No -- you are right. This is part of the teleological structure of Kant's thought, one of those places where, if you take out the underpinnings, you can very quickly get to some more Nietzschean musings. I suppose you could say that the "rational entity" here would be Kant's shadowy, posited God, which -- as it turns out -- at bottom reflects a human need to find rationality or sense within the realms of what we can know or think
I tend to vigorously question all theories I hear, I have nothing against the specific one and I'd even be happy to accept it in the end. But I have to admit that I cannot intuitively digest it. I feel there is something irrational with the structure "this would be the most efficient, so it must be the case", this is why I compared it with the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. Thanks a lot for your answers! I am going on with your videos and do some further reading as you suggested.
Affirming the consequent? No, I don't think so. This is some some simple argument that Kant is making, but a quite extended one -- I would suggest reading around in his works, because a TH-cam comment section is not going to provide you with Kant's full perspective. I have to say, though, it sounds much more like you have already decided you want him to be wrong on this, and are just looking for whatever ways you might make that case. I'd suggest
Well, again, I think that when it's a question of whether a theory -- or rather systematic philosophical perspective ought to be accepted or not, you can't really decide that until you've gone to the thinker and the texts and seen what resources they have to offer to support their position -- I'd actually start with that part of the Groundwork -- but a lot of this will be coming from the 1st and 2nd Critiques. I'm not a Kantian myself, actually, and disagree with him on a lot
Thanks for your reply. Glad you clarified this for me. But isn't this teleological way of thinking somehow "affirming the consequent"? How does Kant's theory transcends this logical problem? (At first I was about to say that scientific literature tends to always point out the randomness of evolution, but then I suppose it could be argued the biology does not have it correct itself, so an argument on logic seems more appropriate.)
Great videos indeed, thank you for your effort! I also have a question: Kant seems to argue that, since it would be inefficient to "be given reason" just for Happiness (instincts would serve this cause better), it must be the case that "we were given reason" for Duty. But this pre-assumes that "we were given reason" from some rational entity and for some cause. Am I missunderstanding this?
If Kant didn't believe that our faculty of reason is for the securing of happiness, did he believe some other faculty is? Or is it just the satisfying of our animal instincts and inclinations that makes one happy? If so, would then nothing be for happiness? Is there any indication in Kant that a disposition toward reason is the instinct, inclination, or desire of some, while these work toward the rejection of it for others? Surely, by and large, reasonable people have not less,if more, desires.
Kant usually confuses me, and I find it alot easier to learn while listening, so this really helps. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
You're very welcome -- glad to be able to help!
Thank you sir for translating for us common folks.
You're very welcome. Kant is badly in need of translation!
Thank you for making this video! Helped me so much in understanding this material.
No -- you are right. This is part of the teleological structure of Kant's thought, one of those places where, if you take out the underpinnings, you can very quickly get to some more Nietzschean musings.
I suppose you could say that the "rational entity" here would be Kant's shadowy, posited God, which -- as it turns out -- at bottom reflects a human need to find rationality or sense within the realms of what we can know or think
You're very welcome!
I tend to vigorously question all theories I hear, I have nothing against the specific one and I'd even be happy to accept it in the end. But I have to admit that I cannot intuitively digest it. I feel there is something irrational with the structure "this would be the most efficient, so it must be the case", this is why I compared it with the "affirming the consequent" fallacy.
Thanks a lot for your answers! I am going on with your videos and do some further reading as you suggested.
Thanks for all your work. You have really helped me suss out Kant views Reason and Courage. So thank you very much.
Thank you for making this video. It, and others, have helped me understand Kant better.
Glad to read it
Affirming the consequent? No, I don't think so. This is some some simple argument that Kant is making, but a quite extended one -- I would suggest reading around in his works, because a TH-cam comment section is not going to provide you with Kant's full perspective.
I have to say, though, it sounds much more like you have already decided you want him to be wrong on this, and are just looking for whatever ways you might make that case.
I'd suggest
thankyou for wanting to do this!!!
+Nichola Jane Aindow You're welcome!
Well, again, I think that when it's a question of whether a theory -- or rather systematic philosophical perspective ought to be accepted or not, you can't really decide that until you've gone to the thinker and the texts and seen what resources they have to offer to support their position -- I'd actually start with that part of the Groundwork -- but a lot of this will be coming from the 1st and 2nd Critiques.
I'm not a Kantian myself, actually, and disagree with him on a lot
Also, thank you for these videos. I enjoy them very much!
Thanks for your reply. Glad you clarified this for me.
But isn't this teleological way of thinking somehow "affirming the consequent"? How does Kant's theory transcends this logical problem?
(At first I was about to say that scientific literature tends to always point out the randomness of evolution, but then I suppose it could be argued the biology does not have it correct itself, so an argument on logic seems more appropriate.)
new Core Concept video on Kant
Ditto. Thank you! I'm not stupid, but much of philosophical writing,Kant especially, I just can't--- well, I'd use the word "decipher".
+NameRequiredSoHere Well, with Kant, the terminology is probably the biggest obstacle
Great videos indeed, thank you for your effort!
I also have a question:
Kant seems to argue that, since it would be inefficient to "be given reason" just for Happiness (instincts would serve this cause better), it must be the case that "we were given reason" for Duty. But this pre-assumes that "we were given reason" from some rational entity and for some cause.
Am I missunderstanding this?
If Kant didn't believe that our faculty of reason is for the securing of happiness, did he believe some other faculty is? Or is it just the satisfying of our animal instincts and inclinations that makes one happy? If so, would then nothing be for happiness? Is there any indication in Kant that a disposition toward reason is the instinct, inclination, or desire of some, while these work toward the rejection of it for others? Surely, by and large, reasonable people have not less,if more, desires.
The exit of Plato's cave i think
Apples and baseballs