>A categorical imperative commands unconditionally that I should act in some way. So while hypothetical imperatives apply to me only on the condition that I have and set the goal of satisfying the desires that they tell me how to satisfy, categorical imperatives apply to me no matter what my goals and desires may be. Kant regards moral laws as categorical imperatives, which apply to everyone unconditionally. For example, the moral requirement to help others in need does not apply to me only if I desire to help others in need, and the duty not to steal is not suspended if I have some desire that I could satisfy by stealing. Moral laws do not have such conditions but rather apply unconditionally. That is why they apply to everyone in the same way.
Pretty spooky, huh?
Samuel Evans
No its rational, you have to understand the whole Critique to get it though
Cooper Wood
Kant was literally 5 feet tall. Is manlet philosophy applicable to people of normal stature?
James Walker
it's rational in the system he sets up, you mean? where an experienced sense of guilt, etc. proves free will/choice of action? i'm not through the whole thing yet, but don't really see how that'd be resolved. i mean i get that it fits, am i still missing it?
Jose Foster
>it's rational in the system he sets up Both that and objectively rational, actually
Nicholas Sanchez
Go back to Veeky Forums
Jose Thompson
It's "objectively rational" in the same way the phrase "A = A" is objectively rational.
Aiden Hernandez
>Veeky Forums is the new boogeyman at least it's more exciting than /pol/
Grayson Lopez
Manlets are specifically a Veeky Forums meme.
Angel Garcia
Really obtuse way of repackaging >Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Jacob Young
You don't need to get through the whole thing, you need to reread that part, or maybe the entire book really. It's clear that you did not get it because:
>where an experienced sense of guilt, etc. proves free will/choice of action
That's fundamentally the opposite of what he's saying. And that's a pretty big part on his philosophy.
Just because they arrive at the same conclusion it does not mean that they are the same.
Gabriel Barnes
maybe i wasnt clear. that is not the opposite of what he's saying, though it is circular, so the opposite is also true. will post quotes from my computer.
Dominic Powell
It's specifically a way of repackaging that kinks out the moral loopholes in the Golden Rule.
Luke Thomas
you didnt understand at all m8
Parker Clark
Why are the double digit IQ posters on this board so infatuated with Stirner? Is it because they think that they can just use the word "spook" as a tool to avoid enagging with any argument in an even semi-serious way?
Chase Jackson
hello 110-120 IQ
Gabriel Gutierrez
I heard that Kant uses freedom as a given to support morality in Groundworks and morality as a givnen to support freedom in the second critique.
Any Kantfags who can clear this up for me?
Caleb Williams
this is true as i understand it
Cooper Ross
>tfw actually 140 iq and realize that Kierkegaard ended philosophy a while ago
Xavier Thompson
Don't make me say it.
William Davis
Kierkegaard didn't finish philosophy because he didn't talk about every subject. You can, however, say something along the lines of "Kierkegaard pretty much finished philosophy and Wittgenstein put the last nail on the coffin".
