The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 3) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Aug 28, 07 - 3:31 AM |
Ivo's Kantian Replies
Re: Appreciating Ivo Despite his Irrelevance "On Enthymeme" IVO 1. Kevin says: My posts are long, but the questions you refuse to answer are short, easy to discern and easy to answer. eg. 1. Do you see your eyes? 2. Do you see your ideas? 3. What Surah of the Koran mentions INSTINCT? These are all easy questions to discern and to answer. But none of them have been answered. And none of my posts are anywhere near as lengthy as the non-Aristotle books and articles you quote and cite. IVO 2.1. I understood the first two questions as being rhetorical. REPLY: They are not rhetorical. A rhetorical question contains the answer in the question, because to know what one term in the question means, is to also know the answer to the question eg. Is the Pope Catholic? Do dogs bark? I think you are obliquely referring to my actually rhetorical question about Hiter ignoring Kantian so-called "imperatives". At any rate:- Describing a question as RHETORICAL is not the same thing as answering the question. Still being Ivo, the anti-Kantian-"brat", I see. 2.2. In the opening post of Re: environmental humanism Aug 14, 07 - 6:31 PM http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/716212 Kevin has recognised that I have replied to the third question. REBUTTAL: I don't recognize that at all. I recognize two distinct questions, to wit:- (1) To what Surah of the Koran do you refer (regarding "instinct)? and (2) What Surah of the Koran mentions INSTINCT (since the first Surah doesn't mention "instinct")? RECALL:- The above question which you, once again, refuse to answer is: QUESTION: What Surah of the Koran mentions INSTINCT? My former question was, as you demonstrate, below: To what Surah of the Koran do you refer? You answered, as you do below, "the first". Then I quoted you the 1st Surah which does not mention INSTINCT, nor does the 2nd which I also quoted. Kevin writes: QUESTION (of Ivo): To what Surah of the Koran ("Recital"), do you refer? IVO: The Opening Chapter of the Qur'an (Al Fatihah, I think). ....which does NOT mention INSTINCT!!! COMMENT: Fascinating guy. 3. Did I overlook Kevin’s reply to my bureaucracy post? ANSWER: Yes. Two replies on other threads. But here is the short answer to your Kantian Hypothesis about superiors who must conform their wills to Kant's moral maxims:- No politician believes Kant or obeys his maxims. EXPLANATION: Politicians have their own free wills, little or no interest in Kant and, least of all, the time to read Kant. All their time and energy is directed toward making up their own "maxims" into what they think might be good "maxims/laws" to have passed. But in order to do the above, they spend even more time and energy in attempting to have electors believe that there peculiar "maxims/laws" (called "platforms and policies", prior to election) might be good and, then, only after election, making further attempts to have their fellow legislators believe that there peculiar "maxims/laws" might be good for "majorities" to believe in and to also abide by (read "obey") as well. The above is so difficult and has such a low POSSIBILITY of success, in democracies, that those politicians who believe in their own personal "maxims", (like Kant and Hitler), prefer to become dictators rather than persuasive democrats. Thus Kant dictated to students at Konigsberg and Hitler, on a much larger political scale, dictated to Kantians and everybody else in Germany. In SUM, scholarly dictators who are believed may eventually result in political dictators who must be obeyed to avoid the CONSEQUENCES dictators "think up" as punishments for disobeying their maxims. The trouble with "scholarly dictators" is that they all contradict each other so vigorously that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any kind of a "majority" out of their various students and disciples. As Dr. Adler once said:- "Among scientists I usually find myself in a minority of '1'" (6 GREAT IDEAS; I forget where.) That was because most scientists accept the regnant theories of their day and time, which makes the MAJORITY of them TRUE-believers in their theories. Do you see your eyes, Ivo? Do you see your ideas, Ivo? Kevin |
|
Ivo
Aug 28th, 2007 - 11:37 PM |
Re: Ivo's Kantian Replies
Kevin, If your questions are not rhetorical, I don't get them. If you want an answer, please explain the questions. Ivo |
|
Ivo
Aug 29th, 2007 - 9:14 PM |
Re: Ivo's Kantian Replies
After a night of sleep, I see the idea I have to transmit in words. This is the idea: when white man came to North-America, she bought North-America from the Indians by giving mirrors to the Indians so the Indians could see their eyes. White man very bright! How about, the categorical imperative which superiors have also to take into account? |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com