|
Post by teuton on Jan 24, 2006 17:48:46 GMT 2
What I miss in here is anything dealing with philosophy. To give it a start, I will begin: Let's consider two points of view, one from a big philosopher, Immanuel Kant, and mine, which is more like a critisizm: Immanuel Kant says, an action that is based on a good will is always morally correct. So far I do agree. But all his moral-philosophy is based on the followings phrase: Act like your personal maxim can develop to a law of nature.That would mean, that a person should act in a way everyone should act in the best case. Saying this, freedom of people is set borders. So practically this philosophy might be disproved, because in practical, it is not possible to act like that. I hope my opponent point of view to Kant's thesis became clear. It is just raw stuff, but it would have been too difficult and long to cover all questions that are revealed. Just question if there are any, this thread is meant to discuss in
|
|
|
Post by vargaskinn on Jan 25, 2006 16:05:34 GMT 2
The stary skies above me,the moral law inside of me...of course it is possible to act like that.you see,all he says is that people should be what they are.he doesn't say the moral law inside us is the same for every one of us.it is not.i don't know why,i guess the gods wanted it to be so.i should follow my nature,you yours.people don't always do that.civilisation made us lie and be hypocrits.Kant was an idealist.he didn't want us to cheat ourselves. )))
|
|
|
Post by swiatowit on Feb 1, 2006 14:01:14 GMT 2
But the world need idealists. Without them- it would disappear. Where everyone lies- there must be one true man, I guess. It's impossible that money controls the whole world. But even "wild" countries, cottages in deep Africa aren't really free. Wherever you go- someone controls you, someone lies you. Now you can't decide even in just little, personal things like for example having of bank account- you must- becouse your employer or chief tells you, that you must. Sad but true :[
|
|
|
Post by spirit on Feb 5, 2006 18:09:23 GMT 2
Well, Kant was very original person... He refused travelling, just not to be distracted from his work. He didn't marry, cause he thought it will prevent his mental work. At least, he didn't like music, he thought, it's importunate. Well, he didn' like art generally. IMHO, he was a bit far from real life, so could his ideas be right? If we could know...
|
|
|
Post by teuton on Apr 1, 2006 13:40:58 GMT 2
spirit: You're right. In my eyes, he was a person far from reality which had no idea of people in general. His philosophy would have been better if he would have made it closer to reality. His point of view is not adoptable in real life.
|
|
flame
Eagle
flame is dancing in the night,the shadows are really alive,the clan of the forest is singing with me
Posts: 117
|
Post by flame on May 15, 2006 11:51:07 GMT 2
I think one problem of the good old school of philosophy is that they are all beyond the real, natural life and law. They developed just some sorts of ideal acting or being. But you can take their ideas to act practical with it. There is a new wave in philosophyy by practice philosophy and adopt just the attitudes to overthink situations. therefore they give us good vehicles like some psycho-therapy if you see it like that. Or like Astrology, if you want to blame them. Just a question of the beholding process....... Weird Party on Flame
|
|
Lucy
Wolfcub
Posts: 12
|
Post by Lucy on Jul 3, 2006 22:35:15 GMT 2
Vargaskinn, I didn't know that you love Imanuel Kant.
|
|
|
Post by MaliceGarden on Jul 24, 2006 13:07:52 GMT 2
|
|
|
Post by Sethlad on Aug 9, 2006 19:58:51 GMT 2
Before I proceed further, I should say I think Kant was a nerdy twat.
Yes he was incredibly intelligent, yes he had some very original concepts and a unsurpassed dedication to his work. But, alas, he had absolutely no idea of what REAL LIFE actually is.
Yes, Philosophy is supposed to deal in the field of Hypothethisis and "grander truths" but where do you draw the line between the "oh wouldn't this be swell if we all behaved like this" and the "i'll just spew out generic views of life which have absolutely no practicable use on real life"?
Someone said "his point of view is not adoptable in real life". I agree wholeheartedly. Now, if his point of view is not adoptable in real life, what, pray tell me, is the point of his point of view?
Sorry for the rant... kant irritates me. Like green-peas... and boyscouts. Silly.
|
|
|
Post by carya on Aug 22, 2006 12:11:08 GMT 2
I think the question you shouls ask is, if Kant SHOULD have done his works nearer to the real life. I think it is really necessesary for a philosopher to keep distance to reality because reality is something everybody defines different. Nobody is able to say exacty what'S wrong and what's right. It depends on the point of view. So, if someone tries to make rules that work for everyone, not only his own person, doesn't he have to distance from reality? I think he has to do. And Kant did do that. I really admire Kants view of the world in some cases. One point, I disagree, is humans ability to know what'S good and what's bad. It is something that is trained by society and not something human have from it's beginning of life. Kant says that we are brn with a kind of an idee of rigth and wrong and that all persons are good inside themselves. I disagree with that idee cause I think nobody knows up from his birth want he shall do and what not. Nobody'S is good or bad, it'S only his education that makes him feel that way. What do you think about this?
btw: sorry, that I repeated some words, it's very difficult to express in such a high level in english.
|
|
|
Post by Sethlad on Aug 22, 2006 15:00:54 GMT 2
I think the question you shouls ask is, if Kant SHOULD have done his works nearer to the real life. True. And the question I think you should ask is if Kant SHOULD have made rules that work for everyone. I absolutely agree with you when you say that reality is something that everyone defines in a different way. Taking that in mind, I think that Kant's problem (as with many, many philosophers) is that he approached his theoritical expositions assuming that everyone DID act in one homogenous way, in other words, that he created absolutist and generalised theories for a race (us) that is as ambiguous and extremely instable in their ideals. It as all very nice and pretty to make all-encompassing theories that depart from the generalised assumption that we are all same, but we're not, so, in general, I think it is a flawed principle. I know that many do not share this, and I DO NOT claim to be owner of truth... this is my own personal view on philosophy and, specifically speaking, Kant. Call me a pragmatist, but philosophy often borders on autism... genious which is completely detached from reality/outer world. I do agree on you though, that the conceptions of Right and Wrong are instilled on you as we grow. Actually, that theory of Kant is one of the main reasons I still claim he is a naive twat. Same with Rousseau. Yes Rousseau broke a few barriers and shed a bit of light on some mouldy subjects but, for Lemmy's mole's sake, "men is pure and good-hearted in its true and original nature and is only evil when corrupted by society"?!?!?!?! Man has been killing, fighting, burning, stealing, destroying and raping since THE BEGINING OF TIME when there was no "evil modern society" to corrupt it. Face it, we're flawed... we just gotta accept it and do the best we can with our lives. Attention, I'm also not saying that we are evil by nature.... in my opinion, our true nature is ambiguous and unstable, neither good nor evil, and depending on many things, society but not only, we can develop into either Dalai Lama's or obnoxious rude bastards, like me.
|
|
kyle
Wolfcub
Posts: 1
|
Post by kyle on Nov 6, 2006 4:39:21 GMT 2
The philosophical topic most interesting to me is the question of emergent phenomena I'm working on a physics graduate education and the question of why phase transitions occur and their relationship to each other seems very deep to me. Reductionism was such a staple of physics for a very long time, but there has been a gradual breaking from that as more and more physicists work in areas such as condensed matter and materials science. To me the idea that there are emergent rules of physics that cannot be predicted by understanding constituent particles and fundamental laws is a very powerful (and maybe even unsettling) idea.
|
|