Posted on 04/22/2024 8:19:42 AM PDT by Borges
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
bttt
Killed All Normal Thinking.
He and Hillary could be drinking buddies. It would give him cause to rethink everything.
Immanuel Kant, but at least he tried....................
I wrote my Thesis on the Critique of Pure Reason...and got an A-...Teach said I would have gotten an A but for that he did the same and got an A.
Kant was only great because the elites told us he was great.
But Kant gave us nothing.
His thinking is marked by a massive error: looking for moral philosophy apart from God.
Kant’s Moral Imperative was something he stole from Christian doctrine, and tried to dress it up as something he invented.
“He had great faith in people. He believed they were capable of taking responsibility — for themselves and for the world. Kant thought that life could be mastered with reason and arguments “
He lived to see how naive he was.
Kant was a philosopher which means he believed what he wanted to believe and justified it through quibbling, niggling nitpicking petty arguments that are really BS.
If Kant gave us anything good, then it can be stated in concise terms.
Ayn Rand hated Kant.
“Ayn Rand considers Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and his philosophy to be evil and condemns what she perceives as the intended goal, methods, and conclusions of his philosophical arguments. She accused Kant of hating life, man, and reason. Rand observed that, since Kant, the dominant trend in philosophy has been aimed at the destruction of the human mind and that a philosophy seeking to destroy man’s mind is a philosophy of hatred for man, his life, and all human values. In Kant’s teachings, Rand saw contempt and detestation of the strong, able, successful, virtuous, confident, and the happy.”
The “categorical imperative” could arguably be one of the cornerstones of socialism....
That is the fundamental error of all utopians, whether libertarian or totalitarian. To the contrary, people are broken and sinful. The worst of us are those very dedicated to "taking responsibility ... for the world".
Kant appears to be a New World Order type of person.
That is wrong and flawed from the very foundation. Because Kant would have supported the League of Nations and the United Nations, it shows how little he apparently understood of human nature.
I will grant him just a hair of the benefit of the doubt, that during his time, it may not have been abundantly clear how poisonous, corrosive, and destructive those concepts are. (an overarching world order)
But it is clear, and has been clear, since the end of WWI just how wrong that concept in the light of known human nature Kant was.
Absolutely 100%.
We are flawed, and humans cannot be trusted with that power.
A world order is, by its nature, totalitarian.
Why Kant we all get along?
Ahhhahahahaha, whenever I hear “Kant”, that is ALWAYS the first thing in my mind!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.