|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 13:54:32 GMT -5
And the Kingdom of God is another realm. Actually, in the quote you supplied, it says that the Kingdom of Ends is "a hypothetical state of existence", and the Kingdom of God "is the ultimate goal of both religious and political organization of human society".
Yes. Therefore both qualify as "another realm", don't they?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 16:52:23 GMT -5
In what way is a goal "another realm"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 17:59:23 GMT -5
In what way is a goal "another realm"? Well isn't that "goal" in another realm? Or do you believe the Kingdom of God is an actual physical place?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 22:30:38 GMT -5
In what way is a goal "another realm"? Well isn't that "goal" in another realm? Or do you believe the Kingdom of God is an actual physical place? Bob
I don't understand this question, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 8, 2019 15:31:39 GMT -5
And the Kingdom of God is another realm. Actually, in the quote you supplied, it says that the Kingdom of Ends is "a hypothetical state of existence", and the Kingdom of God "is the ultimate goal of both religious and political organization of human society".
Yes. And neither place actually exists.
Remember that Kant was a devout Christian and as such he actually believed that there was a Kingdom of God.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 8, 2019 15:36:07 GMT -5
Well isn't that "goal" in another realm? Or do you believe the Kingdom of God is an actual physical place? Bob
I don't understand this question, sorry.
Then let me rephrase my point as a statement instead of a question:
The "goal" that Kant has in mind is the Kingdom of God, a place that doesn't exist in the actual, physical world. So Kant is not talking about any place that has no physical existence.
Or do you maintain the contrary?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 21:18:56 GMT -5
I don't understand this question, sorry.
Then let me rephrase my point as a statement instead of a question:
The "goal" that Kant has in mind is the Kingdom of God, a place that doesn't exist in the actual, physical world. So Kant is not talking about any place that has no physical existence.
Bob
Where is the evidence that for Kant, the Kingdom of God was a place?
Indeed, I maintain that goals are not places, and I maintain that hypothetical states of existence aren't places, either.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 8, 2019 21:58:39 GMT -5
Then let me rephrase my point as a statement instead of a question: The "goal" that Kant has in mind is the Kingdom of God, a place that doesn't exist in the actual, physical world. So Kant is not talking about any place that has a physical existence. Where is the evidence that for Kant, the Kingdom of God was a place? Very well then. Call it what you want to, a thing, a state of being, or a religious fantasy. The main thing is that it doesn't exist. Not all goals can be reached and not all hypothetical states of existence can be realized. Or do you think the Kingdom of God is a realizable goal? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 14:02:53 GMT -5
Where is the evidence that for Kant, the Kingdom of God was a place? Very well then. Call it what you want to, a thing, a state of being, or a religious fantasy. The main thing is that it doesn't exist. We are debating a very specific claim: Hicks claims that Kant's ethics are based on "following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm". I say that Hicks is full of shit because Kant is argueing nothing of the sort. You hold against me that Hicks is objectively correct - based on, I presume, your own readings of the material as well as some actual fucking evidence. Am I corect? Irrelevant. We're talking about whether Kant believes in hypothetical voices from another realm, remember? Do you genuinely believe that when people talk about something being "within the realm of possibilities" they are talking about a literal place? Or would you rather assume that the term "realm" is being used as a figure of speech?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 9, 2019 18:07:56 GMT -5
Very well then. Call it what you want to, a thing, a state of being, or a religious fantasy. The main thing is that it doesn't exist. We are debating a very specific claim: Hicks claims that Kant's ethics are based on "following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm". I say that Hicks is full of shit because Kant is argueing nothing of the sort. You hold against me that Hicks is objectively correct - based on, I presume, your own readings of the material as well as some actual fucking evidence. Am I corect? You claim that Hicks' conclusion is wrong. But that conclusion is based on several previous paragraphs of argument. How can you conclude that Hicks' conclusion is wrong without addressing that argument? Please point out the specific mistakes Hicks is making that renders his conclusion false. Kant specifically mentions "the Kingdom of God." Since Kant was a devout Christian, do you think he meant this as a figure of speech? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 13:09:20 GMT -5
How can you conclude that Hicks' conclusion is wrong without addressing that argument? Please point out the specific mistakes Hicks is making that renders his conclusion false. Gladly. The specific mistake Hicks makes is that Kant does not believe we should "follow orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm". In other words, Hicks makes a mistake in attributing a claim to Kant that Kant never made. Do you believe that he meant a literal place? If yes, then where is your evidence to support this interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 10, 2019 17:43:24 GMT -5
How can you conclude that Hicks' conclusion is wrong without addressing that argument? Please point out the specific mistakes Hicks is making that renders his conclusion false. Gladly. The specific mistake Hicks makes is that Kant does not believe we should "follow orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm". In other words, Hicks makes a mistake in attributing a claim to Kant that Kant never made. Please read Hicks' text again. He is not claiming that Kant specifically said that at all. What Hicks claims is that "following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm" is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what Kant actually wrote. There is at least one other philosopher who seems to agree: " Kant actually believed in both causality and in free will. – He could do this because of his ontology. He divided reality into two: phenomena (appearances) and noumena (things-in-themselves). – Causality exists in the phenomenal world – the world of empiricism/natural science. But free will exists in the noumenal world and so intentions are not caused by physical/phenomenal things." www.philosopher.eu/texts/kants-moral-argument-for-god/From this, it is apparent that in the "phenomenal world", we have no choice. Everything is determined. The only source of free will is the noumenal world. All Hicks is doing is pointing out that this is like "following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm." The evidence is that Kant was a devout Christian who lived in the 18th century. Didn't Christians back then believe that heaven was a literal place? So either you are claiming that Kant was not a devout Christian, or that 18th century Christians did not believe heaven was a literal place. Is that what you are saying? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 8:57:15 GMT -5
The evidence is that Kant was a devout Christian who lived in the 18th century. Didn't Christians back then believe that heaven was a literal place? Then you need to present evidence that 18 century Christians, including Kant, believed that the Kingdom of God was a literal place.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 10:27:02 GMT -5
The evidence is that Kant was a devout Christian who lived in the 18th century. Didn't Christians back then believe that heaven was a literal place? Then you need to present evidence that 18 century Christians, including Kant, believed that the Kingdom of God was a literal place.
Easy.
"In Christianity, heaven is traditionally the location of the throne of God as well as the holy angels.[2][3] In traditional Christianity, it is considered to be a physical place in the afterlife." Emph. added
Really McAnswer, isn't that like asking for evidence that the Pope is Catholic?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 15:42:42 GMT -5
But Heaven is not the Kingdom of God. Those are two separate concepts.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 18:43:51 GMT -5
But Heaven is not the Kingdom of God. Those are two separate concepts.
You didn't give the source of the quote. What is it?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 10:26:10 GMT -5
The Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Didn't you read it?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 12, 2019 14:04:05 GMT -5
The Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Didn't you read it?
Yes I did. But I didn't memorize it.
Please remember to always give the sources.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 12, 2019 14:08:55 GMT -5
But Heaven is not the Kingdom of God. Those are two separate concepts.
In other words, there are a lot of different definitions. Which begs the question: which one was Kant using?
There was also this in the article you posted:
"Heaven is therefore spoken of in rather different senses: as another dimension,[4] as the physical skies or upper cosmos, as the realm of divine perfection already in existence, or as the "coming world" at the return of Christ."
The first and third sound like Kant's "noumenal world."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:25:49 GMT -5
But Heaven is not the Kingdom of God. Those are two separate concepts. In other words, there are a lot of different definitions. Which begs the question: which one was Kant using? There was also this in the article you posted: "Heaven is therefore spoken of in rather different senses: as another dimension,[4] as the physical skies or upper cosmos, as the realm of divine perfection already in existence, or as the "coming world" at the return of Christ." The first and third sound like Kant's "noumenal world." Bob
Still no textual evidence, I see.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 9:37:26 GMT -5
In other words, there are a lot of different definitions. Which begs the question: which one was Kant using? There was also this in the article you posted: "Heaven is therefore spoken of in rather different senses: as another dimension,[4] as the physical skies or upper cosmos, as the realm of divine perfection already in existence, or as the "coming world" at the return of Christ." The first and third sound like Kant's "noumenal world." Bob
Still no textual evidence, I see.
Kant did believe in the immortal soul and life after death. Here are the last two paragraphs of his "Universal Natural History and Theory of Heaven"
"When vanity has demanded its share of human nature, then will the immortal spirit swiftly raise itself up above everything mortal, and further develop its existence in a new relationship with the totality of nature, which arises out of closer ties with the Highest Being. From this time on, this lofty Nature, which in itself contains the origin of happiness, will no longer be scattered among external objects in order to seek out a quiet place among them. The collective totality of creatures, which has a necessary harmony with the pleasure of the Highest Original Being, must also have this harmony for its own pleasure and will light upon it only in perpetual contentment.
In fact, when we have completely filled our minds with such observations and with what has been brought out previously, then the sight of a starry heaven on a clear night gives a kind of pleasure which only noble souls experience. In the universal stillness of nature and the tranquillity of the mind, the hidden capacity to know speaks the unnamable language of the immortal soul and provides inchoate ideas which are certainly felt but are incapable of being described. If among thinking creatures of this planet there are lower beings who, regardless of all incitements which such a great subject can offer, are nevertheless in the state of being stuck firmly in the service of vanity, how unfortunate this sphere is that it could produce such miserable creatures. But, on the other hand, how lucky they are that there is a way, one supremely worthy of following, for them to reach a spiritual happiness and nobility, something infinitely far above the advantages which the most beneficial of all nature's arrangements in all planetary bodies can attain!"
There is more. This is from the thread I posted just below this one:
"One can be moral but this often results in self-sacrifice, thereby transgressing a part of the moral law: the formula of the end in itself.
– So, the summum bonum is not often achieved (in this life), which leads Kant to postulate two things: the Immortality of the soul and God.
– Because morality is based on reason, and morality logically demands the summum bonum, then the fact that it is not achieved in our phenomenal life implies that our soul must live on after phenomenal death so that the summum bonum can later be achieved. Thus morality implies the immortality of the soul:
“[the summum bonum] can only be found in a progress in infinitum towards that perfect accordance, and on the principles of pure practical reason it is necessary to assume such a practical progress as the real object of our will. Now, this endless progress is only possible on the supposition of an endless duration of the existence and personality of the same rational being (which is called the immortality of the soul). The summum bonum, then, practically is only possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul; consequently this immortality, being inseparably connected with the moral law, is a postulate of pure practical reason.” (2nd C – book 2,§1-2 para 35, p.96.)"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:57:40 GMT -5
Still no textual evidence, I see. Kant did believe in the immortal soul and life after death.
Which is not what we are debating. Do you still remember what we talked about in the last few posts, or do you need a refresher?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 20:25:43 GMT -5
Kant did believe in the immortal soul and life after death.
Which is not what we are debating. Do you still remember what we talked about in the last few posts, or do you need a refresher?
I need a refresher. Please remind me.
Me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 12:11:47 GMT -5
So, have you already managed the very difficult task of scrolling up and clicking the "one page back" button, or are you still helpless and confused as to what we've been debating for the past month?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 14:16:23 GMT -5
So, have you already managed the very difficult task of scrolling up and clicking the "one page back" button, or are you still helpless and confused as to what we've been debating for the past month?
Yes, I am very helpless and confused. I need an expert like you to explain to me what Kant really meant. Would you please help me out here?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 14:43:26 GMT -5
So, have you already managed the very difficult task of scrolling up and clicking the "one page back" button, or are you still helpless and confused as to what we've been debating for the past month? Yes, I am very helpless and confused. Evidently you are, because you still haven't managed to find out what you were talking about only two weeks ago!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 15:00:41 GMT -5
Yes, I am very helpless and confused. Evidently you are, because you still haven't managed to find out what you were talking about only two weeks ago! I think the confusion is because the discussion has gone off track from the original post. The discussion is not directly about Kant. The discussion is about Hicks' view of Kant.This is what Hicks says: That's Hicks' argument. And it's based on information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (notes 8 and 9) Is this argument correct so far? Then Hicks sums it up: "Where does this leave the Kantian case for liberalism? To conclude this line of argument bluntly: If our case for political liberty ultimately depends on following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm, then we don’t have much of a case." If his argument is correct, then his conclusion follows. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 0:11:06 GMT -5
Evidently you are, because you still haven't managed to find out what you were talking about only two weeks ago! I think the confusion is because the discussion has gone off track from the original post. The discussion is not directly about Kant. The discussion is about Hicks' view of Kant.This is what Hicks says: That's Hicks' argument. And it's based on information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (notes 8 and 9) Is this argument correct so far? Then Hicks sums it up: "Where does this leave the Kantian case for liberalism? To conclude this line of argument bluntly: If our case for political liberty ultimately depends on following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm, then we don’t have much of a case." If his argument is correct, then his conclusion follows. Bob No, and I have already shown you why. Hicks' interpretation is not based on anything Kant said or implied. He is inventing nonsense that has no basis in the texts he claims to have read, and the reason why you keep bringing him up is because you are equally ignorant of the topic under discussion. Try reading sources outside your cult for a change.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 24, 2019 10:33:29 GMT -5
I think the confusion is because the discussion has gone off track from the original post. The discussion is not directly about Kant. The discussion is about Hicks' view of Kant.This is what Hicks says: That's Hicks' argument. And it's based on information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (notes 8 and 9) Is this argument correct so far? Then Hicks sums it up: "Where does this leave the Kantian case for liberalism? To conclude this line of argument bluntly: If our case for political liberty ultimately depends on following orders from a hypothetical voice from another realm, then we don’t have much of a case." If his argument is correct, then his conclusion follows. Bob No, and I have already shown you why. Hicks' interpretation is not based on anything Kant said or implied. He is inventing nonsense that has no basis in the texts he claims to have read, and the reason why you keep bringing him up is because you are equally ignorant of the topic under discussion. Try reading sources outside your cult for a change.
LOL! I posted supporting evidence from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Are they also a cult?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 16:00:58 GMT -5
Nice try. None of those sources support your and Hicks's argument. That is because his argument is based on a fictional version of Kant's text that exists only in Hicks's and your imagination, as evidenced by your bringing up all this Wikipedia nonsense about the Kingdom of God that has nothing to do with anything Kant actually says in his texts.
|
|