[lbo-talk] Glenn Beck breaks down in tears, blubbers on-air AGAIN

Eubulides autoplectic at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 11:46:57 PDT 2009


On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you're a Kantian, I suppose. Actually no, it's bullshit even here, since Kant rather famously denies the possibility of metaphysics and was an archantifoundationalist, the FOUNDER (haha) of modern antifoundationalism. In fact the Metaphysics of Morals contradicts the precepts of Kant's a priori moral theorizing at many points (such as the categorical imperative), because it is a practical work, and it is not literally meant to be a metaphysics.

================

Well perhaps you should quit scolding people for not reading famous authors..............

Metaphysics designates any system of knowledge a priori that consists of pure conceptions. Accordingly, a practical philosophy not having nature, but the freedom of the will for its object, will presuppose and require a metaphysic of morals. It is even a duty to have such a metaphysic; and every man does, indeed, possess it in himself, although commonly but in an obscure way. For how could any one believe that he has a source of universal law in himself, without principles a priori? And just as in a metaphysics of nature there must be principles regulating the application of the universal supreme principles of nature to objects of experience, so there cannot but be such principles in the metaphysic of morals; and we will often have to deal objectively with the particular nature of man as known only by experience, in order to show in it the consequences of these universal moral principles.

http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/intro-to-metaphys-of-morals.txt

Way overposting and apologizing and going back to lurking



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list