08.07.2009 – On "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals" by Immanuel Kant: Third Section III

Gilles Kuhn: hello Gaya Yakuzza Lethecus: hey Gaya Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :) Nice to see you again. Yakuzza Lethecus: hiya Dali Northern Forder: I have a question... Dali Waverider: Hi guys. pretty much otherwise involved, but will happily read later. Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Dali :) Dali Waverider: Hi Gaya Gilles Kuhn: so before falling in nationalist and racial joke I have to remind you that all here is recorded will be edited and that big brother troopers are close to your door Gilles Kuhn: ok North shoot Northern Forder: First to take away the taboo: Is there a more important question in one's life than whether to continue to live or not? Northern Forder: Which question should one ask to get an answer? Gilles Kuhn: we will look at Kant today not at Camus North Gaya Ethaniel: And please sign up for the wiki and feel free to contribute :) You can have own user page & blog too that feeds onto the central one attached to the wiki. Northern Forder: sorry didn't know Gilles Kuhn: well for those that have not the text I can give it Yakuzza Lethecus raises his finger Gaya Ethaniel: To share your own philosophical musings. I'm sure you have many :) Gilles Kuhn: so we shall begin about our old nemesis again i e the link between liberty categorical imperative (= cat. imp.) and ethics Gaya Ethaniel: ok :) Gilles Kuhn: and yes crp for me was critique de la raison pure (cpr) in English so when in last seminar I said crp i intented to cpr critic of pure reason Gilles Kuhn: so for those that have read the text and for those still reading it question ? Gilles Kuhn: hello Jillian take a seat Gilles Kuhn: ah btw Birric av is here but he is not here so don't wonder if he stay silent Gaya Ethaniel: Did you cover last week when cat imp isn't possible btw? I couldn't make it ... Gaya Ethaniel: ok Gilles Kuhn: so to resume we see that in Kant system the ethic the moral decision is made in the intelligible world and that by this fact has it is not done in the sensible that is under the laws of nature we are free in this world and that thus ethic is to respect our own freedom Gilles Kuhn: no nobody took that bait Gaya Ethaniel: ah ... ok Gilles Kuhn: own freedom that rely only in the intelligible world of pure idea and reason and so the respect of our freedom is to be coherent with our own reason and thus to alway choose a maxim of action that is reasonable i e universalisable by the definition of reason (that is universal by the postulate of transcendence) Gilles Kuhn: so for Kant to be free is to respect always the categorical imperative ! Gilles Kuhn: nobody screams ? Gaya Ethaniel: :) Jillian Rabeni shyly raises her hand Gilles Kuhn: speak freely it is a seminar not a lecture Jillian Rabeni: having not read any of the material, and jumping in totally unprepared, I have to question why Jillian Rabeni: one can BE anything only if one DOES something Gilles Kuhn: in fact is not about doing but about choosing Jillian Rabeni: Being free only by respecting others Jillian Rabeni: it doesn't go together for me Gilles Kuhn: the problem of the text of Kant we study is to answer the question "what ought I to do?" Gaya Ethaniel: I think respecting a principle is 'doing' also ... even though it's not directed at a 'living' thing. Jillian Rabeni: oh.. well in that case Gilles Kuhn: and the principle of respecting other is only a possible consequence of the cat imp Gaya Ethaniel nods. Because it is universal. Gilles Kuhn: but he doesn't stand as a cat imp principle Jillian Rabeni: but what about the reverse? Am I less free if I do not respect someone? Gaya Ethaniel: Universality is necessary for a principle to become categorical if I understood Kant correctly. Gilles Kuhn: freedom for Kant is to respect the law of the intelligible world that is the world of your own personal reason Gilles Kuhn: indeed Gaya Jillian Rabeni: ok, so as long as I respect my perceptions, even if they lead me to have less respect and value for others' views, then I am "free?" Gilles Kuhn: freedom is to be coherent with yourself following Kant and has in the cpr he "showed" (that is questionable) that reason is transcendental i e that all subjective reason are in fact the same reason then the cat imp must give the same result for any perfectly reasonable agent Gilles Kuhn: not your perceptions Jillian your reason your ability to universalise a sentence in our case Gaya Ethaniel: I don't think respecting starts with 'someone' or a particular person/thing. Formulating a categorical principle leads to respect all without distinction/duality. Teleo Aeon: Hi Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Teleo :) Teleo Aeon: :) Teleo Aeon: entity rezzing in progress :) Gilles Kuhn: and don't forget that the concept of respect is very subjective some action that I intent to be respectful can be totally rude to another but has we have see in the first section what I important is the intention : the maxim Teleo Aeon: there we go Gilles Kuhn: hello Teleo Jillian Rabeni smiles at Teleo Teleo Aeon: hi Gilles Bruin Ghost is Offline Teleo Aeon: returns smile Gilles Kuhn: to start for once to criticize Kant moral I must said that I DONT think that reason is transcendent Gilles Kuhn: not in the Kantian absolute sense at least Gaya Ethaniel: I think the origin of reason is transcendent though ... Gilles Kuhn: but I agree that all moral choice is moral only if it is the product of a free individual decision not influenced by sensitive or heteronomic influences Gilles Kuhn: what I think is capital in Kant idea is the fact that heteronomic systems like morals laws based on anything but the sheer freedom of the individuals are worthless Gilles Kuhn: remember he wrote that in late XVIII in Prussia ! Anaximenes Bedrosian: but isn't the consequence Hegel Gilles Kuhn: so for some example of his correspondence to some people that were bring forth last time may I remember that correspondence was censored and too that our old Kant wrote in a way more complex manner in his philo essays that necessary probably in order to be understood only by people sufficiently enlightened to not to jail him on the spot Gilles Kuhn: Anaximenes you mean that the Hegelian system is the consequence of the Kantian one ? Gilles Kuhn: because in the Hegelian system perspective surely so but Kant would have had an heart attack reading the phenomenology of the spirit Gilles Kuhn: (well I think ;-) ) Gaya Ethaniel: Just going back on the point you made about freedom being a necessary basis for a moral principle Gilles. I understand this as when a person's freedom is impaired, s/he cannot act morally. Do you agree? What would be an example for that? Gilles Kuhn: (ouch Anaximenes vanished) Gilles Kuhn: I agree she cannot act in fact in nature in the world but the intention that the person can have can be moral Gilles Kuhn: Kant is very clear about that it is the sincere intention that is the moral act, what you can effectively implement in the world is secondary Gaya Ethaniel: How can s/he even form an intention if freedom is impaired? Maybe we are understanding the word freedom differently? Gilles Kuhn: well if I am chained in a cell and see another prisoner beaten I can form the intention to make the beating stop and I'll try shouting but I cannot make it stop physically as I'm chained Gaya Ethaniel: For example, when freedom [ability to an extent] to exercise rational mind, surely s/he cannot even form a moral law regardless if it is acted out or not. Gilles Kuhn: ah if the mind itself is affected well that a very interesting point because it is a criterion to see if somebody is responsible of his act Jillian Rabeni: which means someone has to judge the state of the other's mind Gilles Kuhn: in a court if I can demonstrate I had the intention to act in a certain way but that because of physical natural imperative (like being chained or like being under drugs) I couldn't normally I am innocent Jillian Rabeni: and how does blackmail and similar non-physical restraints on freedoms play into this? Gilles Kuhn: oh yes and that's a big problem indeed and by the state understand the liberty of one mind Gilles Kuhn: depend heavily of the nature of the thing Jillian you have for Kant to ask you if your response to it can be universalisable Gilles Kuhn: but it is the amount of mind freedom that is the amount of responsibility and of morality that you can have Gilles Kuhn: and contrary to Kant I don't think all of us share the same they are people that are more free of mind more rational than others or in Kant terms less at the order of their intuitive sensation Gaya Ethaniel nods. But mind can be trained :) Gilles Kuhn: and to came back to non physical or physical that are not drug like restrain they are always irrelevant to the formation of the maxim of your action if they are viewed only for yourself Teleo Aeon: Yes I can see how and why Kant would think it important to find some rational basis for moral freedom. Gilles Kuhn: yes Gaya educated trained showed the way etc but all education or "enlightenment" then cannot have any other supreme objective than enhance one mind freedom (and I would add the others freedoms too... but that's another subject well not entirely remember the reigns of end?)) Gilles Kuhn: well moral freedom is rationality Teleo Aeon: I don't think it *Is as such Gilles.. but rather that one would need to find some kind of basis for Freedom which was rational... only the rational can be generally or universally applicable.. Gaya Ethaniel agrees @ "enhancing freedom of mind" Gilles Kuhn: freedom derive from the existence of reason Teleo (for Kant) Gilles Kuhn: freedom is showed to exist as a consequence of reason and reason as a consequence of freedom both thanks to the existence of the intelligible world Teleo Aeon: sure.. that is how He would be formulating it. but to say something *IS* such a way simply because one can structurally formulate a basis to me, merely shows that THIS is capable to be done...in technical rational Terms... e.g. it CAN be approached Gaya Ethaniel: hm ... I thought exercising 'reason' according to Kant isn't simply an ability to think intelligently. Gilles Kuhn: well indeed and that is exactly the construction that Kant does in his third section I don't say it is impossible to define freedom in another way or reason but the Kantian one when ethic is concerned is most articulate and internally coherent remember he said too that if we have no free will i e freedom then morals has no object, freedom is an idea a postulate a pure concept f reason Gaya Ethaniel: Kant's 'reason' offers an ability to transcend individual gains and values [sensible world] where necessary? Gilles Kuhn: indeed Gaya its only part of it reason create idea that are regulating our capacity to create concepts but that's heavy cpr stuff Gilles Kuhn: that too ! Gaya Ethaniel: Hence co-confirm existence of freedom and reason etc. Gilles Kuhn: reason create the intelligible world it's the same thing Gilles Kuhn: exactly Gaya Ethaniel: It's not exactly a total transcendent action but you know what I mean. Gilles Kuhn: I think so Gaya Ethaniel: Theoretically one can transcend and I guess this is what Kant means by reason/freedom? Gilles Kuhn: but the concept of transcendence is really tricky it said (heavy postulate) that our own universalisation our own reason thus is the same as the own reason of all rational agent and that personally I disagree with Teleo Aeon: to me.. it is clear that Human being has the capacity to reason and the capacity to feel.. among many other capacities... one could feel ones way to an understanding or agreement in limited social circumstances...But this would not easily translate to wider or general agreements, for people in general... which is the only way an agreeable law can be formulated... individual contracts are, as it happens, one other possibility which people seem to think may function... BUT, that contract could entail, my death as a contractual legal basis for breaking ANY agreed contract terms... so. . . &lt;--- that could get messy Gaya Ethaniel: Why Gilles? Because we are both in sensible world and intelligible world? Gilles Kuhn: in fact Kant moral will create individuals morals that are more or less similar due to the cultural closeness of the people for the particular decision, BUT it give indeed a universal manner of speaking of morals i e individuals freedom and universalisable by any one in his own way his own reason as it is Gaya Ethaniel: Or individual conditionings differs too widely? Gilles Kuhn: because our reason our thinking process are different we are wired in a different way the idea of transcendence rely on the fact all cognitive process are the same in every reasonable subject it is not so : but that can be a basis for a moral discussion between free individuals trying to convene their own universalisation in a negotiation process Teleo Aeon: as an asside.. universal terms can only be obtained by a technology which is repeatable and accurate.... Printing technology allowed for standardisations on this basis... and I suspect that Kant is prefiguring this capability.. Gilles Kuhn: prefiguring no fully in it yes Gaya Ethaniel: So in practice, I need to compare notes with other people because there is a cognitive discrepancy [potentially large enough for me not to be able to universalise a maxim]? This can refute feasibility of formulating Kant's cat imp. Teleo Aeon: yes different peoples do not have the same cognitive processes... though they have the capability to have the same.. but these are usually culturally transmitted Gilles Kuhn: well official time up and I must confess than I need to go to my favourite restaurant if I don't want to faint ;-) Jillian Rabeni: oh, I'll disagree on that point! ( at last, one I understand!) Gaya Ethaniel: ok Gilles enjoy your meal. Thank you everyone :) Teleo Aeon: enjoy Gilles Gilles Kuhn: I propose we continue at this point to conclude on Kant own text I would like next time we look at perspective and Kant applicability in modern world ethic and politics Teleo Aeon: :) Jil Teleo Aeon: np Gilles.. cheers Gaya Ethaniel: ok sounds interesting :) Gilles Kuhn: so next time we will do so Jillian Rabeni grins at Teleo: I was at a disadvantage, having not read anything by Kant, ever Teleo Aeon: ok later all Teleo Aeon: :)