I keep trying to incorporate moral reason, but it always follows that the restriction only falls to those both willing and able to understand. It simply acts against the true universal law of entropy, that is, the lowest energy state is invariably preferred. It seems to me those most able to consider the fundaments are incapable of applying them. I'd argue ethics (which I consider no more than an agreed upon moral standard among the sample set) are little more than a functional necessity for operation within the constraints of the audience. To wit, a high functioning audience has nearly the same ethical consideration and necessity as the most carnal audience.
lets throw some light on the limit of Kant regarding morals, having said that it doesn't mean I'm overlooking his greatness, i love him but i still believe that logically this theory of universal morals in general, its contradictory on the basis that we come with as a formation of human body... and it is pure logic because it transcend human beings.i strongly oppose my thought with all the thinkers that want to establish a universal and valid for all.we do not need to establish with rules something which is in our skin.so if we say that lie is not good action that is and cannot be a universal rule without even see the cause of reason why we lie.so using his words i would put it: yes lie is 100% bad, lie is 100 % good.if i lie because this action will save 100 lives this is 100 % good and then it is also 100% bad I'm not supporting Aristotle but I'm going further that of Entropy is something that humans should look a bit closer so these morals cannot survive in a modern world i mean from at least 6,000 years onwards because we created a synthetic environment and we lost the reference with the symbolic and the archetypes.....its good to analyse this point better before we take the next step which are universal morals....
The first reader is so delightfully amusing that I wish he had read more than the first part. I’ve never had so much fun listening to a book of philosophy before. But all the readers do well. It’s just that first gentleman made me think I was listening an old 1960s BBC comedy and I loved it!
Thanks for uploading. I applaud Kant's attempt to define a universal system of morality, but like his contemporaries, he's pedantic. Perhaps if we all agree to the Golden Rule we wouldn't have to over analyze or layer law upon law. The Golden Rule worked for Hammurabi in 1780 BC. Why can't it be used today? Is it too naive or too succinct to be manipulated?
+Theresa St. Amant Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Leviticus 19:18You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
@@FringeWizard2 Sure and the sadomasochist enjoys pain, so everyone else should too, in his mind. The majority of NORMAL,(not mentally deranged or sociopaths and psychopaths), could follow the Golden Rule quite naturally, because it is a natural, instinctive moral code. Chimps and rats use reciprocity among their kind when they have a mutual objective, so why can't humans? For that matter, why can't humans actually follow the moral code of the religions they say they practice? And there's always the matter of consent. We can't just DO to others what we want done to ourselves, without first obtaining consent from the intended recipient. Without first obtaining consent, even the kindest act imaginable would still be an offense. That's the baseline of reciprocity - The Golden Rule. The desire to be self-determined belongs to every normal, healthy individual. The fact remains that the urge to do harm to others, instead of good, is the root of the problem. Even among mentally and emotionally normal and healthy people, the will to harm others arises. Why? Frustration, which is unrealized expectations. Frustration can be generalized - the emotional angst can become misdirected and the person experiencing it can seem angry and vicious all the time and in almost all circumstances. They go about their lives doing what they FEEL, rather than what they might KNOW to be right or just. So long as their needs and wants are frustrated, they don't care what is right or just. They aren't considerate of the baseline (consent) of any and all moral codes, which is essential to social order. If they can't alleviate their frustration, they remain emotionally, intellectually and morally stunted, having an infantile, childish mind. I'd say the vast majority of people go from cradle to grave holding onto infantile emotional and moral behavior, never really growing up to accept responsibility for their own inner state and often blaming others for their frustration too. And that's why even the moral codes of conducts set up by religions is beyond their capability to be self-disciplined enough to commit and adhere to. Like babies, who can't hold their water, they can't contain their instincts and emotions, so they just leak out. No doubt, in a world of adult children, no moral code of conduct will work. And that's why penal codes are used to control social behavior. Criminals don't ask for consent and will devise schemes to deny others of their right of consent. So no, the Golden Rule doesn't fall apart when people are suicidal, or sadomasochistic, or sexual deviants...It's the individuals within a social order that have fallen apart and are too underdeveloped and infantile to fulfil even the baseline (consent) of any moral code. Aside from the problem of societies comprised primarily of adult children, there's a spin-off problem - lack of common goals within society. If every frustrated baby-minded individual is stuck in a perpetual struggle to obtain the thing that is frustrating them, they are too preoccupied with self-interested goals to cooperate in achieving common social goals. ME FIRST, ME NOW, ME ONLY are attitudes entirely unsuited to social systems. If the world is all about ME and MINE, why even have societies that require cooperation, commitment to the whole and respect for the interests, well-being and rights of others? Those who abandon their social obligations, focusing exclusively on ME and MINE, disregarding the right to consent of others, are predatory and parasitic. How can any social system be equitable when predators are free to roam the streets and parasites lurk about? Consent is the baseline of any moral system. Predators and parasites don't concern themselves with even that much, while they enjoy the advantages of the confinement of prey and hosts that social system offer. Fish in a barrel is what we are to them.
@@John-lf3xf It's been 2 years since you left this reply. I didn't see it then. However, I've seen it now, because I responded to a new reply, to Fringe Wizard, which I think would do you good to review and consider. It's never too late to learn to hold your water, child. :) I look forward to your mature response...something that doesn't call to mind the juvenile discourse of boys and girls in grade two this time, perhaps? Leave out ad hominems and don't bother with expletives, which only exemplify my argument's validity. If you're old enough to be on the internet, surely you possess the intellect to offer a more thoughtful response, explaining your perspective.
I can not help but feel kant's primary objective in his work is nothing more than to apologize for the short comings of divine law. His absolutist outlook on, for example, the issue that lying is not outwardly justified, but only prudent if in difficulty can not be seen to hold up as a sound idea in all possible situations. It seems like more of an attempt to justify the absolutism of theocracy.
@@Monchi2006 I don't remember lol (two years ago), but there is a female voice and she reads it like she is struggling to say the names of dinosaurs and doesn't comprehend any of it. That was the one that made me switch.
What the hell is Kant talking about? I don't understand why colleges assign this garbage when most people can't understand it anyway or just don't care. maybe Kant was insane. most of these people do. for hours on end.
sciencelearnremember Actually most people can easily understand Kant. But that doesn't mean many agree with him or that his claims make a lot of sense. But his method and the whole of his system is undeniably genius and of great intellectual worth. It makes you look very ignorant judging stuff you obviously have never seriously considered.
sciencelearnremember The point is : It's always better than the dogmatic insanity the church used to get well-thinking and critical thinking people locked up.
Meta physical matters are the product of meta physic game and he defines the matter generally. Not the evil and moral values hae also an physlospical views and meta canversations between two same mental level people....
@@EPICPACKOPENINGSXD Kant was so obnoxious as to write in the very book itself that any man of average intelligence should be able to understand it, but c'mon... That just isn't true, or, if it is, it's only at a superficial level; the amount of objections that can be raised against his moral philosophy is counter-argued by his epistemological work; *i.e.*, his Critique of Pure Reason, so in other words: no, he's not an easy read regardless of which book we pick save except for his political writings.
For approximately 11 minutes I've listened to this and it sounds evil as hell. I hear nothing about the prioritization of morality in order to have a more truly concerned, efficient, healthy and peaceful existence for humankind as well as all other life-forms on this beautiful and wonderous life-sustaining orb. I will listen to the rest of this three-hour plus theory, philosophyi or teaching but I have a feeling with the complexity of words and structuring thus far it's just another reflection as to what humankind has and is still enduring due to the lack of revealing the true importance of morality. I have a real problem as we all should with these deceitful teachings putting mathematics and laws above morality and love. This is the reason for the insanities that have plagued mankind from the beginning of historical record. If you do not understand what I am saying then you do not understand why there's such evil events that have occurred since the beginning of humankind's destructive greed driven sciencees of power and control. The perpetuation of revenge and vengeance furthering wars, destruction, abuse, prejudice, all leading to murder and other evils that have not ceased and will not cease until humankind understands that mathematics and laws and the science behind them are not nearly as important as morality and love.☮️❤️
First Section 18:35
Thanks
+Avi0nics thank you so much
Thank you!
Thanks
The real MVP over here
54:30 Section 2
Nikolas T thank you!
Thanks
Thank you, first narrator, you are a legend
Omg, his voice!
Haha so amazing!
18:30 1st section
I keep trying to incorporate moral reason, but it always follows that the restriction only falls to those both willing and able to understand. It simply acts against the true universal law of entropy, that is, the lowest energy state is invariably preferred.
It seems to me those most able to consider the fundaments are incapable of applying them.
I'd argue ethics (which I consider no more than an agreed upon moral standard among the sample set) are little more than a functional necessity for operation within the constraints of the audience. To wit, a high functioning audience has nearly the same ethical consideration and necessity as the most carnal audience.
lets throw some light on the limit of Kant regarding morals, having said that it doesn't mean I'm overlooking his greatness, i love him but i still believe that logically this theory of universal morals in general, its contradictory on the basis that we come with as a formation of human body... and it is pure logic because it transcend human beings.i strongly oppose my thought with all the thinkers that want to establish a universal and valid for all.we do not need to establish with rules something which is in our skin.so if we say that lie is not good action that is and cannot be a universal rule without even see the cause of reason why we lie.so using his words i would put it: yes lie is 100% bad, lie is 100 % good.if i lie because this action will save 100 lives this is 100 % good and then it is also 100% bad I'm not supporting Aristotle but I'm going further that of Entropy is something that humans should look a bit closer so these morals cannot survive in a modern world i mean from at least 6,000 years onwards because we created a synthetic environment and we lost the reference with the symbolic and the archetypes.....its good to analyse this point better before we take the next step which are universal morals....
Third Section 2:44:21
Logic, the law of the land.
The first reader is so delightfully amusing that I wish he had read more than the first part. I’ve never had so much fun listening to a book of philosophy before. But all the readers do well. It’s just that first gentleman made me think I was listening an old 1960s BBC comedy and I loved it!
second section : 54:50
i cant... the narrator is too distracting. sounds like a cartoon character. narrators should not get in the way of what they are narrating
The narrator changes at 18:40 FYI
I would suggest that the overwhelming discomfort youre feeling is from the lack of capacity to understand the content.
@@devilisahomo nsh, its what i said but im glad that made you feel intellectually superior or whatever good for you👍
Le Regard de KAN.J'ai vue la matière...Le temps ses dissipés...Le passé c'est réfermé.Signé.Léo Doston
Thanks for uploading. I applaud Kant's attempt to define a universal system of morality, but like his contemporaries, he's pedantic. Perhaps if we all agree to the Golden Rule we wouldn't have to over analyze or layer law upon law. The Golden Rule worked for Hammurabi in 1780 BC. Why can't it be used today? Is it too naive or too succinct to be manipulated?
+Theresa St. Amant Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Leviticus 19:18You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
Theresa St. Amant You are so silly smh
Golden rule falls apart when people are suicidal. Do unto others as you would have done onto yourself can lead to a mass shooting.
@@FringeWizard2 Sure and the sadomasochist enjoys pain, so everyone else should too, in his mind. The majority of NORMAL,(not mentally deranged or sociopaths and psychopaths), could follow the Golden Rule quite naturally, because it is a natural, instinctive moral code. Chimps and rats use reciprocity among their kind when they have a mutual objective, so why can't humans? For that matter, why can't humans actually follow the moral code of the religions they say they practice?
And there's always the matter of consent. We can't just DO to others what we want done to ourselves, without first obtaining consent from the intended recipient. Without first obtaining consent, even the kindest act imaginable would still be an offense. That's the baseline of reciprocity - The Golden Rule. The desire to be self-determined belongs to every normal, healthy individual.
The fact remains that the urge to do harm to others, instead of good, is the root of the problem. Even among mentally and emotionally normal and healthy people, the will to harm others arises. Why? Frustration, which is unrealized expectations. Frustration can be generalized - the emotional angst can become misdirected and the person experiencing it can seem angry and vicious all the time and in almost all circumstances. They go about their lives doing what they FEEL, rather than what they might KNOW to be right or just. So long as their needs and wants are frustrated, they don't care what is right or just. They aren't considerate of the baseline (consent) of any and all moral codes, which is essential to social order. If they can't alleviate their frustration, they remain emotionally, intellectually and morally stunted, having an infantile, childish mind. I'd say the vast majority of people go from cradle to grave holding onto infantile emotional and moral behavior, never really growing up to accept responsibility for their own inner state and often blaming others for their frustration too. And that's why even the moral codes of conducts set up by religions is beyond their capability to be self-disciplined enough to commit and adhere to. Like babies, who can't hold their water, they can't contain their instincts and emotions, so they just leak out.
No doubt, in a world of adult children, no moral code of conduct will work. And that's why penal codes are used to control social behavior. Criminals don't ask for consent and will devise schemes to deny others of their right of consent.
So no, the Golden Rule doesn't fall apart when people are suicidal, or sadomasochistic, or sexual deviants...It's the individuals within a social order that have fallen apart and are too underdeveloped and infantile to fulfil even the baseline (consent) of any moral code.
Aside from the problem of societies comprised primarily of adult children, there's a spin-off problem - lack of common goals within society. If every frustrated baby-minded individual is stuck in a perpetual struggle to obtain the thing that is frustrating them, they are too preoccupied with self-interested goals to cooperate in achieving common social goals. ME FIRST, ME NOW, ME ONLY are attitudes entirely unsuited to social systems. If the world is all about ME and MINE, why even have societies that require cooperation, commitment to the whole and respect for the interests, well-being and rights of others? Those who abandon their social obligations, focusing exclusively on ME and MINE, disregarding the right to consent of others, are predatory and parasitic. How can any social system be equitable when predators are free to roam the streets and parasites lurk about?
Consent is the baseline of any moral system. Predators and parasites don't concern themselves with even that much, while they enjoy the advantages of the confinement of prey and hosts that social system offer. Fish in a barrel is what we are to them.
@@John-lf3xf It's been 2 years since you left this reply. I didn't see it then. However, I've seen it now, because I responded to a new reply, to Fringe Wizard, which I think would do you good to review and consider. It's never too late to learn to hold your water, child. :)
I look forward to your mature response...something that doesn't call to mind the juvenile discourse of boys and girls in grade two this time, perhaps? Leave out ad hominems and don't bother with expletives, which only exemplify my argument's validity. If you're old enough to be on the internet, surely you possess the intellect to offer a more thoughtful response, explaining your perspective.
1:36:29
Pg. 38
01:20:00
I can not help but feel kant's primary objective in his work is nothing more than to apologize for the short comings of divine law. His absolutist outlook on, for example, the issue that lying is not outwardly justified, but only prudent if in difficulty can not be seen to hold up as a sound idea in all possible situations. It seems like more of an attempt to justify the absolutism of theocracy.
especially nowadays.....
Who is the first narrator?
1:48:19 Pg 34
54:29 bookmark
Philosophie.logique de même présente le meilleur loi civil..& idéologie de Clair Divinité..
thank you much !!
Its like the Voice guy is making fun of what hes reading... or reading Winnie the pooh.. UGHHHHHHHhhhhhhh!
why does he has to talk like this :( ?
Why don't you use proper grammar?
Lana Leon
Lana Leon Because of your grammar.
34:56
Brain damage
AAAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAAAAAA.
❤️MW
MW
The voice is simply intolerable. I cannot listen to this.
+Steven Yourke
Which voice?
@@skeetorkiftwon how many voices are there?
@@Monchi2006
I don't remember lol (two years ago), but there is a female voice and she reads it like she is struggling to say the names of dinosaurs and doesn't comprehend any of it. That was the one that made me switch.
@@Monchi2006
She kicks in around 18:00
@@Monchi2006
Four voices
What the hell is Kant talking about? I don't understand why colleges assign this garbage when most people can't understand it anyway or just don't care. maybe Kant was insane. most of these people do. for hours on end.
sciencelearnremember Actually most people can easily understand Kant. But that doesn't mean many agree with him or that his claims make a lot of sense. But his method and the whole of his system is undeniably genius and of great intellectual worth. It makes you look very ignorant judging stuff you obviously have never seriously considered.
It is not insightful to not understand what is being said.
sciencelearnremember
The point is : It's always better than the dogmatic insanity the church used to get well-thinking and critical thinking people locked up.
Meta physical matters are the product of meta physic game and he defines the matter generally. Not the evil and moral values hae also an physlospical views and meta canversations between two same mental level people....
@@EPICPACKOPENINGSXD Kant was so obnoxious as to write in the very book itself that any man of average intelligence should be able to understand it, but c'mon... That just isn't true, or, if it is, it's only at a superficial level; the amount of objections that can be raised against his moral philosophy is counter-argued by his epistemological work; *i.e.*, his Critique of Pure Reason, so in other words: no, he's not an easy read regardless of which book we pick save except for his political writings.
For approximately 11 minutes I've listened to this and it sounds evil as hell. I hear nothing about the prioritization of morality in order to have a more truly concerned, efficient, healthy and peaceful existence for humankind as well as all other life-forms on this beautiful and wonderous life-sustaining orb.
I will listen to the rest of this three-hour plus theory, philosophyi or teaching but I have a feeling with the complexity of words and structuring thus far it's just another reflection as to what humankind has and is still enduring due to the lack of revealing the true importance of morality.
I have a real problem as we all should with these deceitful teachings putting mathematics and laws above morality and love. This is the reason for the insanities that have plagued mankind from the beginning of historical record. If you do not understand what I am saying then you do not understand why there's such evil events that have occurred since the beginning of humankind's destructive greed driven sciencees of power and control. The perpetuation of revenge and vengeance furthering wars, destruction, abuse, prejudice, all leading to murder and other evils that have not ceased and will not cease until humankind understands that mathematics and laws and the science behind them are not nearly as important as morality and love.☮️❤️
Infantile "critique".
worst exposition Ive ever heard extremely pedantic and hebetudinous
MW
MW