The Official "Ask dead prez a Question" Thread

[Satire]

I know this argument looks retarded from the outside looking in, so should I stop replying to Master Chief or does it actually look like a serious debate?

[Master Chief]

I know this argument looks retarded from the outside looking in, so should I stop replying to Master Chief or does it actually look like a serious debate?

Shut the fuck up.

Pussy.

[dead prez]

I know this argument looks retarded from the outside looking in, so should I stop replying to Master Chief or does it actually look like a serious debate?

Stop responding if it's not a substantial argument, plus you're derailing class' thread, unless that was MC's plan all along, a real troll in disguise. It takes a bigger man to leave even if he's "conceding" when the argument is just a pissing match to begin with, and has been beaten to death. You're just going in circles now.

[Satire]

Shut the fuck up.

Pussy.

How did I not see it when he said shit like this?

[Master Chief]

[Pllumi]

how's your reading of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals coming along ?

[dead prez]

how's your reading of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals coming along ?

Have you read it? Anyways it's very profound to say the least and requires my full attention, it's extremely difficult reading actually, though it varies, and how good of a reader you are is of course taken into account. I'm mostly reading it out of a whim though, but it's interesting stuff.

The whole premise though is Kant basically instructing us how to be moral lawgivers ad nauseum, and sugarcoating the golden rule in that you should treat others the way you want to be treated, but of course goes more in depth than that.

Even though Kant is a Christian he proposes that morality should be independent of divine command, and that we should employ reasoning rather than appealing to authority. Seeing as there an absurd amount of varying denominations in Christianity alone, let alone all the world religions, we have no way of objectively knowing which ones are true. Therefore divine command isn't exactly one to follow up on if you want a stable society.

It should be noted that whoever governs newly established moral laws, that the intelligence, and worldly experience of the person is not taken into account, but moresoe whether or not the moral lawgivers would follow through on their convictions.

i.e. Immanuel Kant's own morality is no less arbitrary than the aspergian doofus so long as he can follow his own maxim's.

Intent is also important (though this is common sense really).

i.e. Whether someone does a righteous deed out of the goodness of his/her own heart or merely did it to be extolled is important.

For the latter would be violating the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Really though, I'm not sure I agree with Kant as he'd be assuming everyone is altruistic and chivalrous, not to mention is relying on a slippery slope fallacy

Hopefully I'm not strawmanning his position, but yeah it's good stuff I guess and is essential if you plan on going into lengthy discourses about morality or philosopy.

[classthe_king]

What do you think of the Satire=Devil's Advocate theory?

[dead prez]

What do you think of the Satire=Devil's Advocate theory?

Who suggested this? That'd be extremely funny if DA was Satire trolling all along, I mean I guess it makes sense, DA LOVES Satire, to the extent that he hated you, and I hate to rule out any possibilities so maybe.

60-40 that Satire=DA

[classthe_king]

I was pming with Satire and he was making some subtle hints that he was DA.

[dead prez]

So does that mean Satire's from Lebanon? Well it makes more sense than the Satire=Coleon theory, so why not?

[classthe_king]

I say we just assume they're the same people without anymore proof needed.

[dead prez]

You're right, it makes perfect sense. I mean why else would DA be so infatuated with his other persona if not for being a dupe that he constantly tries to praise?

[Pllumi]

Have you read it? Anyways it's very profound to say the least and requires my full attention, it's extremely difficult reading actually, though it varies, and how good of a reader you are is of course taken into account. I'm mostly reading it out of a whim though, but it's interesting stuff.

The whole premise though is Kant basically instructing us how to be moral lawgivers ad nauseum, and sugarcoating the golden rule in that you should treat others the way you want to be treated, but of course goes more in depth than that.

Even though Kant is a Christian he proposes that morality should be independent of divine command, and that we should employ reasoning rather than appealing to authority. Seeing as there an absurd amount of varying denominations in Christianity alone, let alone all the world religions, we have no way of objectively knowing which ones are true. Therefore divine command isn't exactly one to follow up on if you want a stable society.

It should be noted that whoever governs newly established moral laws, that the intelligence, and worldly experience of the person is not taken into account, but moresoe whether or not the moral lawgivers would follow through on their convictions.

i.e. Immanuel Kant's own morality is no less arbitrary than the aspergian doofus so long as he can follow his own maxim's.

Intent is also important (though this is common sense really).

i.e. Whether someone does a righteous deed out of the goodness of his/her own heart or merely did it to be extolled is important.

For the latter would be violating the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

Really though, I'm not sure I agree with Kant as he'd be assuming everyone is altruistic and chivalrous, not to mention is relying on a slippery slope fallacy

Hopefully I'm not strawmanning his position, but yeah it's good stuff I guess and is essential if you plan on going into lengthy discourses about morality or philosopy.

thanks for your reply. No, I didn't read it, though I started reading it a week ago. Even though I'm still at the beginning of the book I could assume what Kant's goal was since I read a lot of internet stuff on this book & a lot of opinions including you. The reading isn't fun tbh, his works on transcendental philosophy was always hard for me to understand him. The tricky thing he does though, in the moral law, is his elucidations on how the empirical factors are completely nullified to incite one's will, the transition he does from the subjective sympathies to universality & so not taking into account one's egoistic sympathies... I don't agree with the transcendental philosophy overall, but Kant in the sphere of moral philosophy did really a good job

[dead prez]

thanks for your reply. No, I didn't read it, though I started reading it a week ago. Even though I'm still at the beginning of the book I could assume what Kant's goal was since I read a lot of internet stuff on this book & a lot of opinions including you. The reading isn't fun tbh, his works on transcendental philosophy was always hard for me to understand him. The tricky thing he does though, in the moral law, is his elucidations on how the empirical factors are completely nullified to incite one's will, the transition he does from the subjective sympathies to universality & so not taking into account one's egoistic sympathies... I don't agree with the transcendental philosophy overall, but Kant in the sphere of moral philosophy did really a good job

I haven't finished it neither, and have done a lot of research on the book and the background to help alleviate any ambiguities I have regarding Kant's stance. And yeah, I sort of agree with what you're saying as I addressed it earlier in my post about how, not all of us are altruistic and chivalrous so the assumption in that we would all follow the golden rule (which is basically the euphemism he sets up in the book), just because it purports to morality doesn't mean that it is necessarily the one that we should follow down to a T. In the end all this leads to is an educated man giving his subjective view of how we should live, but doesn't bring much in empirical evidence.

Hopefully if we both finish it we could have a lengthy discourse regarding Kant, I know that we would be an esoteric bunch, where not many are well informed about it. But like anything if I plan to truly have a substantial debate about it, I must hit the books first. One thing I know is that if you could read Kant, you could read just about anything.