03.06.2009 – Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals: Second Section I

Gilles Kuhn: hello Gaya Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Gilles :) Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Birric :) Birric Forcella: Hiya Gilles Kuhn: hello Birric Yakuzza Lethecus: hey Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Yakuzza :) Gilles Kuhn: ok we wait till 12 05 and we start Gaya Ethaniel: ok :) Gaya Ethaniel: Birric would you like a rock to sit on? heheheh Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Storm :) Storm Nordwind: Hi Gaya Gilles Kuhn: hello yaku storm Gilles Kuhn: true Birric take a seat you too storm Gaya Ethaniel: Birric, can I ask you something before we start? I want to understand your stand better. Storm Nordwind cannot stay long sadly Gilles Kuhn: hello scathach Gilles Kuhn: hello bleu Scathach Rhiadra: Hello gilles Gaya Ethaniel: You said in Stim's Ways of Knowing workshop that it is selfish to give/be generous. Bleu Oleander: hi .... can I sit in? Gaya Ethaniel: That kinds of contradicts what you've been saying in this workshop. Storm Nordwind: Please do Bleu! Lots of seats Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Bleu :) Gilles Kuhn: you are welcome belu! Scathach Rhiadra: Hello Gaya, Bleu, Birric Gaya Ethaniel: You said it is selfish in a way that being generous without expecting return is to satisfy one's feelings. Birric Forcella: Go ahead - and I'd rather stand for a while - I sit on my rock all day Bleu Oleander: hi everyone Gilles Kuhn: ok so wwwe will today begin to treat the second section of Kant book Gaya Ethaniel: But that's what you dislike about Kant I thought ... you think Kant is against doing things out of self-interests. Gilles Kuhn: btw all thing your write can and will be published and you accept it by your sheer presence amen Gaya Ethaniel: ok :) we can talk about it later Gaya Ethaniel: Amen :) Birric Forcella thinks of all the embarrassing things he has said about himself. . . Gilles Kuhn: so who had the courage and vulunty of good will to read all the second section ? ;-) Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Scath :) Gaya Ethaniel: I'm still in the first section &gt;.&lt; slow going this book ... Gilles Kuhn: not all at the same time please ;-) Gilles Kuhn: ok the second section will analyse the concept of morality in an analytical way Gilles Kuhn: so it will take the existence of morals as such a granted letting for after the problem of the very existence of it Gilles Kuhn: first for the happy few who have read part of all of the second (and too first section) any question of understanding? Birric Forcella: Okay, that includes the third Section. I (re) read it in German. I can't bring myself to read it in English Gilles Kuhn: yes the third section address the problem of existence of morals even if not in a complete form as Kant said Birric Forcella: And I found my underlinings and marginalia from when I was a student. BOY - what was I thinking? Gilles Kuhn: lol Birric Gilles Kuhn: well in the second section Kant explain in big resume first that morality cannot derive from empirical problems examples or any kind of external to our reason thing Gilles Kuhn: because he said volunty internal one dependant on such externalities will depend on first imperfect knowledge and second to hypothetical imperative or laws Gilles Kuhn: I assume you remember the idea of categorical imperative and of maxim already explained in the first section but anyway Gaya Ethaniel: volunty internal one = natural inclination in Kant's words Gilles? Teleo Aeon: Gilles .. I take it that regardless of whether we agree or not on the first sections that, for expediency we sort sort of tacitly need to to move on? is the idea Gilles Kuhn: good will is for Kant deriving from the vulunty (that by definition is internal) and the vulunty is due to obey the law that is to be coherent with reason (internal thing that too) and reason = coherence Teleo Aeon: ok Gilles Kuhn: not necessarily Teleo but we broaden the scope and well we will have to treat this second section in various seminar as she is important and huger than the first Gilles Kuhn: so please don’t hesitate to start a controversy using both of the section Teleo Aeon: so is the notion, that it is an internal system fundamentally which is not really dependent on externalities ? though these may modulate the causal frameworks Gilles Kuhn: yes Teleo reason and vulunty for Kant are strictly internal Teleo Aeon: internal / transcendental...I suppose I really meant Gilles Kuhn: that depends of his analysis of pure reason Gilles Kuhn: exactly Teleo Teleo Aeon: ok Gilles Kuhn: and too in Kant all causal framework are ultimately internal but again that is CRP (critic of pure reason) stuff Gaya Ethaniel: In his analysis of good will, reason serves both, conditioned good will (individual happiness) and pure good will (unconditioned) if I understood correctly ... Gilles Kuhn: yes Gaya and what he search in the second section is unconditioned one Birric Forcella: Well, only for the newcomers, and to put it into a slogan: For my worldview the "maximes of my whatever," the "principles" for my actions, if you will, are nothing but the stated rationalizations of and for my desires. I categorically deny that morals, ethics, and reason itself, are grounded in reason. Any apparent coherence comes from the coherence of your emotions. Teleo Aeon: so Giles.. if it is internal then what structural nature does the transcendental presume to take ? Gaya Ethaniel nods. Gilles Kuhn: ah Teleo there is the CRP rub! Teleo Aeon: heh I bet Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: in fact a major postulate in all Kant is free will freedom pure freedom of the reasonable agent Gaya Ethaniel: Birric ... you talk only about empirical part of ethics ... this book focuses on rational part of ethics. Gilles Kuhn: he said himself that all his moral is void if the postulate is not correct Gilles Kuhn: yes Birric thanks to remind your stance that is btw addressed directly by Kant in the end of our present second section Gilles Kuhn: so to take back Gaya remark about the pursuit of happiness let try to understand why this pursuit cannot be the fundamental of moral for Kant Gilles Kuhn: remember that by moral Kant seek what we OUGHT to do Gilles Kuhn: not what we can perhaps do but OUGHT TO Gilles Kuhn: and the main reason Kant oppose at the research of happiness as principle of moral is the relativity of the concept due to the fact that the concept depend on object that are external to us Gilles Kuhn: for example wealth health material possession etc. Teleo Aeon: Heidegger denotes ought to be as a historically definite shift in humans stand towards being… and I am interested in trying to work out how this occurs structurally... my suspicion is that it is what Kant has done to the Transcendental.. but I can't quite work it out Gilles... Gilles Kuhn: and so to attain what one THINK it is necessary for him to be happy his action would be guided by external consideration that are relative Gilles Kuhn: ouch Teleo very interesting question indeed but in your question you assume an Heideggerain (and Hegelian) stance that is of the development and opening of the being or the absolute spirit for hegel as such Storm Nordwind slips away quietly Gilles Kuhn: and too if you want to see that structurally you will probably be happy to organise next seminar theme on Hegel phenomenology of the spirits (you can btw I have not to be always the guy that choose the themes) Gaya Ethaniel: Sounds interesting :) Teleo Aeon: sure Gilles. I sort of grasp this… but an assumption is likely sometimes more accurate in regards to reality or less accurate... so I do assume a position but this position is thought about… hence my interest in how these things do and have altered through time and in accord to emerging thinking systems.. Gilles Kuhn: about the notion of transcendental in Kant the idea is basically that all rational beings (so all human at least) share the same reasoning "system" that is described at length in the CRP Gilles Kuhn: well you assume reality as such in Kant reality: reality independent of the epistemic rational agent is of noumenal nature and so we cannot know anything of it Birric Forcella: brb Gilles Kuhn: what is the biggest thing in the CRP is that the question of reality is assumed from the strict perspective of the epistemic subject that is we know only what our mind can construct Zen Arado: does rationality understand reality? Gilles Kuhn: (ouch we have lost bleu) Teleo Aeon: ok... well this may be so... but I would think this is a major assumption in itself... for instance I know of 4 ideas relating to formulations and concepts of Time... and they all have quite different implications in regards to how we would consider important factors and outcomes in reality and causality... so I am thinking that being would also be subject to these structural implications... but I won't labour this point so... Zen Arado: it only constructs its own version of it from its own perspective Gilles Kuhn: reality for Kant is what reason tell us what is outside of reason is impossible to know Zen Arado: reason can't pin reality down - but that is Zen thinking Gilles Kuhn: I agree Teleo but you can see the synthetic a priori notion of time of Kant as strictly phenomenological in an internal way and necessary to apprehend other theories of time that can be of the external phenomenological world Zen Arado: it isn’t logical Gilles Kuhn: well Zen if you consider that what reason can grasp of the reality only what she can construct due to her own internal form it is perfectly logical but that let metaphysic and noumenal ""reality"" out that is true but if as Kant say we cannot now anything of the noumena that is logical Zen Arado: but that reality cannot capture the 'real' reality Teleo Aeon: I would think that there is an internal phenomenology to ourselves as an organism Gilles. And I suppose that would be an interesting point to keep in mind. any logic must be in some way dependent on ths internal reality I suppose.. to what deggree is hard to understand though.. Gilles Kuhn: but as I see we are passing in CRP realm again np we have time other time to go deeper in morals that is very interesting Birric Forcella: It actually turns out to be the other way around. We need the time concept of the external world to clear up our internal "a priori" misunderstandings about time Quintessential Sorbet: good evening Teleo Aeon: hi quint Yakuzza Lethecus: hey quint Quintessential Sorbet: hello Gilles Kuhn: well I agree Teleo but for Kant logic was terminated by Aristotle’s we have to integrate our news perspective in Kant perspective if we want to be able to continue to utilise his (in my view) fascinating concept in epistemology and morals Zen Arado: Hi Quint Gilles Kuhn: hello quint Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Quint :) Zen Arado: so Kant is saying there is a version we can all agree on? Zen Arado: of reality? Gilles Kuhn: that definitely it is his concept of transcendentality Zen Arado: that has logical rules Gilles Kuhn: yes phenomenal reality yes Gilles Kuhn: but remember not the noumenal one Zen Arado: what if some dont agree with it? Birric Forcella is fascinated, but not convinced Teleo Aeon: to be honest Gilles… what interests me is how a thing alters.. if it alters once it will likely alter again and it is these alterations imo which can give you clues as to what actually may be going on... rather than the subject matter itself... if you see what I mean. Zen Arado: you can’t prove something like that mathematically Gilles Kuhn: well in Kant all of us have if you want the same apparatus of reason and so if we apply our reason correctly all will agree! Zen Arado: ah Gilles Kuhn: BUT to use his reason correctly is not easy task Zen Arado: and reality has to be a static unchanging thing according to Kant’s system Teleo Aeon: Gilles… I take it that historically at Kant’s time, logic had undergone some deeper analysis than previous to his Time? Gilles Kuhn: and I don’t say that I agree on Kant in this precise point for me the postulate of transcendantality is at best discutable Teleo Aeon: significant, should I say Gaya Ethaniel: Nope, it's not easy. Gilles Kuhn: well Teleo in fact Aristotle’s logic was only refined in the middle age but in Kant time logic was still there Teleo Aeon: so it had been refined ok. Teleo Aeon: and I guess machines and science were throwing up other questions Gilles Kuhn: you have to wait for mathematical logic to develop further in the end of XIX to see logic exploding in all direction Gilles Kuhn: in fact you can see a relation by the dev of non Euclidean geometry by Rieman and Lobatchevsky and the consequential dev of modern logic but that is another question :-) Gilles Kuhn: in the time of Kant Euclid and Aristotle’s still reigned supreme (for logic and geometry) Quintessential Sorbet: uhhuh Gilles Kuhn: (yes Saccieri but well ) Birric Forcella: I very fundamentally disagree. We won't all agree if we use reason, and I think experience has born that out by now. I DO think we will all agree one day - but not for reasons of reason Teleo Aeon: nods… I thought so Gilles... I am wondering what problem Kant was really identifying or appealing to... I suspect it to be the morality of scientific apparatus myself... Gilles Kuhn: well experience cannot born that out by definition Birric as it depend on time and too on the fact all use correctly reason Gilles Kuhn: well Teleo Kant say very clearly what are the problems he is addressing namely three : Gilles Kuhn: 1 what can I know? Gilles Kuhn: 2 What must I do? Gilles Kuhn: 3 What may I hope for? Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: my big error was to not begin this general them of Kant moral by the first i e by the critic of pure reason Teleo Aeon: It seems to me that Kant is in fact creating a philosophical apparatus which is essentially scientific... so that would explain his emphasis on reason as a type of important engine... this would force him to reformulate the actually objects of philosophy in a different configuration… and maybe this is what Heidegger understood... but it is not easy to get that clear from Heidegger so . . Gilles Kuhn: well Teleo as Kant said he wanted to solve the big problem raised by Hume namely induction Teleo Aeon: ahh ok Gilles Kuhn: and indeed the first question is in fact the question of the base of scientific knowledge Winston Haystack: HI Gilles Kuhn: and as I renounce for today to pursue morals ;-) the big idea of Kant was what he called his Copernican revolution Gilles Kuhn: hello hay Gilles Kuhn: namely his idea not to address reality front like Descartes and Bacon have done in their epistemology and method but to consider first the subject of knowledge Gilles Kuhn: and the capacity o this subject to construct reality Birric Forcella: Well, he misconstrued it Quintessential Sorbet: But why and how do you think we will agree some day Birric. If not for reason? Teleo Aeon: yes.. well Kant certainly seems to unducing some ideas in himself :) then I guess pinning it to reason and logic would have seemed important to give the philosophy varacity in the current ises in his time, of particular apparatus. That would I seem like the best way to get an epistemology together Gilles Kuhn: well Birric can you be more specific? Gilles Kuhn: well Teleo that is an analysis on your own logic i e a philosophy of the spirit or the being unfolding in time for Kant (and for me) this is at best highly speculative metaphysics Birric Forcella: Well, as long as there is no better theory, I stick with Freud's very simple formulation: "Thinking is experimental acting with small amounts of energy." This says that basically the same motivational apparatus underlies thinking and reason as underlies all of our actions. We cannot think a single thought, no matter how rational or dutybound, unless we have a MOTIVATION for it. This means ALL our thinking, including reasoning, is in to determined by our wishes and emotions, by pleasure. Just look around you -- reality bears that out to the nth degree, no matter how much everybody whines for "objective reasoning." -- However, I DO think that if we develop an understanding of undamaged emotions, we CAN agree on the world and on what we should do (but please don't call it morality) Quintessential Sorbet: ok....sounds interesting to me, but why do you not like the word morality? Gilles Kuhn: well Birric indeed the most big antagonist of Kant is APPARENTLY Freud but Freud is addressing an empirical knowledge of the human mind Kant is addressing a theoretical possibility of knowledge as such of the rational agent THEY don’t speak of the same thing! Birric Forcella: Because the word - like "ethics" - has too much blood on its hands Quintessential Sorbet: ah Gilles Kuhn: ok call it XYZ if you prefer Birric Teleo Aeon: yes Gilles.. I agree it can be addressed as a speculative metaphysics.. but I think that this is liekly exactly what we in fact have been doing for many thousands of years. I am interested in what we do and why we do it in such and such a way... so I look for the best explanations to this.. they need to at least include these phenomena and account for them. I suppose this is where I think that Reason will inevitably fail... but anyway, I am still interested in underpinnings of it all...regardless Gilles Kuhn: because when you read Kant end of second section of FME he justly explain why all PREVIOUS concept of morals were blood tainted and doomed to failure Gaya Ethaniel: Guess that demonstrate the difficulty of using reason correctly Birric. Gilles Kuhn: and the reason is that they were external to the freedom of the individual subject! Quintessential Sorbet: Are you sure Freud's (or Birric's) approach is purely empirical? I mean we live in time....morality is actions, it is pejorative isn't it? Couldn't you investigate the process of doing moral actions also purely theoretically. As interacting motivations of individual people or groups. Gilles Kuhn: and very interesting point Teleo we should make a debate or you can make a presentation about this I would love that Birric Forcella: I think we need to have a fundamental "Free Will" discussion next Gilles Kuhn: well in fact I think that Freud don’t even qualify as empirical but that’s another story... Gilles Kuhn: Birric Kant moral is entirely about free will Birric Forcella: Right, that is why we need to look closely at that turkey "Free Will" and see how it flies Quintessential Sorbet: well...several people have investigated motivations theoretically too...although I would admit there is a lot of research that has not been done..... Gilles Kuhn: Birric I see you polishing your hunting guns have you some British in your ancestors? :-) Gaya Ethaniel: :) Quintessential Sorbet: Couldn't it be metaphysics in itself.....even without investigating the nature of free will Birric Forcella: Germans are good hunters, too Gilles Kuhn: and btw as the rule is here I would have to stop the record part (and official too) and sadly I would have to leave too because of bloody rl practicalities (namely the organisation of a concert piano move on a mountain tomorrow...) Winston Haystack: Do you have phenomenology here too? Gaya Ethaniel: There was a workshop on phenomenology but it's finished now. Gilles Kuhn: but fell free to pursue without me and if somebody log the discussion he/she will be very kind if it can be forwarded to me for the Google group archive (yes I have to work a LOT on it) Gaya Ethaniel: Sounds complicated, good luck with that Gilles. Yakuzza Lethecus: thx Gilles Gilles Kuhn: so thanks for all to participate in a so interesting manner and goodbye Zen Arado: thanks Gilles Gaya Ethaniel: Thank you all. Good day/night. Scathach Rhiadra: good night Gilles, thank you Zen Arado: bye Gilles Kuhn: (next week we will continue second section) Gilles Kuhn: farewell all! Yakuzza Lethecus: bye everybody who will not join pab now Quintessential Sorbet: bye Gilles Gaya Ethaniel waves @ Scath Zen Arado: bye Birric Forcella: Good bye then Scathach Rhiadra: night Gaya:) Gaya Ethaniel: Take care Birric Dali Waverider: bye all. Birric Forcella: I guess my rock is getting cold - or do you want to go on Gaya Ethaniel: :) Birric Forcella: I am game Scathach Rhiadra: god night all