Hello Party People,
Well, it's a brand new week and in tutorial we're on to Kant. Are you excited yet? For those of you who have started reading the text, I bet I know what the answer is...but please do try to contain yourselves...I know the thrill of the categorical imperative can be quite hard to bear.
As with Hume, I'll start out by giving you some Kant-related links, both to assist you in your reading as well as to distract you from it. Both will be necessary when it comes to Kant, as you'll soon find out.
First and foremost, you will require a Kantian glossary to decipher what, exactly, Kant means by "reason," "noumena," or "ideas" (which, I warn you, are something very different from what we saw in Hume). A good one can be found here, and for a bit more detail, check this one out (it will even teach you the even more obscure/impressive-sounding German words).
Secondly, if you're interested in how Kant fits into the traditions of Rationalism and Empiricism that we've been talking about, a good summary and introduction is offered here.
Third, a cogent and well-informed discussion about the categorical imperative is available here.
A more detailed, robust and intellectual summary of Kantian ethics can be accessed here.
Finally, another clear and concise summary can be found here.
Okay. When reading about the categorical imperative starts getting you down, do not worry! Instead, distract yourself with one of these fun Kant-related links:
Feel like getting interactive? Check out the Ethical Philosophy Selector Quiz.
This one's really great: someone actually had enough time on their hands to construct a Philosophical Argument Generator out of Kant's Critiques. It's seriously awesome (and a little bit scary) - see for yourselves, here.
Okay, this one is REALLY FUNNY, although I'm not sure why, exactly. You'll have to see it for yourselves - it's a spoof on another one of Kant's books, the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Seriously, it's about as funny as you're going to get when it comes to Immanuel Kant.
Last but not least is a Rant About Kant. This is actually informative as well as entertaining in a (hardcore) philosophy geek kind of way. But at least you weren't the one actually writing it.
Well have fun with these, and as usual I'll see you tomorrow.
Stay out of trouble and don't do anything I wouldn't do (if you aren't sure, just act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.)
Ha ha.
Clara
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like ethics and the questions that Kant raised and his rules by which people should act are great and fascinating. I mean, I really like to think critically and analyze how we should act and what motives should be like… But it seems that Kant is very strict and does not leave space for some things. It is funny and ridicules in some ways as it was said in class that if your close relative and someone else are drowning, you should save the stranger. It is just nonsense to me. Why would I save someone else not knowing that person while a very close person to me is drowning? I am not saying that we should not save the other pesron, each person's life should be count. But I think in this case you should try to save both but if it is not in your ability then you should save the person close to you. Since if you would not do that then you will be sorry for the rest of your life because you saved someone else and not the person you love. I think if his (Kant’s) close relative was drowning he would definitely save him/her but not someone else. And if he was drowning and he would want his relative to save him and not someone else; at this time he would probably forget about morality and who is more moral and what is moral action and what his categorical imperative is about. Some times he raises good issues that worth thinking about, but sometimes it is just impossible to accomplish and they do not make sense as was noted about. With his categorical imperative it seems like we have to be busy all the time doing our duties. I am just wondering if he was doing all his duties the way he prescribes. I mean there are good sides and good lessons to learn but things do not work as he says because world is not like a fairy tale that the way you said it, that is the way it is going to be. His ideas should be listened but mind also should be applied. I woud not want to have a rule save a stranger and not close relative. The world would fall apart because relatives would be afraid of one another. We survive because human learned to form families and have relatices that would help one another. So, i mean there are two sides to this story but we should love and take care of closer people.
P.S. Also not forget about others.
This issue is not clear cut.
Alina Kostyleva.
Post a Comment