Gilles Kuhn: well seems we will do it "small is beautiful" today :-)
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gilles Kuhn: so as we are not numerous let do that very informal
Zen Arado: I never get around to actually reading the Kant text, sorry
Gilles Kuhn: I pass you the official stuff of being published etc
Gaya Ethaniel: ok :) I have read up to the second part now.
Gilles Kuhn: np Zen and nice Gaya
Gaya Ethaniel: You know it's pretty difficult to follow Kant's line of thoughts ...
Gilles Kuhn: any question Gaya about the text?
Gaya Ethaniel: I think he put a lot of faith in humanity in general.
Gilles Kuhn: oh yes it is one of the most difficult philosopher to follow with Hegel and Heidegger
Gaya Ethaniel nods ...
Gilles Kuhn: but I must say that he is one of my favourite if not the favourite
Zen Arado: why Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: and yes Gaya that’s correct he is a man of his time the XVIII century was not call the enlightenment for nothing
Gaya Ethaniel: If I understand correctly he thinks of human irrational ... easily tempted to do irrational actions yet he also asserts that we are capable of forming rational moral decisions.
Gilles Kuhn: optimism was enormous and widespread in the time
Gaya Ethaniel: ah ... ok
Gaya Ethaniel: In case of an example he states re: suicide, I find it difficult to apply his theory.
Bolt Bashly: excuse me, but is there philosophical seminar in progress here?
Gaya Ethaniel: Someone contemplating or at the point of suicide surely cannot exercise 'reason' well to form a categorical imperative that would guide his decision?
Gilles Kuhn: I remember fondly an inscription in a bell in Germany of the XVIII basically they said we are in the most happy time since recorded history we experience never heard of before prosperity happiness and arts : we wish you to be as happy as we are now.....
Gilles Kuhn: yes bolt
Gaya Ethaniel: :) nice.
Gilles Kuhn: but as we are few we permit ourselves to do it lightly and slow today
Gilles Kuhn: so yes Gaya Kant has a huge faith in humanity and too n reason
Gaya Ethaniel: One's state of mind does affect his/hers capacity to exercise reason ... I don't think Kant talks about this element at all.
Gaya Ethaniel: ok
Gilles Kuhn: no true he is not a big psychologist but remember he speak about morality about moral conscious choice
Gilles Kuhn: and he try to find a critical way to found (as in foundation) moral in a purely objective and definitive way
Gaya Ethaniel nods.
Gaya Ethaniel: He does say he couldn't find an actual example of such actions carried out for pure duty to have moral worth so ...
Gaya Ethaniel: He's talking about something that we can aspire to?
Gilles Kuhn: you have to understand how revolutionary his thought were at his time he just quietly said that all morals based outside the freedom of the individual human being are wrong and useless
Zen Arado: morality was God given before that?
Gilles Kuhn: well he said that you can never be sure an action implemented in the world was made from pure moral duty but that’s only an epistemological limitation
Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok
Gilles Kuhn: well Kant distinguish radically two kind of morality heteronomic where the law is given by anything external to the individuals and autonomic where the moral is coming from only the pure freedom of the individual only the later he agree to
Zen Arado: Hume said that our passions drive our reason
Gaya Ethaniel: hm ... I want to know what Kant and Hume meant by reason then ... did they mean the same thing?
Gilles Kuhn: Kant disagreed with that but only in part he says that our reason and volunty are at odds but that if we follow our reason and take it as our volunty then we act morally
Zen Arado: what is reason?
Gilles Kuhn: back to the CRP Zen :-)
Gilles Kuhn: reason is our capacity to make judgement basically
Zen Arado: how could we ever be sure we were acting entirely from reason?
Zen Arado: I am doubtful we ever do
Gaya Ethaniel nods ...
Gilles Kuhn: that’s a difficulty that for Kant is only external i e to know if somebody indeed act only by reason ; then internal part is what morality is about if you act only following your reason following Kant then you act morally if not then not
Zen Arado: I tend to think acting from reason would lead to immoral actions
Gilles Kuhn: and Zen I don’t agree we do that very often when we exercise the our mind freedom i e when we think when we let only our reflexion guide us and "fight" our impulses
Zen Arado: it would be cold and devoid of compassion
Gilles Kuhn: I don’t agree at all Zen
Gilles Kuhn: and I don’t agree because at the reverse as Kant show it if you act by reason you cannot treat other reasonable agent as other thing you have to treat them as ends never as means
Gaya Ethaniel: I don't think it will be immoral if 'universal' element is well remembered when forming the law.
Gaya Ethaniel: Putting one's feet in others’ shoes so to speak ...
Gilles Kuhn: because if things and non rational agent have no freedom and so can be used as means a rational being as freedom and is subject himself to the moral law
Zen Arado: compassion might not be 'reasonable'
Gilles Kuhn: well if you read Kant he quote compassion (without using the same word I ghave to chack" as entirely reasonable
Zen Arado: this word 'freedom' bothers me Gilles
Gilles Kuhn: remember the categorical imperative "act only if the maxim of your action can be made an universal law" and too
Zen Arado: freedom always has limits
Gilles Kuhn: "act in the manner you treat humanity as yourself and others always as ends and never as a means"
Gilles Kuhn: freedom of mind IS the big Kantian postulate
Gilles Kuhn: remember for him only the intention is moral or not
Gilles Kuhn: implementation are subject to our limited capacity to act and to know the world
Gilles Kuhn: so when Kant speak of freedom he speak only of freedom of sincere intention
Zen Arado: good principles
Gaya Ethaniel: He thinks most of us are capable of understanding human nature really well to think/act morally.
Gaya Ethaniel: Quite an optimistic view ...
Gilles Kuhn: well rational principles that derived from the idea rationality is universal as said Kant transcendental ie that all rational agent share the same "system" of thinking as explained in the CRP
Zen Arado: my reasoning might me lead me in a different to yours....
Zen Arado: that guy who locked up his daughter for years probably justified it by reason
Gilles Kuhn: human nature well for him to act morally is to act in conformity of our rational nature and indeed is an optimistic view but remember he want to give a foundation to morality universally applicable to all rational agent ... for ever..
Gilles Kuhn: i doubt you can find any universalisable maxim that can justify this guy acts and he definitely treated his daughter as a means a object not as an end
Zen Arado: I think only very basic moral principle s could be derived through reason
Zen Arado: and they are so obvious already
Zen Arado: yes ....but his reasoning system was different to most
Gilles Kuhn: I disagree principles are in their nature subjected to external cause which Kant refute his categorical imperative is categorical because he derive from the fact we are rational and free
Gilles Kuhn: that was no reason because it was not universalisable
Gaya Ethaniel: He actually says human are imperfectly rational.
Gilles Kuhn: reason claim to universality
Gilles Kuhn: indeed we are not saints nor god he said that
Gilles Kuhn: our vulunty is lot of time different of our reason and too not all use their reason
Gilles Kuhn: but to act morally is to respect our reason and impose it to our vulunty that’s Kant idea
Zen Arado: we all justify bad morality with reason
Gilles Kuhn: and notice that he speak of our internal personal reason never of an external one
Gaya Ethaniel: Yes I realised that he doesn't think of all other immoral actions to be negative.
Gilles Kuhn: if you follow Kant imperative it is almost impossible and what is bad morality Zen Kant doesn’t speak really of bad or good he speak of agreement of our intention and of our free reasonable will
Gaya Ethaniel: mhm he doesn't discuss in terms of good and bad ... his ideas on moral are beyond those I think.
Zen Arado: so he allowed that moral values could change over time?
Gilles Kuhn: indeed Gaya
Zen Arado: where does the intention come from then ?
Zen Arado: pure reason?
Gilles Kuhn: vulunty
Gilles Kuhn: which is informed by reason
Zen Arado: volition you mean?
Gaya Ethaniel: Voluntary
Gilles Kuhn: no volonty
Gilles Kuhn: volunty
Gilles Kuhn: (hell I would had to take the text in English and not in my French translation )
Zen Arado: np Gilles
Gaya Ethaniel: volition means will right?
Gilles Kuhn: one sec checking one thing
Zen Arado: yes
Zen Arado: it comes out volunty again in Google translator :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Zen I don't know Kant talked about moral values changing over time. His ideas are to be applied in personal/individual basis.
Zen Arado: ah that’s better then
Yichard Muni: are you French, Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: right I meant will
Zen Arado: he is more pragmatic than I thought
Gaya Ethaniel: Volition then :)
Gilles Kuhn: Belgian Yichard
Yichard Muni: ah, je suis français :-)*
Gilles Kuhn: yes I remember that Yichard
Gaya Ethaniel: I wasn't entirely sure about his ideas on will though (in the first section of the book).
Gilles Kuhn: and indeed Gaya Kant moral is strictly about individuals
Gaya Ethaniel: Will always has an end in mind ... if not it's not will.
Zen Arado: but if there are universal rules how can they be tailored to individual whims?
Gilles Kuhn: autonomy is the cornerstone of all morality for him
Gilles Kuhn: the universal rule is only in you
Gaya Ethaniel: Maybe he's right ... I will an end when I act even though I think I don't intend a particular outcome.
Gilles Kuhn: the rule is only to be coherent with your own reason
Gaya Ethaniel: Guess Kant thinks there are laws that most of us would agree on even if formulated individually.
Gilles Kuhn: which in moral correspond to his universal imperative
Yichard Muni: okie, I need to go :-)
Zen Arado: but we have to obey the moral values of the society we live in
Yichard Muni: bye
Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Yichard :)
Zen Arado: bye Yichard
Gilles Kuhn: well for Kant all our reason are basically the same that what he call transcendence (in which I don’t agree with him)
Gaya Ethaniel: Well yes that's life Zen.
Zen Arado: so how do we have freedom?
Gaya Ethaniel: In our reason ... one can only do one's best imo.
Gilles Kuhn: but what is at my opinion the greatest idea of Kant view on morality is that morality can only be founded inherently by each of us personally from our freedom and that all external prescription are by definition flawed
Gilles Kuhn: imagine he said that in Prussia in late XVIII !
Zen Arado: ok but I think that could be dangerous
Gilles Kuhn: that mean all religion are morally speaking bullshit...
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: How so Gilles?
Zen Arado: our personal morality ideas could be flawed?
Gilles Kuhn: because they are external to you as a n individual free moral agent
Gilles Kuhn: not if you follow your reason and that mean you need to universalise every onsequence of your intention
Gaya Ethaniel: I'm not sure about that ... I find many religious ideas to be moral personally.
Gaya Ethaniel: As with any social organisations, they contain flaws but don't think they are totally immoral.
Zen Arado: I think they are good moral laws that used a God concept to give then authority
Gilles Kuhn: yes but not apodicticaly so
Zen Arado: you find the same moral ruls in most religions
Gilles Kuhn: the concept of external to our freedom law are abhorrent to all rationalist and actually they refer to relative concept : to try to have that or not that etc they are so relative that they never can be foundational of a universal moral law
Gaya Ethaniel: mhm and I think they are largely about preventing one from limiting one's reason.
Zen Arado: dont see how they can be foundational and personal at the same time
Zen Arado: am I being irritating Gilles?
Zen Arado: if I am I will stop
Gilles Kuhn: i will say but that’s my opinion tha religion literally to relish on are meant foe persons that cannot use their reason and their freedom because the very concept of an external law given by god leaders or whatever is contradictory to freedom and too somebody acting only to respect an external law by constrain is not acting morally because only a free act is a moral one
Gaya Ethaniel: Sure Gilles, not all of us 'want' to think for ourselves.
Gilles Kuhn: then they are no more rational nor human Gaya
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: They certainly look like humans heheheh
Zen Arado: but you can think whether you want to follow a religion
Gilles Kuhn: what characterise people acting in genocide and armies is that they surrender their liberty and so are immoral by definition
Gilles Kuhn: can you think about abandoning to think altogether Zen yes you can but to do it is contradictory
Zen Arado: I follow Buddhist precepts but I do so of my own free will
Zen Arado: because they make sense
Gaya Ethaniel: Yes Buddha said to his disciples to test his ideas rather than follow blindly.
Gilles Kuhn: if you read Buddha and the others they always say and insist there are no precepts and that you need always to doubt everything
Zen Arado: yes
Zen Arado: but they are good guidelines
Gilles Kuhn: Buddhism is perfectly in convergence with Kant idea
Zen Arado: good :)
Zen Arado: sometimes you have to break a precept
Gilles Kuhn: well the old Buddhism the inayana don’t give precepts he is a philosophy that is for rational thinkers and so very elitist what criticise mahayana forms but they fall in the religious precpet giving fallacy even in idolatry in some extreme forms
Gilles Kuhn: precepts are for non thinking s idiot sorry
Gaya Ethaniel: hm ... not so sure about that one Gilles. Sometimes it can provide valuable pointers whether one agrees or disagrees.
Zen Arado: but not all people are rational thinkers
Zen Arado: or capable of it
Gilles Kuhn: the only precepts that are worth is those you give freely to yourself and Kant reasoning is about that
Zen Arado: what about them?
Gilles Kuhn: educate them if not they fall short of being enterely huma,n alas
Gaya Ethaniel: May I share this quote Gilles? "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." Goethe
Zen Arado: isn't that a bit elitist Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: I am an elitist Zen
Zen Arado: ok :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Gilles is an idealist also I think :)
Gilles Kuhn: but I wish that all can be raised at least are at my level or hopefully beyond
 Zen Arado: you are a philosopher Gilles
Gilles Kuhn: indeed !
Zen Arado: but many people aren't built that way
Gilles Kuhn: its my profession actually....
Zen Arado: we have to respect that
Ashleytyler Brentley: hey there
Zen Arado: HI Ash
Gilles Kuhn: hello ash
Gaya Ethaniel: mhm ... some are too busy to survive each day.
Ashleytyler Brentley: whats up
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Ashleytyler :)
Ashleytyler Brentley: what are we chatting about :)
Gilles Kuhn: true Gaya one time I would propose hanah arendt as reading about that
Gaya Ethaniel: We are trying to find out if Gilles is dismissing whole human history or not heheheh. Gilles Kuhn: Kant principles of the metaphysic of morals ash
Ashleytyler Brentley: hahahahhhaha
Zen Arado: and dismissing a large swathe of humanity who need rules :)
Ashleytyler Brentley: ;)
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gilles Kuhn: the fact that peoples need rules is I think a fallacy
Zen Arado: oh?
Gilles Kuhn: apart the internal rule of reason of course
Ashleytyler Brentley: noone needs rules :)
Zen Arado: our lives are full of them though
Gilles Kuhn: what call Kant the reign of ends everyone using reason and freedom to act in a moral way ...
Ethaniel: Well ... most of the rules are driven by self interests I think at least those unnecessary ones.
Ashleytyler Brentley: ino but to be honest no one listens to them I think people should just automatically know how to act and how not to act
Ashleytyler Brentley: I agree Gaya
Gilles Kuhn: rules are driven by external interest that’s the problems!
Ashleytyler Brentley: I think some of the rues in today’s world are absolutely absurd
Gilles Kuhn: remember what I explained about autonomy
Zen Arado: thinking of laws regarding how we drive on the road for instance
Ashleytyler Brentley: go on Zen ..
Gilles Kuhn: that are not moral rule Zen but practical convention
Zen Arado: yes - we rebel against petty rules but still seem to need them
Ashleytyler Brentley: yes
Zen Arado: yes just making a point about rules in general
Gaya Ethaniel: I went 'mhm oo maybe' etc until Kant started on 'kingdom of ends'
Gilles Kuhn: rule are not about morality you ultimately are the sole responsible for your acts with or without external rules
Zen Arado: so can't that be applied to morality?
Ashleytyler Brentley: i think morality is over thought
Gaya Ethaniel: Guess the kingdom resembles your circle of friends perhaps Gilles? ^.-
Gaya Ethaniel: A group of rational beings
Gaya Ethaniel: Or what does Kant mean by it ...?
Gilles Kuhn: and worst when I say responsible is in front of the most inescapable and draconian of judge : your own consciousness
Zen Arado: what about psychopaths Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: psychopaths Zen are because they are no more free of their own action
Zen Arado: they are free from a lot of restraints from conscience
Zen Arado: or you could say they are free of restraining conscience
Gilles Kuhn: oh no quite the contrary psychopath by any definition is not legally responsible because his pathology limit dreadfully his own capacity of free choice
Zen Arado: freedom is a vague word
Gilles Kuhn: I don’t agree e Zen
Gaya Ethaniel: Yes I see it the mental condition as a disability of some sort.
Zen Arado: freedom doesn’t exist
Gilles Kuhn: freedom is the capacity to morally choice between different intention
Zen Arado: within limits so how is it freedom
Gilles Kuhn: you say so Zen but that’s a postulate Kant took the exact reverse one he said freedom free will exist and it is absolute and so morality autonomous one is possible and in fact compulsory
Gilles Kuhn: no there is no limits to intention Zen
Gaya Ethaniel: What limit? Internal process of making a choice doesn't have limit Zen?
Zen Arado: mu conscience is formed by my upbringings
Gilles Kuhn: yes but not your reason
Zen Arado: my actions are governed by the laws of my society
Gilles Kuhn: you can reason and abstract what you can identify ass coming from your upbringing that’s call reflexion
Zen Arado: or my genes
Zen Arado: but you dont admit that one
Gaya Ethaniel: hm ...
Zen Arado: I would call that conditioning
Gilles Kuhn: or everything and that is not the point and about gene yes I admit that one but you can transcend that by intellectual reflexion bach partita is not in his genes
Zen Arado: you are unconscious of how you obtained your moral values
Gilles Kuhn: as moral reasoning is not genetic either
Gaya Ethaniel: We are not as optimistic about human as Kant was :)
Gilles Kuhn: oh I am very conscious about that because i thought of them and for my morals "value" are not value they are only continuing reflexion to the effect is what I will do able to form a acceptable generalisation for me ?
Zen Arado: we assume things now that were quite different 100 years ago
Gilles Kuhn: which is my manner of transcribing Kant cat imperative
Gilles Kuhn: in fact in morality and ethics I have never seen something as convincing and general as Kant and that was 230 years ago...
Zen Arado: how does each of us know whether our reasoning is not flawed?
Gilles Kuhn: flawed in regard to what ?
Zen Arado: in regard to others?
Gilles Kuhn: because the Kantian system is about always internal reason and freedom
Zen Arado: or would Kant say that is not possible
Gilles Kuhn: the importance is in regard to you own reason and that include seeing other rational agent as ends and not means
Gaya Ethaniel: Think having faith in one's reason or ability is important first step.
Zen Arado: we are all capable of perfectly reasonable thought
Gaya Ethaniel: How can we trust others if otherwise?
Gilles Kuhn: t is possible naturally that’s the difference between human and god in Kant the difference between will and reason
Gilles Kuhn: if your will follow perfectly your reason then you are a saint in his term
Gaya Ethaniel: Whether I can is the issue >.<
Zen Arado: I think we often delude ourselves with false rationalisations
Gilles Kuhn: if not well you have default even Kant used one day by month to drink himself to death ....
Zen Arado: ok I is the principe that counts
Gilles Kuhn: I think way more often people delude themselves with absurdities and anti rationalist obscurantism
Gaya Ethaniel: Think that's lying to oneself rather than exercising reason Zen.
Zen Arado: I think we often do it though Gaya
Gaya Ethaniel: Yes my name is human >.<
Zen Arado: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Zen Arado: anyway I better go
Gilles Kuhn: :-)
Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Zen :)
Gilles Kuhn: by Zen always a pleasure
Zen Arado: thanks for the discussion
Gilles Kuhn: thanks to you Zen
Gaya Ethaniel: Thank you both :)
Zen Arado: I am warming to Kant just a little :)
Zen Arado: bye
Gilles Kuhn: try to read it you will see its great (even if a bit dry) reading