|
FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
I particularly like the way to Nietzsche has written "Thus..." - almost like a dialogical fiction.
Though it's probably going to take me a while to read, as it's purely for pleasure - nonetheless I look forward to it. :) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Wow, thanks for that contribution:p |
Always here to help.  |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Wow, thanks for that contribution:p |
Always here to help. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| This thread has more man-to-man love and admiration in it than even Plato could stomach. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Actually, Kant was pretty popular and well known by his mid 40s. |
I know. But most people today don't read anything he wrote before his 60s. That's what I was getting at.
For Nietzsche, if you want something systematic (as systematic as Nietzsche gets, at least), you could try Genealogy of Morals.
But Zarathustra is more fun, even if harder to interpret. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
For Nietzsche, if you want something systematic (as systematic as Nietzsche gets, at least), you could try Genealogy of Morals.
But Zarathustra is more fun, even if harder to interpret. |
Ah yes, the slave morality... aka christian morality.
The great thing about Zarathustra is that it consolidates all his most important and revolutionary ideas into one well constructed and well laid out book (well four books by name but really one). It really shows his end goal... to elevate humanity by freeing us of our pre-conceptions, urging us to let go of all the constraints we have put upon ourselves so that we may reach our true potential (ubermenchen). I like to think of it as "the essential Nietzsche." |
|
|
| Clovis |
| On a serious note, I think it would be good for everyone involved in the discussion to state their definition of morality. It's the first thing I thought of when I was thinking of replying. I can't start thinking about the relationship untill then. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
Immanuel Kant argues that “morality leads ineluctably to religion”. He argues that we cannot understand ourselves as bound by moral duties without also having faith that nature is created by God and that we possess immortal souls. Moreover, in his late text Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason (1793), Kant argues that central dogmas of the Christian faith can – under a particular interpretation – be derived as constraints of universal human practical reason, independently of any special divine revelation. Kant’s arguments attempting to show that general religious beliefs and specific Christian beliefs can be derived from the structure of practical reason have generated a great deal of controversy. |
i would have to argue that this is complete nonsense. but at least now i know what "ineluctably" means. never heard that word before! :tongue2
to be fair though i havent touched on Kant since about 1997, so my memory is probably a little vague. and the only thing i really remember was that our german/swiss/czech professor used to pronounce "Kant" in a rather amusing way ;) |
|
|
| Cipha Sounds |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
 |
:haha:
I'm sorry. :( |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The more I think about this the more I have to agree with Nietzsche... morality is just the heard instinct in the individual. Morality cannot be true and is something that is imposed upon us by those who's will to command us is stronger then our will to command ourselves. |
So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good? |
yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc? |
I don't think so - though that would absolutely be true for Kant.
I can conjure up all sorts of relatively apathetic divine creators ;)
And for the record (just because I haven't clearly stated my position yet) - I don't agree with Kant in the least, in fact, I think I agree with the most fundamental aspect of Kant's ethics (that being that a sort of objective morality even exists).
And Clovis - asking me to define morality is essentially asking me to provide a definition I'm certain doesn't exist.
:) |
|
|
|
|
