I really liked the original Curly
A quote from the man himself:-it is a definition of marriage.
It is "A treaty of reciprocal possession by the two parties which is made effective by the reciprocal use of their sex-properties."
Anyone a Kant fan?
uuummmmm.....I didn't realize I was stupid until I read that quote.
Re: His views regarding.....
Well, I would like to know what his views were regarding the definition of virtue and the holy will. Any ideas?
Kant has a good discussion of "virtue" in his "Metaphysics of Morals." In short, a virtuous act is one that is free of compulsion, done for the sake of doing what one should rather than doing what one must.
Kant discusses the "holy will" in his "Grounding of a Metaphysics of Morals"
). Holy will is a will that conforms perfectly to reason, such that one does what one should and
what one must, since the two are identical. Kant contrasts that with "human will," which is influenced by factors other than reason. Obviously, Kant viewed "holy will" as an unattainable ideal, conceivable only as the will that God alone possesses.
Excellent web resources for Kant can be found collected at Kant on the Web
, and these lecture materials from G.J. Mattey
provide a good summary of Kant's philosophy.
Still nonsense... When people do good they act against self interest... Morality is an obligation one owes to ones community, and it is freely given, but it is also the price one pays for membership in the community... There is alaways a sacrifice in every form of relationship, and what is usually sacrificed is a part of ones self, ones selfish interests... Saying it is freely given does not mean it is easy... If you are immoral you put yourself out of society,,,When you are moral you cut yourself in... An example of this is the early Christians... They would not offer a pinch of incense to the genius of the emperor like everyone else, even when it was given to them and put into their hands... They expected to stay, and take the support of the community, but did not expect to have to sacrifice to the spirit of an emperor that most people supported as worthy, and as their protection... They were outlaws... They should have been hounded out...
when I started writing my novel, my awareness of Kant was nill. It wasn't until just a couple of months before I finished writing my novel that I became aware of Kant's views on the dependence of spacetime to the mind and his Analytical Vs Synthetic statements.
I became quite excited when I discovered his ideas on these topics because I had discovered them on my own and I had already discussed them in my novel, particularly the congruity of spacetime and the mind. It was in the course of my research that I learned that Kant had similar ideas.
I also realized that his views on Synthetic statements has flaws. A Synthetic statement is one that does not follow tautologically from the postulates of a system. An Analytical statement follows tautologically from the postulates. kant said that certain artithmetical statements such as 7 + 5 = 12 are Synthetic. But that is not correct because such arithmetical statement are a tautolological consequence of the postulates of number theory.
In my novel I discuss Godel Incompleteness as a mechanism by which the Big Bang produces Existence. When I learned of kant's ideas I realized that a formal system's Synthetic statements are its Godel undecidable theorems.
Anyway, I have become a fan of Kant.
Author of Shards Of Divinities on Amazon
Studied Critique of Pure Reason to help spouse get a Philosophy degree. Very stimulating but generally off. Here is how powerful Kant can be:
't is known that C.S. Peirce had a Kantian bent. By his own description he had “devoted two hours a day to the study of Kant’s Critic of the Pure Reason for more than three years, until [he] almost knew the whole book by heart, and had critically examined every section of it.” "
Peirce later rejected Kant but you can see the effort.
'that is not correct because such arithmetical statement are a tautolological consequence of the postulates of number theory'
It is correct, I think, to accept Kant's assertion that math judgments are synthetic. The postulates of number theory are synthetic. I'm trying to be very brief, but I can tarry to discuss it, it's interesting, but rather abstruse. How am I so sure that the postulates of number theory are synthetic? Well, they are stated rather informally, is the thing to notice, here. You are talking about 'a tautological consequence' of vague statements. You know what a point is, for example. We can look at a dictionary definition. A point is like a line, but very very short. It's a small dot, so very small as to be infinitely small and invisible and have zero dimensions. I call this a rather spectacularly vague definition, but it may be better for me to just pretend that I don't understand what a point is, can you explain it to me? Suppose that I'm not very good at math. I want to be shown an example of a point. Or even a Line. A line is supposed to be straight, but you draw me a line that is a bit crooked, well, are there any actually straight lines? That are one-dimensional? You draw me a line, it's very thin, but two-dimensional. I could insist that lines and points don't actually exist. I seem to be missing the point, of course, but note, lines and points exist. It's just that these judgments are synthetic. Now, what does any of this even have to do with the analytic/synthetic distinction? Suffice to say that I see a connection..I'm hinting that this matter is interesting enough to consider again..enough for one post..