philosophical inquiry (cont.)

Put here because I was told to put it here.

I believe my suspicions were confirmed later in this post.

So you're telling me that the categorical imperative works in a perfect world? "As long as nobody violates my rules, then everyone is obeying the law." What philosophical paradigm wouldn't work perfectly in a perfect world? Philosophy is only useful when it is stressed and put in uncomfortable situations, because usually, intuition is good enough for 99% of situations without a bunch of ridiculous philosophical posturing.

If you believe that you can disprove god with this statement, you are being extremely naive. A truly omnipotent being could simply unmake the laws of logic and reality to create a reality where he could both move the object and the object was unmovable, or where such a contradiction didn't exist in the first place.

 

I'm telling you as i grow my more and more scientific worldview i start to treat philosophy the way i tread old theories: lock it up in a "wordbox" and display it in the museum.

A truly omnipotent being could simply unmake the laws of logic and reality to create a reality where he could both move the object and the object was unmovable, or where such a contradiction didn't exist in the first place.

As i said, you can construct anything you could possibly think of using imperfect, crude language that humans use.

Categorical Imperative
It works the same way that Game Theories do. You have some rules and if everybody sticks to them, you can predict the outcome.

In Leymans terms
You get to make your own rules. Don't fuck it up. Hope as hard as it is fucking possible that you did choose right.

 

I'm only going to respond to the first part because most of the rest was unintelligible.

Cute. Unfortunately for you, all scientists are also philosophers. A scientific world view is also a philosophical world view.

 

That's actually nothing like what Kant said. Kant laid out a very specific rules for you to OBEY, not a set of guidelines to CREATE your own rules. He was reacting to consequentialist philosophers of his time who were doing just that - saying rules don't really matter as long as you're paying attention to the consequences of your actions.

 

Uh, excuse me?

What you seem to be advocating is intuitionism or egoism.

Egoism and the categorical imperative are from fundamentally opposing schools of ethical philosophy and are completely incompatible.

Deontological schools of philosophy are concerned only with rules and obedience. Kant hails from this school.

Teleological schools of philosophy are concerned only with actions and their consequences. Egoism and intuitionism are both from this school of thought.

They approach problems in totally different ways, and you most definitely cannot be both (the one exception is virtue ethics).

Are you kidding? Holy fuck are you reading that wrong.

Let me paraphrase this sentence. ONLY DO SOMETHING IF IT CAN BECOME A LAW THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. That is what Kant is saying. That is what the categorical imperative is.

 

So you're saying that you would tell the nazi the truth and direct him toward the jews?

 

„Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde. “

You are reading it wrong you ignored the middle part.

The sentence appears in more than one book of kant.

„Handle so, dass du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person, als in der Person eines jeden anderen jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchst.“

This version does not only include a "you" it only talks about the "you".

 

Flasche: But according to the categorical imperative, deceiving others is always wrong, is it not? Do you EVER want to be deceived?

The middle part is redundant. It can be assumed that Kant is addressing the reader so any case/tense/perspective language doesn't add any meaning. Yes of course he's talking to the person reading, it wouldn't do any good if he were talking about the person's mother but not the person reading.

 

No it doesnt, it isnt redunant. It clearly says, that you PERSONALY THINK.

 

Ok, i must stop this before i chew my keyboard in half.

I can't.
All science comes from philosophy. That doesn't make it philosophy.

And drop the jew question its just getting riddiculous.
Would you vote for a guy who says "Let's dominate the world. Oh, and exterminate a nation or two!"

Final part

I'm only going to respond to the first part because most of the rest was unintelligible.

One can't debate with pickled as he will ignore anything that doen't fit his worldview.

Another post made of quotes as you haven't said anything new.

 

Oh and I suppose he wrote the rest of the book about rules on lying and theft and murder and treating people as an end to their own means for no reason.

Let me ask you a question, zealoth.

Can a scientist be ascribed the following behavior: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct?

 

That doesnt alter the sentence. The categorical imperative is written in
a horrible officialese, I bet Kant did that to make it as precise as possible.

 

[You] only do that which [you believe] can be universalized.

is, in English, the same as saying

Only do that which can be universalized.

maybe in German it's different - I wouldn't know, I don't speak German.

 

Yes.
However, there is more.
Some unrelevant things like observing facts, experimenting, having huge base of facts.

I am NOT saying that philosophy isn't important. It's just separate from science.

All he's saying - do only what you would want do be done to you.

 

So you're saying that scientists regularly engage in philosophy (I directly copypasted that definition from #1 on the list of definitions in dictionary.com) as part of their job?

 

You did again, on purpose, remove the you.
Bending sentences and grammar doesnt help if you try to argument.