difficult text I've ever read.
Let's get to the point, I don't think I can get through Kant by my own and I need help. Some annoying Phil Grad told me the best method is to just go throught the book itself, which might've been helpful for him but not for me, a person that isn't academically trained in philosophy.
My Question is, what is your recommending for secondary literature to be read alongside CoPR and Kant's further works ? I don't need any simplifications but as mapping the ideas in Kant's writings is very difficult, I would love it if there was some book out there that broke down in detail everything Kant says in each clause of each chapter of CoPR and how it relates to each other. If that's too much to ask, an in detail analysis would be very helpful.
Thanx and sorry for the wall of text.
As we know, the juggernaut has a cockpit on both ends; one large, one small. In various media depictions (most notable being the Clone Wars), the juggernaut is seen driving or fighting small-end first. In the complete cross-sections book, one paragraph states that drivers often argue which end is the true "front" end. So my question is, why would a commander or driver prefer to use the small end as the driver in a battle or driving in general? Is there any tactical or practical reasoning behind this decision? The big end has more crew stations, more weapons, the observation hatch, scanner dome, and watchtower. It makes the most sense that this would always be the preferred front end. I could only see the small end being used for rear cover or quickly reversing.
I’m mostly confused about how Kant admonished dogmatic practice, instead supporting a blend of empiricism and logical understanding, yet later fully contends that the way to live morally is by following a strict code of “treat people how you want to be treated,” without exception. To me this feels extremely dogmatic, and I was wondering if there’s any notable reconciliation of these two concepts within his works.
.
I have been working at a company for 2.5 years near Seattle. During the pandemic, we switched to remote work. The company was very flexible in allowing me to work from Florida for a combined total of about 7 months. It was never communicated that there were any issues with this arrangement, other than being sure I set a return date. I had a co-worker on my team that worked remotely from another country halfway around the world for a few months, never heard there were any issues with that either.
I'm headed back to FL for Thanksgiving and Christmas. I was hoping I could stay through the winter but they want me back after the first week of Jan. There is a new head of HR compared to last year, who seems to have a different perspective. She mentioned they didn't 'have the infrastructure' at this time to allow for that.
This really doesn't make sense to me, I work fully remotely any way and don't need to be in the office, and HR noted that there weren't any tax issues involved from what they could see so I don't see why/how it matters either way.
The extra time would be tremendously helpful and make a big difference for me emotionally as I struggle with seasonal affective disorder. I couldn't get more transparency from them around the practical concerns that would go into such a decision so I'm curious from HR's perspective why this matters.
If taxes aren't an issue, why the hesitancy? Please advise.
What are the most important texts that inform kant's work, preferably in order of priority. Are there any pre-modern philosophers that it's important to have read first?
No, employee at government department, I did not tell you I was ill so that you could say you feel sorry for me. You do not feel sorry for me! We are total strangers who will never meet. And now you are going to repeat everything four times when I obviously understood it the first time?
I told you I was ill because it was relevant! – to explain why I didn’t reply to some emails so we could deal with the mess your colleague made two months ago that I didn’t find out about until today. Ugh.
I went through a sweep of the western tradition leading up to Kant — reading a lot of the primary literature — I don't know what to read now since my goal was to read Kant's critique. I'd like to either continue historically from Kant or, read what advancements were made in epistemology since Kant. Any suggestions?
These two things are not same, or he wouldn't use two words for them. However, they are extremely similar. Can you elucidate the precise difference and meaning of these terms?
In any case, Kant has a passage that seems to use the two terms somewhat interchangeably:
"Intuition and concepts, therefore, constitute the elements of all our cognition, so that neither concepts without intuition corresponding to them in some way nor intuition without concepts can yield a cognition. Both are either pure or empirical. Empirical, if sensation (which presupposes the actual presence of the object) is contained therein; but pure if no sensation is mixed into the representation. One can call the latter the matter of sensible cognition. Thus, pure intuition contains merely the form under which something is intuited, and pure concept only the form of thinking of an object in general. Only pure intuitions or concepts alone are possible a priori, empirical ones only a posterior. If we will call the receptivity of our mind to receive representations insofar as it is affected in some way sensibility, then on the contrary the faculty for bringing forth representations itself, or the spontaneity of cognition, is the understanding. It comes along with our nature that intuition can never be other than sensible, i.e., that it contains only the way in which we are affected by objects. The faculty for thinking of objects of sensible intuition, on the contrary, is the understanding." (B 75-76)
As I can see in some scientific literature, the relationship is not altogether clear. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2217756. I tried to search on this sub and on the web, but nothing explicitly discussed this, as far as I could see.
