A former member
Post #: 114
Love is the most selfish emotion that there is. Like all emotions they are the expression of the psycho-epistimology of the individual, essentially the ideas, the principles that one holds.

To love unselfishly as humanists and religious people advocate is the inflation of love and devalues it.

"Loving everyone" once again relies on the non-ethic of altruism, self-sacrifice. Everyone has the same right, the only right that there is, the right of the individual to their life, but absolutely nobody has the right to someone elses life.

Immanuel Kant undermined reason in his book the "Critique Of Reason", and in a world of an emerging Enlightenment, the emotion of fear grabbed for it.

Religion and humanism found comfort in that. The rise of the Liberal began - one did not have to believe in God but could still embrce the ethic of religion.

In the world today the erosion of reason continues and we saw it in the recent American debates: no Democrat could bring themselves to declare that they would defend America and no Republican could bring themself to defend the right of the individual.

This is the destruction of love in political terms and refeflects the state of the culture right now - nothing in a vacuum.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are merely different sides of the same sacrificial coin. The former hold absolutes based on error, while the latter have no absolutes based on error.

"Love they neighbor"? No - [unless she is pretty, & 36-24-35 :-] - respect your neighbor's right and the corrollaries that flow from that.
A former member
Post #: 4
Immanuel Kant undermined reason in his book the "Critique Of Reason", and in a world of an emerging Enlightenment, the emotion of fear grabbed for it

This is certainly an interesting reading of Kant, however I simply cannot agree. The first critique, to which you are referring, is the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. It would be helpful for the discussion if you were to elaborate on your interpretation of Kant. Can you provide the references in Kant that you hold as supporting your reading?

Thanks
A former member
Post #: 118
Immanuel Kant undermined reason in his book the "Critique Of Reason", and in a world of an emerging Enlightenment, the emotion of fear grabbed for it

This is certainly an interesting reading of Kant, however I simply cannot agree. The first critique, to which you are referring, is the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. It would be helpful for the discussion if you were to elaborate on your interpretation of Kant. Can you provide the references in Kant that you hold as supporting your reading?

Thanks

No. You give the detail that supports your disagreement. Kant opposes the philosophy that I embrace, Objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

For Kant altruism is the highest virtue, value and duty.
A former member
Post #: 271
For Kant altruism is the highest virtue, value and duty.
I don't think altruism is the highest virtue but it can be one of the highest virtues, value I think it is duty no way.
A former member
Post #: 5
Imma­nuel Kant undermined reason in his book the "Critique Of Reason", and in a world of an emerging Enlightenment, the emotion of fear grabbed for it

This is certainly an interesting reading of Kant, however I simply cannot agree. The first critique, to which you are referring, is the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. It would be helpful for the discussion if you were to elaborate on your interpretation of Kant. Can you provide the references in Kant that you hold as supporting your reading?

Thanks

No. You give the detail that supports your disagreement. Kant opposes the philosophy that I embrace, Objectivism, which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

For Kant altruism is the highest virtue, value and duty.

In philosophical discussion, the 'burden of proof' so to speak typically remains with the interlocutor who is making a strong and controversial claim. In other words, if you claim that Kant is the most evil philosopher because he undermined 'Reason', it is your responsibility, especially when queried, to supply argumentation and cite Kant's texts in support of your 'reading' of Kant.

A few comments:
--Kant does not oppose Objectivism; it is the other way around.
--you seem to be making two separate claims about Kant: 1). he undermined Reason and 2.) he held altruism as the highest virtue... A familiarity with Kant's texts would allow you to see that Kant's theoretical moves are much more complicated and intricate than you are making them. For example, the articulation of the categorical imperative, which is a central deontological ethical theory, unfolds over five formulations. Kant is not overtly concerned with altruism but with duty and obligation as the focus of ethical action. An action is to be judged morally wrong or right in terms of the extent to which it is or is not consistent with the status of a rational and free individual. My point is that there is much more going on in Kant than can be brushed aside with a few dismissive comments.

As for 'embracing' Objectivism, this sounds as if you 'believe' in Objectivism.
A former member
Post #: 126
[A few comments:
--Kant does not oppose Objectivism; it is the other way around.
--you seem to be making two separate claims about Kant: 1). he undermined Reason and 2.) he held altruism as the highest virtue... A familiarity with Kant's texts would allow you to see that Kant's theoretical moves are much more complicated and intricate than you are making them. For example, the articulation of the categorical imperative, which is a central deontological ethical theory, unfolds over five formulations.]

To describe something as deontological and ethical is a contradiction and utterly opposes Objectivism.

[Kant is not overtly concerned with altruism but with duty and obligation as the focus of ethical action.]

You have just described altruism.

[An action is to be judged morally wrong or right in terms of the extent to which it is or is not consistent with the status of a rational and free individual. My point is that there is much more going on in Kant than can be brushed aside with a few dismissive comments.]

All that is required to illuminate any philosophy is its ethic. In Kant's case is its ethic of sacrifice. From there it is straightforward t deduce its epitimology and metaphysics.

Kant's reality is subjective.

[As for 'embracing' Objectivism, this sounds as if you 'believe' in Objectivism.
This is a silly comment because if you actually read about Objectvism you will discover that any form of belief is impossible because reason is at its core.

Your argument has a distinct Christian doctrine tone to it.....
A former member
Post #: 8
David-Joe worte: 'To describe something as deontological and ethical is a contradiction and utterly opposes Objectivism.'

I can see how deontological ethics opposes Objectivism, however I do not see why describing something as deontological and ethical is a contradiction. Within the history of philosophy, deontological ethics is one of the three major traditions of thinking about ethics. Is anything that opposes Objectivism a contradiction?

David-Joe quoted me and wrote: '[Kant is not overtly concerned with altruism but with duty and obligation as the focus of ethical action.]
You have just described altruism.'

Really? In your view, any situation in which duties and obligations are in play is altruism? Certainly you must admit that not all duties and obligations are a matter of altruism and that altruism is not always a matter of duty or obligation.

Several examples, a police officer has a duty to uphold the norms and conduct attached to her position. She has a professional obligation to abide by and enforce the law. In this case, she upholds these duties and obligations, not because she is necessarily concerned for the welfare of others but because she wants to get ahead in her career for example. In other words, her commitment to duty is entirely self-serving.

What about supererogatory acts? For example, you run into a burning building and put yourself in grave danger, in order to save a small child. You did this out of genuine altuistic concerns (and not because you see a TV truck outside filming, e.g.), however your actions are certainly beyond what we would consider duty or obligation.
A former member
Post #: 130
David-Joe worte: 'To describe something as deontological and ethical is a contradiction and utterly opposes Objectivism.'

I can see how deontological ethics opposes Objectivism, however I do not see why describing something as deontological and ethical is a contradiction.

D-J:
Duty neutralizes whether something is good for the individual or not and choice is obviated.
Morality is a code of values to guide Man's choices and actions and ethics as a science deals with discovering and defining such a code.

Therefore when something is duty it is immoral and unethical.

David-Joe quoted me and wrote: '[Kant is not overtly concerned with altruism but with duty and obligation as the focus of ethical action.]
You have just described altruism.'

Really? In your view, any situation in which duties and obligations are in play is altruism?

DJ:
First of all it is not my view - it is the codeification, definition and analysis of Compte, Kant and Rand.

And the short answer is "yes".

Several examples, a police officer has a duty to uphold the norms and conduct attached to her position. She has a professional obligation to abide by and enforce the law. In this case, she upholds these duties and obligations, not because she is necessarily concerned for the welfare of others but because she wants to get ahead in her career for example. In other words, her commitment to duty is entirely self-serving.

It is not duty, it remains a choice because there is no conscription involved and yes hopefully it is totally self-serving because the commitment will be strong indeed.

What about supererogatory acts? For example, you run into a burning building and put yourself in grave danger, in order to save a small child. You did this out of genuine altuistic concerns (and not because you see a TV truck outside filming, e.g.), however your actions are certainly beyond what we would consider duty or obligation.

You ask the same concretized question over and over - examine the abstracts as laid out in this discussion because the answer is all there as they are common to all the above situations.
John
broughton
Group Organizer
New York, NY
Post #: 170

Love is the most selfish emotion that there is. Like all emotions they are the expression of the psycho-epistimology of the individual, essentially the ideas, the principles that one holds.

I love my puppy. I cannot reconcile that with the statement (insert pejorative here) above.
A former member
Post #: 144

Love is the most selfish emotion that there is. Like all emotions they are the expression of the psycho-epistimology of the individual, essentially the ideas, the principles that one holds.

I love my puppy. I cannot reconcile that with the statement (insert pejorative here) above.

Then think again. Why do you love your puppy?

Because you pity it?
Because you think you have to?
Because you consider it to be an act of self-sacrifice?

Of course not.

You love your puppy because he or she gives you tremendous pleasure and you love it because of itself, not in spite of itself.

This is intensely selfish and it is good.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy