I admire Kant's attempt to place our moral faculties into a rational framework. I myself suspect that our moral inclinations do have an autonomous status and aren't tied to rules or consequences. I think that Kant's task was both noble and critical toward developing a perspective on morality that wasn't tied to either legalistic, social, or theological frameworks. I want to study Kant's works more so in order for me to have a clearer understanding of his views on this matter. Cool video.
Putting consciousness before existence is a big mistake. Leads to bad epistemology, slows technological progress. Not only erroneous, but also bad for me
consciousness underlies existing so no matter what you're kinda doing both. plus, people k*ll themselves very often. In my eyes one is being constructive and the other destructive. Edit: - "constructive" in the sense that one is only deepening the knowledge of themselves, which is good. everything you do expands your consciousness. - I should add that I agree with you about slowing technological progress and the erroneous nature of it all.
@@frnchfryR6 before going to much further, I believe he should have phrased what he meant more accurately. We dont know what he means by “consciousness” or “existence”
What would end all suffering in all of existence for eternity? Would it be good if someone could forever end all suffering for every soul in existence? Does the definition of benevolent intent include the desire to end someone's suffering? Does malevolent intent include the desire to feel satisfaction from causing suffering? How can the definition of intent be linked to the definition of what is good and what is malevolent?
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer because the nature of intention is inherently an ethical movement whether it be benevolent or malevolent. Its moral quality depends on a mixture of cosmological understanding and the presuppositions thereof.
Hopefully you have some street smarts and common sense to know when and when not to. The problem is, in today's times, everyone thinks they're morally superior. And that's a big mistake. If you're under 35 you need to be minding your business more than trying to solve ANY moral problems. So don't worry about what you're asking. Experience will give you those answers.
@@Optim40 The problem is people like you trying to keep people from actually attaining moral superiority, not only for themselves, but also for others. Why would a person need to be 35 to be allowed to think?
I’ve been searching for this series. The Examined Life (1998). Any idea where one could watch it?
I admire Kant's attempt to place our moral faculties into a rational framework. I myself suspect that our moral inclinations do have an autonomous status and aren't tied to rules or consequences. I think that Kant's task was both noble and critical toward developing a perspective on morality that wasn't tied to either legalistic, social, or theological frameworks. I want to study Kant's works more so in order for me to have a clearer understanding of his views on this matter. Cool video.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Just did this in a level ethics thanks philosophy overdose, goated channel 🙏🙏🙏
Putting consciousness before existence is a big mistake. Leads to bad epistemology, slows technological progress. Not only erroneous, but also bad for me
Who puts “consciousness” before “existence”?
consciousness underlies existing so no matter what you're kinda doing both. plus, people k*ll themselves very often. In my eyes one is being constructive and the other destructive.
Edit:
- "constructive" in the sense that one is only deepening the knowledge of themselves, which is good. everything you do expands your consciousness.
- I should add that I agree with you about slowing technological progress and the erroneous nature of it all.
...but idk tho
@@frnchfryR6 before going to much further, I believe he should have phrased what he meant more accurately. We dont know what he means by “consciousness” or “existence”
@@HyperboreanOrigin "I think therefore I am" / Kant's idea of unknowable noumenon are both erroneous
❤
What would end all suffering in all of existence for eternity? Would it be good if someone could forever end all suffering for every soul in existence? Does the definition of benevolent intent include the desire to end someone's suffering? Does malevolent intent include the desire to feel satisfaction from causing suffering? How can the definition of intent be linked to the definition of what is good and what is malevolent?
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer because the nature of intention is inherently an ethical movement whether it be benevolent or malevolent. Its moral quality depends on a mixture of cosmological understanding and the presuppositions thereof.
Hopefully you have some street smarts and common sense to know when and when not to. The problem is, in today's times, everyone thinks they're morally superior. And that's a big mistake. If you're under 35 you need to be minding your business more than trying to solve ANY moral problems. So don't worry about what you're asking. Experience will give you those answers.
@@Optim40 I am over 35. What am I allowed to do?
@@Optim40 The problem is people like you trying to keep people from actually attaining moral superiority, not only for themselves, but also for others.
Why would a person need to be 35 to be allowed to think?