[ download books ] Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der SittenAuthor Immanuel Kant – Replica-watches.co

[ download books ] Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der SittenAuthor Immanuel Kant – Replica-watches.co


Immanuel Kant S Groundwork Of The Metaphysics Of Morals Ranks Alongside Plato S Republic And Aristotle S Nicomachean Ethics As One Of The Most Profound And Influential Works In Moral Philosophy Ever Written In Kant S Own Words Its Aim Is To Search For And Establish The Supreme Principle Of Morality, The Categorical Imperative This Edition Presents The Acclaimed Translation Of The Text By Mary Gregor, Together With An Introduction By Christine M Korsgaard That Examines And Explains Kant S Argument Immanuel Kant S Groundwork Of The Metaphysics Of Morals Ranks Alongside Plato S Republic And Aristotle S Nicomachean Ethics As One Of The Most Profound And Influential Works In Moral Philosophy Ever Written In Kant S Own Words Its Aim Is To Search For And Establish The Supreme Principle Of Morality, The Categorical Imperative This Edition Presents The Acclaimed Translation Of The Text By Mary Gregor, Together With An Introduction By Christine M Korsgaard That Examines And Explains Kant S Argument

  • Paperback
  • 120 pages
  • Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten
  • Immanuel Kant
  • English
  • 03 April 2017
  • 9780521626958

About the Author: Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher from K nigsberg, Prussia now Kaliningrad, Russia He s regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe of the late Enlightenment His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics epistemology, highlights his own contributi



10 thoughts on “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten

  1. says:

    People ask me how I become so well read Although I huff and bumble around the question, the fact is I am not yet well read I have not read any of the Four Great Chinese classics, none of Kant s Kritiks, gave up on Proust half way, nothing by Heidegger, no Canterbury Tales in the Middle English, no Gargantua and Pentagruel, no Ulysses, no Lacan though I ve heard he s a shit , no Vico, no Gadamer, none of Beckett s novels, etc., etc There is always and it is always calling.The point of this egoistic diversion is that this is a necessary book about ethics which I had ignored The Categorial Imperative is one of those big philosophical concepts that influenced a lot of people after Kant, and is still a big part of modern political liberalism today This, of course, does not mean that you have to agree with him, just recognize that he was influential.The Categorical Imperative is a deceptively simple idea act only in ways that you would wish every person to act This idea is not the Golden Rule as seen in every religious faith Do unto others as you would have them do unto you Instead it is of a logical exercise If everybody did this, would society function Would such a moral behavior lead to logical contradictions Ethics is only a part of Kant s thought, however, as this idea relies upon Kant s concepts on human liberty and government, which are in turn based upon his conception of human reason Kant s discussion on human reason is largely contained within his cathedrals the three Kritiks on Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgment To be fair, the categorical imperative does have its criticisms, many of which are often applied to Kant s thought as a whole it is easy to imagine exceptions to every ethical rule, human beings are not always rational creatures, and so on However, what is relevant from Kant to a level of personal popular ethics is the question of making exceptions for yourself when it comes to ethical dilemmas The only moral X is my X is no real ethical system, and serves as an excuse for villainy.


  2. says:

    When I was studying this book there were no copies available to buy for some reason but then I found it in the local library in a hard back edition printed in the 1930s or something I borrowed it and showed it to my lecturer and he said, You ought to steal that they only charge you what it cost the library to buy and that would have been cents back then I said, You want me to steal a book on morality Needless to say, he was much better at lecturing on Neitzsche.This is a remarkably difficult book to read not as hard as some of Kant s other works the Critique of Pure Reason which I ve started many times and will probably start many times should only be attempted with fear and trepidation all the same, it repays the effort The main problem is Kant s endless sentences he is the Henry James of the philosophy world Some feel that his categorical imperative act in a way that allows you to imagine the maxim that is guiding your action could be used as a universal law for anyone needing to act in similar circumstances my longer than Kant take on it is a fascinating basis for building a morality.Some say that the categorical imperative is just the Christian golden rule written in a way that makes it hard to follow The golden rule not being he who has the gold makes the rules , but rather treat others as you would be treated yourself There is something to that, but I think it is a little interesting when Kant does it The idea that other people should be treated like ends and not means seems to me to be as good a basis of a moral system as anyone has, as yet, come up with I m terribly fond of Kant, almost protective of him, not because I think he is the greatest philosopher of all time, but because he was what we would today consider a boring little man who never left his home town, but thought remarkable thoughts He even worked out why the solar system is a flat disk shape pretty cool, if you ask me He had world changing thoughts in some ways.I would go so far as to say that understanding his idea that one cannot know the thing in itself is perhaps one of the core ideas in understanding virtually all philosophy after him If you were thinking of starting reading Kant and weren t sure where would be a good place to make such a start this wouldn t be too bad a book to buy The other place to look, perhaps, is the Critique of the Judgement which is quite an easy read for Kant and fascinating stuff on taste taste in art, that is.


  3. says:

    Confession of Stupidity Lately, I ve been had long and agonizing conversation with my friend about the categorical imperative I was insisting that it didn t make sense my friend insisted that it did, and that I merely misunderstood it After much deliberation, I found to my embarrassment that he was right I had misunderstood it I had misunderstood it badly Now, fortunately, I think I ve got a hold on the concept, which indeed is not terribly complex though, for my brain at least, a bit too much.Having thought a lot about it, I wish to give a fairly pedantic examination of the theory forgive me But first, I d like to explain what it is not, and the various ways that I managed to misapprehend it My Mistakes I was under the impression that the categorical imperative was this Before you do an action, consider whether it would work as a universal law if it would, it s okay if it wouldn t, then it s forbidden But I thought to myself I could will almost literally anything as a universal law I could will universal suicide or a universal fight to the death, just so long as I was willing to commit suicide or fight to the death myself The thought experiment Kant instructed us to perform seemed completely arbitrary he might as well say before you do an action, imagine if it could be performed on a spaceship Also, I thought if I give enough qualifications, almost anything could work as a universal without anything catastrophic happening For example, I could say if you are tired, going to work on a Tuesday morning, hate your job, are six foot three inches tall, and need to urinate, it s okay to be push people on the street The conditions given for this action are so specific that nothing would really change Similarly, I could say if you re really really desperate, it s okay to steal, and it could work In fact, I bet that s already the case.The second formulation also confused me treat people as ends, not means For one, I couldn t see any connection between this formulation and the previous one what does treating people with respect have to do with willing universal laws What s , the command seemed preposterous I thought, but I treat people as means all the time When I order coffee I don t do it for the sake of the person selling the coffee I also thought that there was a contradiction between doing an action for the sake of duty and doing it for the sake of another person what s the real end , the person or the duty All of my objections managed to completely and totally miss the point My friend got frustrated because I was bringing up all these irrelevant objections, and I felt very confused.Hope came when I took a long walk, and decided that I would attempt to start from Kant s assumptions which I knew roughly from his Critiques and see if I could get to something that resembled the categorical imperative Here is what I found My Attempt to Derive the Categorical Imperative When we look at nature, we often find determinism Equations determine the movement of particles and the temperatures of stars chemical structures determine the qualities of materials instincts honed by natural selection determine animal behavior Sometimes, we also see random chance We run into an old friend in a distant country, or we accidentally drop our mug of beer But freedom is incompatible with either determinism and chance to be free, we cannot be said to be determined by anything else, nor can we attribute our actions to some random process Nonetheless, we cannot help but suppose ourselves free otherwise, we can never decide what to do since all decision making presupposes freedom.We can relieve this tension in one of two ways One way would be to declare freedom illusory We presuppose freedom when we decide, but this is just a feeling of freedom we are just as determined by natural laws as anything else in nature, and just as subject to random processes And here we might ask ourselves, what is freedom, anyway Well, maybe it s easier to answer when are we not free When we are compelled to follow a law or directive foisted on us by somebody in power, we aren t free because we aren t determining our own actions But, when a drug addict sells their property to get a fix, we also say they aren t free, even though they aren t following some external directive, because their desires are determining their actions Last, we don t hold accountable a person whose house was destroyed by a hurricane, and is reduced to penury, because the hurricane might be said to have struck by chance.So we say a person is free when they make coolly rational decisions, not forced by some outside party, not overwhelmed by some strong desire, and not affected by some random process But is this justifiable Is this really freedom And do we have it It seems that, even when we re making coolly rational decisions, we re still subject to the laws of nature, to random events, and are still guided by our wants and needs So is freedom at least in the fundamental sense of an action being undetermined by all previous events, nor at all random is this freedom possible Kant thinks it is but he has a job to do in proving that it is possible We can attempt to resolve these conflicts by hypothesizing that there is a part of us that is neither determined nor subject to chance.But what would this part of us be I can find two possibilities, not mutually exclusive consciousness and rationality Humans are distinguished from other creatures by our self consciousness and by our ability to reason First, let us suppose it is consciousness only that makes us free But what are we conscious of Hunger, thirst, exhaustion, desire, and various other things in our surroundings If something external to our bodies forces us to do something, we are obviously not free, just as a dog is not free when being trained by its master Consciousness seems to make no difference in that case But we also seem not to be free when following some desire For example, a dog is probably conscious of hunger, too, yet we do not usually think that dogs have free will when they pursue food Perhaps you can say you are free because you can chose which desire to satisfy but then what is the criterion by which one makes such a decision Another desire Clearly, something extra is needed rationality Our ability to use reason is what sets our decision making apart from that of dogs and cats Using reason, we can establish criterion that are not themselves desires We can reign in desire for fast food if we realize that it will have negative long term effects we can abstain from buying that expensive new luxury car by considering how it would affect our children s futures Ah, but that s not quite enough Because, even when we refuse to eat fast food, all we re doing is balancing our desire for something salty against our desire for long life In a sense, we re still in the position of a drug addict balancing his desire for a fix against his desire for a coat So not only must reason be the criterion, but reason must be the motivation, for free decisions We must both be determining our own actions and not pursuing some desire.Now we are in a position to ask ourselves what is morality To be moral is to decide to do the right thing it requires decision making, and therefore can only apply to rational creatures Not only can morality only apply to rational creatures, but morality can only apply to creatures insofar as they are rational.Anything non rational, therefore, cannot be moral Animals and inanimate objects cannot reason, so morality cannot apply to them We have previously determined that things like hunger, thirst, and other desires are non rational so such things are not the basis of morality Neither is morality concerned with achieving any particular goal in the world, because all goals derive their value from desiring them Phrased in a slightly different way, all goals are contingent they are only operative when the desire for them is operative and we know that our desires are ever changing Nor can morality even have anything to do with human nature, since all other rational creatures human, alien, or angel would be equally subject to it.So morality, being derived from rationality and only applicable to creatures insofar as they are rational, must not have anything to do with empirical reality it is, in other words, a priori Now, morality deals in oughts, commands, or imperatives what we should do Since morality cannot take into account states of fact, the commands of morality must apply under all conceivable conditions Also, since every rational creature is equally subject to the commands of morality, all moral imperatives must apply equally to all rational creatures In short, morality is equally operative no matter who you are or what you re doing It is not dependent on any circumstances it is a categorical imperative.From this alone we can draw the conclusion that any action which makes an exception of the actor cannot be moral In other words, any action which could not be universalized is immoral since the categorical imperative applies to everyone equally at all times Also, since morality applies to all rational agents equally, any actions which treat a rational agent as not deserving of equal respect is immoral This is to say, any action which treats a rational agent as a non rational part of nature is forbidden there is no valid reason for doing so.This test is a negative test The categorical imperative cannot tell you what to do it can only tell you what you may not do You may not make an exception of yourself you may not treat another rational agent as a part of nature In other words, act only on maxims that can be willed as universals never treat other rational agents as means only, but as ends in themselves deserving of respect The Categorical Imperative in a Nutshell So Kant does a very clever thing here Kant essentially makes morality and freedom synonymous You are only free if you are motivated by reason and when you are motivated by reason, you are abiding by the categorical imperative, and are thus moral Rationality is, for Kant, the basis of free will So when rationality fully determines the will, it is the will giving a law unto itself This removes the paradox of freedom We are not free when we are following a law from outside ourselves, nor when we are following our own desires we are only free when we are following the laws we created for ourselves you can see the Rousseau influence here And not only must we abide by these self made laws, but we must abide them purely for the sake of abiding by them, because only then are we free and moral Some Implications Before examining whether Kant s premise holds, let us take a moment to ponder out some of the implications of his conclusion In Kant s system, many things commonly regarded as immoral are forbidden lying, stealing, raping, murdering Stealing, for example, treats people as ends and not means to steal makes an exception of yourself from a general rule it cannot be willed as universal This consonance with popular opinion is at first sight, at least an encouraging sign.But consider further Because Kant has divorced morality from all consequences, and founded it purely on consistency, all moral actions are equally moral, and all immoral actions are equally immoral This is apparent at once, when one considers that one can either be consistent or inconsistent, not half consistent one can either treat someone as an end or not, not half as an end Therefore, lying and murder are equally immoral and equally forbidden The white lie you told your wife puts you on a level with the murderer in prison This is a chilling conclusion, as any punitive system which doles out punishments in proportion to the crime s consequences such as ours is itself immoral, or at least ammoral.Another odd implication of Kant s conclusion is that non rational creatures are completely exempted from the system, as they do not according to Kant have free will, and therefore cannot be bound by morality This means that all bets are off regarding animal cruelty Because animals are non rational, there is no restrictions on how one must treat them To pick a grim example, slowly torturing a squirrel to death can certainly be willed as a universal without contradiction the act doesn t treat a rational agent as a means thus, it is permissible Kant says so much himself Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature s, have nevertheless, if they are irrational beings, only a relative value as means, and are therefore called things rational beings, on the contrary, are called persons, because their very nature points them out as ends in themselves, that is as something which must not be used merely as means, and so far therefore restricts freedom of action and is an object of respect.One wonders whether this exemption from the strictures of morality applies to young children and the insane, who are also not capable of reason If so, infanticide is permissible, as is the mistreatment of the mentally ill Another chilling conclusion.But perhaps the most striking thing about this chain of reasoning is that, as a result of Kant s disdain for empirical facts, a moral person has no reason to expect happiness In fact, a person acting in accordance with the categorical imperative may reasonably expect to be miserable their unerring code of behavior would make them easy prey for anyone who wished to take advantage of them.This is not a theoretical objection to Kant But one may reasonably ask, then why be moral The only thing Kant can say is, to be free And if you ask, why be free Kant s famous response is to be worthy of happiness But I m sure many would rather take happiness than worthiness But was Kant Right Kant s argument rests on the premise that, when one acts rationally, one is not determined by anything else Rationality, for Kant, is not part of the world of nature, and is therefore the basis of freedom.I am extremely skeptical that this is the case I do not see how anybody could make an absolutely free decision, independent of the normal laws of nature We cannot, so to speak, take ourselves out of the stream of causation It therefore seems likely that freedom is an illusion, or a particular kind of ignorance In Spinoza s words, men are mistaken in thinking themselves free their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are conditioned Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions Thus, acting in accordance with Kant s principles would not make a person or less free Refraining from stealing based on the categorical imperative is just as free a decision as eating lunch because of hunger, or sleeping because of exhaustion We are always both subject to random processes and to deterministic laws, and all our decisions are just as motivated by desires as the drug addict s Even the strict Kantian is motivated by his desire to abide by the categorical imperative Kant makes the subtle and interesting argument that even if rationality doesn t actually make us free, the categorical imperative is still operative because, in order to act, we must assume we re free In other words, Kant says that, even if freedom is an illusion, his conclusions still hold But if freedom is an illusion, acting according to his principles might be literally impossible for sentient creatures as I suspect is the case so striving after some ideal of reason as Kant calls it hardly seems like the sensible thing to do.Moreover, because we are not capable of completely free decisions, and because morality apparently does have its basis in empirical fact if it can be said to exist at all it behooves us to take into account things like human psychology, empirical conditions, cultural and historical forces, and consequences A moral system that treats lies as equivalent to murder is impracticable and a moral system that only binds rational agents may lead to inhumane acts Finally, no person can be reasonably expected to abide by a moral system that will not lead to their own happiness Parting Thought As I reread this book, a feeling suddenly took hold of me admiration I found myself almost in awe of Kant both of his boldness and his genius Even if I don t believe his premises are correct, I can t help but think it would be a beautiful thing if such a kingdom of ends were possible It just so happens that the world isn t as beautiful as Kant s mind.


  4. says:

    , , .


  5. says:

    Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of MoralsPicture Words Phrases Freedom, Autonomy of the Will, Categorical Imperative, Intuitions of Sense, Morally Aught, Universal Laws, Pure Practical Reason, Pragmatic, Practical, Rational Beings, Universality, Moral Law, External Conditions, Happiness, Empirical Interests, Obligations, Reciprocal Conceptions, Heteronomy, Causality, Things In Themselves.Meaning In some ways the Categorical Imperative appears like a philosophically formal and universally binding adaptation of the Golden Rule, kind of When one sees how many different versions of the Golden Rule have appeared independently in space and time, perhaps Kant was onto something Anyway, I enjoyed reading this if only because a lot of what I ve studied in political philosophy and moral policy was either born out of Kant s thoughts or as a reaction to it Rawls Veil of ignorance seems to be a recent, direct descendent, as Kant s social contract was a child of Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke.


  6. says:

    I was the annoying guy in class who kept insisting that the categorical imperative was the Golden Rule with a thick, convoluted veneer of the most difficult writing in philosophical history slathered all over it Of course it is slightly different than the Golden Rule, but I d say only trivially so I understand Kant s influence, importance, etc, I just can t stand his writing And I do think that his ideas, as influential as they were, were often failures And again, the writing is painfully bad, regardless of the intelligence within, every fan of Kant s philosophy admits this as far as I know great philosopher, terrible writer Also, I find deontological ethics moral precepts divorced from their consequences, goodness for goodness sake , etc to be a failure, especially in light of superior consequentialist positions like preference utilitarianism One can be a moral realist without recourse to positing imaginary realms divorced from human happiness and suffering where ethics magically emerge from I mean, how smart can a person be who really believes that lying is always unethical regardless of the circumstance It takes about two seconds to conjure up a situation in which lying would absolutely be the right thing to do Nazis looking for your Jewish friends that are hiding in your attic According to the genius Kant it would be wrong to say that they re not upstairs.For an antidote to reading a book like this look to work on ethics done by Peter Singer, Bernard Williams, Simon Blackburn, and Derek Parfit.


  7. says:

    Los imperativos de la sagacidad coincidir an enteramente con los de la habilidad y ser an, como estos, anal ticos, si fuera igualmente f cil dar un concepto determinado de la felicidad Pues aqu como all , dir ase el que quiere el fin, quiere tambi n de conformidad con la raz n, necesariamente los nicos medios que est n para ello en su poder Pero es una desdicha que el concepto de la felicidad sea un concepto tan indeterminado que, aun cuando todo hombre desea alcanzarla, nunca puede decir por modo fijo y acorde consigo mismo lo que propiamente quiere y desea Y la causa de ello es que todos los elementos que pertenecen al concepto de la felicidad son emp ricos, es decir, tienen que derivarse de la experiencia, y que, sin embargo para la idea de la felicidad se exige un todo absoluto, un m ximum de bienestar en mi estado actual y en todo estado futuro Ahora bien, es imposible que un ente, el m s perspicaz posible y al mismo tiempo el m s poderoso, si es finito, se haga un concepto determinado de lo que propiamente quiere en este punto Quiere riqueza Cu ntos cuidados, cu nta envidia, cu ntas asechanzas no podr atraerse con ella Quiere conocimiento y saber Pero quiz esto no haga sino darle una visi n m s aguda, que le mostrar m s terribles a n los males que est n ahora ocultos para l y que no puede evitar, o impondr a sus deseos, que ya bastante le dan que hacer, nuevas y m s ardientes necesidades Quiere una larga vida Qui n le asegura que no ha de ser una larga miseria Quiere al menos tener salud Pero no ha sucedido muchas veces que la flaqueza del cuerpo le ha evitado caer en excesos que hubiera cometido de tener una salud perfecta Etc., etc En suma nadie es capaz de determinar, por un principio, con plena certeza, qu sea lo que le har a verdaderamente feliz, porque para tal determinaci n fuera indispensable tener omnisciencia As pues, para ser feliz, no cabe obrar por principios determinados, sino s lo por consejos emp ricos por ejemplo, de dieta, de ahorro, de cortes a, de comedimiento, etc la experiencia ense a que estos consejos son los que mejor fomentan, por t rmino medio, el bienestar De donde resulta que los imperativos de la sagacidad hablando exactamente, no pueden mandar, esto es, exponer objetivamente ciertas acciones como necesarias pr cticamente hay que considerarlos m s bien como consejos consilia que como mandatos praecepta de la raz n As , el problema determinar con seguridad y universalidad qu acci n fomente la felicidad de un ser racional , es totalmente insoluble.


  8. says:

    Translator s PrefaceCommentary and Analysis of the Argument The Approach to Moral Philosophy, Outline of a Metaphysic of Morals, Outline of a Critique of Practical Reason Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals NotesIndex


  9. says:

    Pensei que a leitura deste livro ia ser dose ou seja, que ia ser muito complexa e aborrecida, mas n o foi assim uma leitura t o m quanto isso bvio que a minha compreens o total deste livro beneficiaria em muito de um conhecimento mais aprofundado e contextualizado da obra completa deste fil sofo, contudo n o a achei dif cil de entender e penso ser uma obra acess vel a quem como eu tenha poucos conhecimentos sobre Filosofia.O autor prop e se neste livro chegar estabelecer os fundamentos da metaf sica dos costumes para chegar a uma raz o pura pr tica Divide o texto em tr s partes para melhor expor as fases e o processo de constru o desta sua teoria filos fica O processo est bem descrito e interessante, pois o autor serve se de v rias abordagens do particular para o geral e tamb m o contr rio, do m todo indutivo e tamb m do dedutivo, num texto bem estruturado e claro para o leitor Como os assuntos giram em torno da moralidade, dos costumes, da natureza, da ac o humana, etc, tamb m algumas passagens quando ele se refere a exemplos s o muito interessantes, porque acabei por os ver como apontamentos da poca e da sociedade onde o autor se movimentava.Gostei particularmente do imperativo categ rico logo a sua primeira formula o, ainda sem mais desenvolvimento Em minha opini o, tal como est formulada e mesmo retirada deste seu contexto original, uma frase digna de reflex o, que se bem interpretada pode ainda ser importada para os nossos dias enquanto orientadora geral da ac o Age apenas segundo uma m xima tal que possas ao mesmo tempo querer que ela se torne uma lei universal A forma como eu a entendo retirada do contexto n o contudo original bastando uma outra frase cuja origem a da moralidade religiosa da qual a teoria de Kant se tenta afastar para orientar a ac o humana de forma id ntica Faz aos outros aquilo que gostarias que te fizessem a ti penso que a frase original estar na negativa, n o fa as aos outros , mas vai dar ao mesmo E depois tudo o que n o gostei e que vou resumir a a tentativa de chegar a leis universais para um pensamento puro que deveria ser a base da ac o humana quim rico, em minha opini o Ainda que fosse poss vel, nunca poderia ser realiz vel por este meio Se o autor parte da sua experi ncia individual, da sua sociedade, do seu tempo, enfim do seu mundo como poderia ele criar leis universais para toda a humanidade, ainda mais quando estamos a falar da pr tica, da ac o, do comportamento N o deixa contudo de ser interessante a forma como ele o tentou.b a falta de defini o dos construtos que ele utiliza para a sua teoria algo muito pr prio do seu tempo e da filosofia em geral, mas que a mim me fez alguma falta O que entende o autor por moralidade por ac o o querer a vontade o desejo at a natureza se queremos falar de uma da constru o de uma teoria, ainda que filos fica, seria importante para mim saber exactamente como que o autor define estes conceitos Talvez estejam descritos em outro lugar, mas julgo que seria importante estarem tamb m definidos na obra b as divis es cartesianas a raz o da emo o, o sens vel do intelig vel, o racional do irracional N o me vou alongar aqui porque teria muito a dizer, mas em suma, n o concordo e penso que qualquer teoria que tente isolar o pensamento do homem do seu sens vel, da sua natureza, da sua emo o, e mesmo da sua condi o enquanto animal, estar sem d vida condenada a n o ser v lida.c os homens e os outros seres racionais pelo menos duas vezes Kant escreveu desta forma dividindo os homens dos outros seres racionais seremos n s as mulheres perguntei me eu pois parece que sim V l , ainda nos considera racionais, mas quando se refere a estes outros seres racionais, est o sempre ligados natureza, raz o vulgar, s vontades e desejos, ao que ele Kant considera como inferior Uma pequena procura na net revelou me que para Kant n s mulheres somos vistas assim aten o esta frase n o deste livro a mulher n o deve aprender nada de geometria do princ pio da raz o suficiente ou das m nadas s saber o indispens vel para entender a gra a das poesias humor sticas meu amigo Kante ainda me dei eu ao trabalho de te ler D Eu sei que s fruto de uma poca, que este teu trabalho datado e que tens muito valor, mas apesar de continuar a dar te o valor que bem mereces, pensar que o teu pensamento foi um dos mais influentes da era moderna.arrrepia melol.


  10. says:

    It s probably a product of having been in grad school for too long, but somehow I found myself really liking this piece I don t even care that it s not applicable to real life, at least his methods are based on tying human action to univsersal principles that anyone can participate in instead of trying to create this really creepy classist elitist system of morality which the ancient greeks oozed over And unlike the clunky, inhuman ethical systems espoused by anylitic thinkers, Kant is at least willing to acknowledge the connundrum of trying to act from a rational principle with no recourse to lived experience And the way he tries to conceptually map out the different parts of the psyche, while it s probably wrong and kind of creepily mechanistic, is still a refreshing break from the messy, useless soup of abstractions that a lot of other thinkers would subsequently indulge in i.e Hegel If nothing else, it forced me to confront my own complacency about not even being willing to really listen to Kant s arguements.