Kant was an emotional midget, (and essentially a moma's boy).
He's hardly the "ethical character" to which all should aspire.
hahahahahahteeejej
Sort:
Jul 27, 2015
0
#23
no im not that guy see Hatty-Freeham's post on whether chess exists, he is that guy.
im the guy who wants a better and safer world for my grandchildren
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:
no im not that guy see Hatty-Freeham's post on whether chess exists, he is that guy.
im the guy who wants a better and safer world for my grandchildren
As a grandfather, im with you on that!
Jul 27, 2015
0
#25
zborg wrote:
Kant was an emotional midget, (and essentially a moma's boy).
Not exactly the ethical character to which all should aspire.
yes but he was a good person so we should aspire to be like him in that sense. at least hes asking the right questions. we just have to live better, to "play our roles" in society better. kant wasnt the best actor he was indeed TOO good
Jul 27, 2015
0
#26
Diakonia wrote:
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:
no im not that guy see Hatty-Freeham's post on whether chess exists, he is that guy.
im the guy who wants a better and safer world for my grandchildren
As a grandfather, im with you on that!
and yes i would be the guy in that drive-thru but just like i have to wear clothes i have to order politically correct so to speak. so always better to be that guy because then you can act the other way but if youre not then you cant act like "that guy" when applying for a position
what i try to teach my grandchildren also :)
Jul 27, 2015
0
#27
the trick is to be free from your law not only so you dont feel guilt to any external being but also so that you are not held back bby pride as a defense mechanism, to allow for a flexible identity. becuase the bigges thindrnce to adapting to different situations is to say oh i am so and so and why should i change for y ou? but its important as soical beings
"Kant laid it down that what humans are factually like, or what their history factually was, is forbidden to play a part in ethical reflection. We are supposed to be looking for principles that any Rational Creature would adhere to, whether a six-headed being in outer space or the man on the Clapham omnibus."
Ditto for this thread. Droll On, Please.
Jul 27, 2015
0
#30
actually you make a very interesting point because if you do something and noone sees it are you acting ethically? like if you pray every day in your isolated space are you acting ethically. does ethics require another external being which is why its different form the rest of logiical analytic philosophy
Virtue Ethics was revived in the 1960s. Mostly by women.
It ain't a thought experiment, sorry.
You can thank Kant, and his fellow travellers (Hobbes, et. al.) for that dead end.
you should be an Olympic Sport ,it takes such effort to deal with the constant crap you write.
Jul 27, 2015
0
#33
i think if it made it to an olympic sport that would be important for the honor of chess becuase the question is so if youre doing it ethically but its not respected is it automaticlally eunethical or is there an inherhent nature which akes something ethical or not
Jul 27, 2015
0
#34
zborg wrote:
Virtue Ethics was revived in the 1960s. Mostly by women.
It ain't a thought experiment, sorry.
Thank Kant, and his fellow travellers for that dead end.
women were big followers of kant because he was a very "religious" philosopher
although virtue has been around since plato. 2000 years we couldnt solve it it doesnt EXIST
Until recently, synchronized swimming (in sport) was barred to men.
Oh the Shame of it All ! 
Jul 27, 2015
0
#36
because precisely you have more than the law in play here you have the contract and the poetic word. to balance all three with current politicians is a nightmare, spreading like a wildfire.....
Jul 27, 2015
0
#37
zborg wrote:
Until recently, synchronized swimming (in sport) was barred to men.
Oh the Shame of it All !
shame is also a big part in ethics. since we feel indebted to our law we feel shame and thus pride as a defesne mechanism. there should be a mititgation of shame by controlling its effects from within
You're typing too fast. Time for a spell check, perhaps?
sometimes people play chess as an escape, because they are fearful of doing something else. thier law tells them thou shat not do that thing so they do something else without ever questioning themselves.
what kant says it not to do anything pathologically because it is not a universal maxim. he means if we play chess it should be a reason they everyone in the humanity shares, not a personal reason. otherwise were actiing out of our specific law, of fear
You would be the guy in a drive-thru that would take 6 hours to order, by making everything a question.
"May i help you"
"I dont know...can you?
"Sir...what would you like to order?"
"Order?..as in the order of things?"
"Next"