tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post3987602218130455889..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: If Kant couldn't do better, can we?Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-13234914113077741382010-03-17T09:50:17.790-05:002010-03-17T09:50:17.790-05:00Acc. to Kant, only Salomon Maimon really had under...Acc. to Kant, only Salomon Maimon really had understood him. <a href="http://ideafoundlings.blogspot.com/2010/03/job-of-enlightment.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Here</i></a> an old text I once wrote (for my own use) on him, maybe amusing.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08164618279986722548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-48587939169107423242010-03-16T13:56:10.647-05:002010-03-16T13:56:10.647-05:00I don't know... that part about the master thr...I don't know... that part about the master throwing up glimmers of hope in a haze of words doesn't sound entirely complimentary.<br /><br />On the subject of moral reasoning and the lay person... I don't think we have to expect any more or less from lay persons than philosophers on moral positions.... moral arguments are another story. I'm not sure that people can be experts atWaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-8140236750709996062010-03-16T10:33:35.584-05:002010-03-16T10:33:35.584-05:00I don't think ES is really entirely dismissing...I don't think ES is really entirely dismissing Kant. He's saying the glaringly bad stuff should make us suspicious of the more subtly bad stuff...and then he's saying "if Kant often bad at moral reasoning, what hope is there for us?" He could make that entire argument and still think there are brilliant passages in Kant.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-88604675919604080162010-03-16T10:24:54.847-05:002010-03-16T10:24:54.847-05:00I agree that there is a lot of "gobbledy-gook...I agree that there is a lot of "gobbledy-gook" in Kant, but I'm not sure that its right to be dismissive of Kant when we're looking at some of these particular pieces of gobbledy-gook.<br /><br />I mean, if you look at Aristotle, he says some pretty awful things about women as well. Most people just look past it and apply his larger theory to women in general.<br /><br />Kant&#Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-39919951015215683852010-03-16T08:36:51.461-05:002010-03-16T08:36:51.461-05:00Most thinkers rationalize or give reasons for the ...Most thinkers rationalize or give reasons for the ethical zeitgeist or status quo. A few, for example, Nietzsche, criticize the ethical status quo, which is another way of affirming it. At times thinkers represent what Marx<br />would call a "rising class" and go one step beyond the ethical zeitgeist: for example, those of the early enlightenment, Spinoza, Hume, s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-47890393487835386462010-03-15T21:42:36.356-05:002010-03-15T21:42:36.356-05:00Or we could consider the fact that grandiose ideas...Or we could consider the fact that grandiose ideas or no: most intellectuals most of the time are engaged in extremely sophisticated confabulation. <br /><br />Or not ;)Fausthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221763658202924449noreply@blogger.com